Tortured Logic
Meanwhile, if you like to have a little fun while contemplating cruel, degrading, and inhumane treatment you need to check out the running Andrew Sullivan versus the Corner debate on the subject wherein Mark Levin repeatedly embarrasses himself.
Update [2005-12-14 10:51:12 by yglesias]: Also note in this regard the bizarre farce of the US military trying to get the new regime in Iraq to torture people less.
Advertisement
That was some serious smackdown from Mr. Sullivan. He is right. The more conservative rw pundits then Sullivan have learned well from the administration they are trying to support...cherrypick the facts and then misrepresent their meaning. I don't always agree with Sullivan but at least he is intellectually honest...unlike 99% of the other voices from the rw.
December 14, 2005 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter Mark Levin: Sullivan is lying about the reports I haven't read, and at any rate since they would conyradict my claims they can't constitute evidence by definition.
December 14, 2005 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sullivan's only as intellectually honest as needed to win the argument. He has no problem picking apart Levin, an easy target. But just a post before that, Sullivan blatantly distorts a more intelligent post by made by Levin's fellow NRO'er Rich Lowry regarding the meaning of "cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment" so that Lowry can be dismissed out-of-hand.
In short, I'd be a bit more impressed if he wasn't so selective in picking his battles (his reply to Krauthammer being the notable counterexample to this general practice).
December 14, 2005 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"some serious smackdown from Mr. Sullivan"
Bad imagery of Mr. Power Glutes.
December 14, 2005 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree. Nor was I saying that Sullivan is perfect. We all cherrypick the facts we want to use to win an argument. and in not even acknowledging certain facts like Levin did make him an easy mark. I have read Sullivan some in the past, although I can't say I am a "faithful" reader, and have found in the arguments he made he generally addressed facts presented by the other side fairly. Now if he twisted stuff Lowry said to make his point, surely he isn't perfect. Point taken...
December 14, 2005 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the first Levin post that pretty much started this shindig:
It really is amazing to see them resort to simply claiming that torture opponents haven't defined their terms properly and as such should be dismissed outright. They throw out an attempt at intellectual superiority and think it automatically leads to moral superiority.
The difference between people like Levin and people like Sullivan is that the latter believes that certain behavior is completely unacceptable no matter who its imposed on. The devil in this matter is NOT in the details. Even so of course, Sullivan does a good enough job at showing the connections that Levin still dismisses outright. Like he said, its comical, but what else is there to do but continue to respond?
December 14, 2005 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"His sole concern was to find out what they wanted him to confess, and then confess it before the torture started again."
Torture is not intended to elicit true information. It is intended to bring the victim to the point of such shuddering fear that he will say anything you tell him to say- or anything he thinks you want him to say. You want evidence of link between Saddam and Al Qaeda? He'll give it to you. You want certain individuals named as terrorists? He'll name them. Whatever pre-conceived notion you want to justify, he'll do it for you, no matter how self-incriminating, no matter how bizarre and obviously false. This is why torturers torture. It's why we torture. It's the whole point.
December 15, 2005 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink