I have a pet peeve: assholes who use bad reasoning to make themselves look clever. My disdain is not limited to one end of the political spectrum, as I have in the past and will continue to point out the ridiculous logic people use to support their points, regardless of political orientation. It really is next to demagoguery when these people trot out their fallacious thinking.
What’s got me all pissed off today is a post by Dennis Prager, a radio talk show host who thinks he’s trapped torture opponents between accepting the use of torture and admitting that they place ideology above American lives. What’s really got me pissed is the faux-sincerity with which these questions are posed: the patronizing voice, the nominal homage to intellectual inquest and the beguiling presentation of the points in the form of an argument when truly this is just another piece of fluff.
Well Mr.Prager, I’ve got some answers for you, as well as some questions in return,
Given how much you rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein, whose prisons engaged in far more hideous tortures, on thousands of times more people, than America did — all of whom, moreover, were individuals and families who either did nothing or simply opposed tyranny? One assumes, furthermore, that all those Iraqi innocents Saddam had put into shredding machines or whose tongues were cut out and other hideous tortures would have begged to be waterboarded.
First, I challenge the premise that someone vocally opposed the specific goal of ending Saddam Hussein’s torture, i.e. someone was prompted with the goal of closing a torture chamber and responded negatively. Rather, the goal of closing a torture chamber was folded into a larger goal of occupation and regime change, which entails other consequences, e.g. American deaths, blowback, and humanitarian concerns. The opposition was to the consequences of the larger goals, not to their smaller features.
Second, it is neither the responsibility of America nor within its capability to end human rights abuses everywhere in the world. Given our limited resources and our goal of spreading and defending freedom across the world, we must apply ourselves in a way that most effectively utilizes our political, military and economic capabilities. There can be no doubt that the invasion of Iraq was a failure in this regard.
Lastly, your characterization of waterboarding would be laughable in other circumstances. Your silent assertion that waterboarding is not really torture — because more heinous forms of torture exist — is as stupid as trying to ascertain the desires of people whose tongues are being cut out.
Are all forms of painful pressure equally morally objectionable? In other words, are you willing to acknowledge that there are gradations of torture as, for example, there are gradations of burns, with a third-degree burn considerably more injurious and painful than a first-degree burn? Or is all painful treatment to be considered torture? Just as you, correctly, ask proponents of waterboarding where they draw their line, you, too, must explain where you draw your line.
The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution defines a limit: “…nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Furman v. Georgia provides the definition for such punishments:
- The “essential predicate” is “that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity,” especially torture.
- “A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion.”
- “A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society.”
- “A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary.”
I think your best argument is to challenge tenets 2 & 4. Another tactic is to attempt to distinguish between interrogation and punishment, à la Antonin Scalia.
Is any maltreatment of anyone at any time — even a high-level terrorist with knowledge that would likely save innocents’ lives — wrong? If there is no question about the identity of a terror suspect , and he can provide information on al-Qaida — for the sake of clarity, let us imagine that Osama Bin Laden himself were captured — could America do any form of enhanced interrogation involving pain and/or deprivation to him that you would consider moral and therefore support?
Unless someone can demonstrate for me a place and time when these conditions existed, I will regard this as an imaginary and irrelevant question. So my counter to you is, do you advocate the consumption of the meat of purple dragons even though studies have shown that pink panda chops add fewer calories?
If lawyers will be prosecuted for giving legal advice to an administration that you consider immoral and illegal, do you concede that this might inhibit lawyers in the future from giving unpopular but sincerely argued advice to the government in any sensitive area? They will, after all, know that if the next administration disapproves of their work, they will be vilified by the media and prosecuted by the government.
Am I worried about whether or not lawyers will shy away from advising the President that he can carry out what may be illegal interrogations? Not really.
First, if laws were broken, the responsibility lies with our leaders who asked these lawyers to formulate legal defenses against acts which they — our leaders — might have known were illegal and/or unconstitutional. What other explanation can there be for the preemptive preparation of legal defenses? That said, to paraphrase George W. Bush, it can offer no defense to say that one was simply following orders.
Presumably you would acknowledge that the release of the classified reports on the handling of high-level, post-Sept. 11 terror suspects would inflame passions in many parts of the Muslim world. If innocents were murdered because nonviolent cartoons of Muhammad were published in a Danish newspaper, presumably far more innocents will be tortured and murdered with the release of these reports and photos. Do you accept any moral responsibility for any ensuing violence against American and other civilians?
Is it the responsibility of our press to reveal the truth and inform our population, or to placate those who hate us? How and why would I or any American accept responsibility for the actions of belligerent terrorists?
Should Israel accept responsibility for Palestinian suicide bombing, since the existence of Israel is a provocation in the minds of these terrorists? Should George H.W. Bush accept responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, since the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia is specifically listed as casus belli by Osama bin Laden?
Many members of the intelligence community now feel betrayed and believe that the intelligence community will be weakened in their ability to fight the most vicious organized groups in the world. As reported in the Washington Post, former intelligence officer “(Mark) Lowenthal said that fear has paralyzed agents on the ground. Apparently, many of those in the know are certain that life-saving information was gleaned from high level terror suspects who were waterboarded. As Mike Scheuer, former head of the CIA unit in charge of tracking Osama bin Laden, said, ”We were very certain that the interrogation procedures procured information that was worth having.” If, then, the intelligence community has been adversely affected, do you believe it can still do the work necessary to protect tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people from death and maiming?
Yes, I am comfortable that our intelligence services can return to a time not too long ago when they were bound to obey the law. Again, what is the evidence that their efficacy has improved through, for example, the 180+ instances of waterboarding interrogation inflicted against Khaled Sheikh Mohammed?
Will you seek to prosecute members of Congress such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who were made aware of the waterboarding of high-level suspects and voiced no objections?
Again, concerning the evidence of the breadth and depth of their knowledge and their failure to act: let it be produced.
Would you agree to releasing the photos of the treatment of Islamic terrorists only if accompanied by photos of what their terror has done to thousands of innocent people around the world? Would you agree to photos — or at least photo re-enactments — of, let us say, Iraqi children whose faces were torn off with piano wire by Islamists in Iraq? If not, why not? Isn’t context of some significance here?
Who is hiding such photos or preventing them from being released? To my knowledge you are free to produce such photos at this moment! However, you seem to imply that one justifies the other, to which I ask: do two wrongs make a right?
You say that America’s treatment of terror suspects will cause terrorists to treat their captives, especially Americans, more cruelly. On what grounds do you assert this? Did America’s far more moral treatment of Japanese prisoners than Japan’s treatment of American prisoners in World War II have any impact on how the Japanese treated American and other prisoners of war? Do you think that evil people care how morally pure America is?
Let us return to the premise of your question #5, where you claim that provocateurs have a responsibility for the acts carried out in response to their provocations.
Therefore, let me put the question to you: if an American is harmed and the specific cited cause is the mistreatment of Arab terrorists will you, as an advocate of such mistreatment, allow yourself to be held responsible for that American’s life?
If the standard of obedience to the Geneva Convention is weakened, if a precedent of non-conformity is set and followed by other member nations in the same manner that we have skirted our obligations, then yes, I will consider that the responsibility for the weakening of that precedent falls on the Bush Administration. However, the responsibility for the specific violations of course will always fall upon the violator.
If you do not address these questions, it would appear that you care less about morality and torture than about vengeance against the Bush administration.
You have not at all established that any of these questions are relevant to the issue of whether or not potential crimes of the previous administration ought to be investigated and their perpetrators prosecuted.
Creator.