Targets of Torture Talk
Damn it, Democrats! Stop debating Cheney and the neocons on whether torture makes the target talk. Well, of course it does. How many doubt that? Those who do doubt that are wasting their time and effort fighting that point, IMHO. It is NOT THE POINT. The points are that torture is illegal, is ineffective as an intelligence gathering policy, and walks our nation down a very dark path. It's bad enough that the media falls for this neocon framing, but it's far worse when Democrats do.
I've posted my thoughts on this Cheney/neocon framing before:
and
If bloggers in their computer dens can see the problem in that framing why the hell can't the Democrats who debate Republicans on TV?
Advertisement
I dunno Newton, I just watched O'Donnell duke it out today a couple of times. Of course he just says, of course its illegal and cheney was the most secretive official in the history of the White House and wants 'transparency' and blah blah blah.
Hell, he siad 9/11 25 times according to Josh.
Yeah. Torture is against the law and has been for decades. Media is wasting its time and attempting a goddamnable fairness doctrine...
Any rate, good post, good points.
May 21, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, Lawrence O'Donnell is a welcome exception.
May 21, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
What frame do you see?
"My definition is: If we would object to it being done to one of our own soldiers, then it is torture." - April 28
That's a false frame on your part, for starters. Torture is clearly defined in law. Mere objection to having a technique used on one's own soldiers is dislike not a question of morality.
"if one agrees with Cheney, that torture is moral simply because it's effective"
I have not heard Cheney make that argument. Attacking a strawman can be good exercise, I suppose. There are justifications for conduct usually considered unbecoming:
Necessity
Self-defense against immediate threat
...
In no publicly known case did either justification apply. And in general, "softening up" techniques applied over days or weeks don't fit the "ticking" scenario at all.
"Stop debating Cheney and the neocons on whether torture makes the target talk."
I have no idea which Demos on TV you're talking about, but the issue is whether torture elicits truthful info, and how much, vs. other methods of interrogation.
"The points are that torture is illegal, is ineffective as an intelligence gathering policy, and walks our nation down a very dark path."
But if harsh interrogation is not illegal, where do you draw the line?
Harsh interrogation might not be all that effective, but if it is effective then there is reason to keep it as a tool in the toolbox.
Yes, the nation is walking on a dark path, but not due to what you think it's due to.
May 21, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) "That's a false frame on your part, for starters. Torture is clearly defined in law. Mere objection to having a technique used on one's own soldiers is dislike not a question of morality."
Nonsense. The torture debate we are witnessing is not being waged on legal ground. It's being waged on political/emotional ground. The soft definition of torture I offered is one specifically intended for the political/emotional fight. It is designed to remove the negative emotional underpinnings of the pro-torture argument, which is the dehumanization of the victim. Placing the definition of torture in to the context of the positive emotions we have for, and the humanity we place on, our own soldiers is a hugely powerful counter weapon.
2) ""if one agrees with Cheney, that torture is moral simply because it's effective" I have not heard Cheney make that argument."
Then either you have not been listening or you have not been listening intelligently. In his speech today Cheney said that torture worked and was the right thing to do. He is always linking those two notions. One would have to be obtuse, intentionally or otherwise, to not understand what Cheney is suggesting here. You apparently hear the words but don't perceive what is being said. That's unfortunate.
3) "But if harsh interrogation is not illegal, where do you draw the line?"
At the top of your comment you observe that torture is clearly defined in law. Here, you infer the existence of some grey area. Which is it? The circle you are walking in an attempt to score a point must be making you dizzy.
4) "Yes, the nation is walking on a dark path, but not due to what you think it's due to."
More nonsense. Are you suggesting that engaging in a policy of torture wouldn't be tantamount to the nation walking a dark path?
eds, you appear to want to engage in intellectual sparring for its own sake. That can be fun sometimes, but often makes you appear too anxious to engage. So much so, that it often leads you to make poorly thought out arguments or to retreat to the hair-splitting of facts just to escape conceding some clear point or other. Because I've seen you make some very good arguments at times I'm forced to wonder why it is I also see you making making weak and self-contradictory arguments such as the one you made here.
May 21, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't apply bad faith to my listening or reading. I "hear" both the words and the likely implications, but I don't pretend that a partisan interpretation is the truth of the matter. Your corruption is a blight on the truth. Your personal attacks are neither welcome nor accurate, either.
It's not mere sparring. I simply object to lies and "weapons" such as you are now evidently fond of.
You are correct that your bullshit would not play well in a court of law. But to call the spin-fest you seem to love a "debate" is mere histrionics. You enjoy it? Cool, you're a happy idiot or a liar. May you eventually find peace in the truth.
"today Cheney said that torture worked"
No he didn't. You're sticking your definition into what he did say.
"Here, you infer the existence of some grey area. Which is it? "
I don't "infer" anything there. I await your line between interrogation and torture as defined in law (the only place which counts outside of your love of theatre). Hint: "severe".
May 22, 2009 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
1) "No, I don't apply bad faith to my listening or reading. I "hear" both the words and the likely implications, but I don't pretend that a partisan interpretation is the truth of the matter. Your corruption is a blight on the truth."
No, what you apparently pretend is that you are purely rational being and have no biases. Your interpretations, like mine, are partisan - to our own point of view. It would be arrogant and foolish if you believe that yours are not.
2) "Your corruption is a blight on the truth.... I simply object to lies and "weapons" such as you are now evidently fond of.
You're going off the deep end here, eds. Seriously, consider just how self-righteous and persecuted you words make you appear.
3) First you write this: "Your personal attacks are neither welcome nor accurate, either."
And then, you write this: "...you're a happy idiot or a liar."
Hypocrisy, now, eds?
4) "I don't "infer" anything there. I await your line between interrogation and torture as defined in law"
In your first comment you stated that torture was already defined in law. Then you ask me to define the line between torture and interrogation. You have already answered your own question. Are you attempting some bastardized form of Socratic method here?
5) My last words on this:
eds, again, I occasional enjoy a good intellectual joust for its own sake, but you too often bring a weak contest. Instead of elucidation and mutual enlightenment, your primary goal in commenting is logical booby trap springing. Unfortunately, those often backfire, quite Wile E. Coyote like, on you. Next time, think before you attack, okay?
May 22, 2009 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see you have nothing on topic. You're welcome in advance for the typing practice, but "Next time, think before you attack, okay?" applies in spades to your initial offensive.
May 22, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink