COLLECTIVE MADNESS


“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Monday, November 06, 2006

Paralysis by Analysis. Overthinking Interrogation versus Torture


At the Belmont Club this past weekend, Wretchard, prompted by Steve Harrigan's water boarding experience at 02:08:00 PM, posted this:
Steve Harrigan gets waterboarded on Fox and you can watch at on Hot Air at the link? How does it feel? It feels like s**t, beyond a doubt. What does it prove? Apparently that you don't suffer any perceptible damage from it or that, if you had a choice, it would be far preferable to getting your fingers chopped off, your teeth knocked out or your arms broken by dangling you from the ceiling. But what does it prove morally? Ah, there's that word! Whose morality, then? Didn't you know this post was going to be difficult?
I don't believe anyone answered the questions or even directly addressed them. Let me restate Wretchard's question about Harrigan's report on waterboarding:
But what does it prove morally? Ah, there's that word! Whose morality, then? Didn't you know this post was going to be difficult?
stumbley started off the thread at 02:54:09 PM with:
"Torture" is the infliction of grievous bodily harm that has permanent effects. Waterboarding is not permanently harmful. If the prisoner is mentally injured by waterboarding, that's a regrettable side effect, but such an individual would probably be "mentally injured" simply from the stress of combat and/or capture.

Would I like to be waterboarded? Of course not...but given a choice between that and electric shock to my genitals or bone breaking, what do you think I'd choose?
Then at 3:07:36 Teresita said...
We're the white hats, we're not supposed to hit below the belt or shoot people in the back or show cruelty to our EPWs. Maybe after this Tuesday we will get our America back, the "shining city on a hill" that shuns torture and is therefore actually morally better than brutal third-world regimes scattered around the globe.
So, from the beginning, the debate of the thread was framed in the same way as the "torture debate" is always argued. One side maintains that rough, coersive treatment is not torture and the other side ignores that argument and invokes a morality argument against torture while never agreeing to definitions.

Addressing the morality issue, at 4:07:56 3Case offered a number 6. to Wretchard's list of five:
6. "We are in a death struggle with a sophisticated adversary intent on returning civilization to a 7th Century fundamentalist society. What is the morality of survival? What is the morality of the survival of our grandchildren and great-grandchildren? What is the morality of the survival of the evolution of women as free beings?
Well, 3Case got close to the question of morality but he didn't answer Wretchard's question of "Whose morality?"

At 05:13:30 PM, summignumi said...
White hats have always gotten dirty during war only the stories stayed clean so we could claim a more moral high ground fighting wars is the only time that the means justifies the ends! Some of the very first non Jewish converts to Christianity were roman soldiers, I think the first Roman solider to convert was a Centurion, this was a man of serious command and decided who died and who might live yet Jesus never told him to go AWOL from the legion so there must have been a reason, everything Jesus did had meaning.
He was getting closer to the question of "Whose morality?" At least he pointed to a source for morality.

Then, at 06:23:37 PM, sam said...
Human rights groups have questioned the CIA’s methods for questioning suspects, especially following the passage of a bill last month that authorised the use of harsh - but undefined - interrogation tactics.
Human Rights groups? No answer there.

It was way down the thread at 08:21:40 AM after much to and fro that:
2164th offered this insight on a flaw in the debate:
We are having a debate on torture because of the torture that has been done to plain speaking. Words are so distorted they have no meaning and we think in words or images. Distort the words, and you distort the images.

Torture is being drawn and quartered. That means having your belly sliced open, your intestines pulled out and your body severed by an expert who will keep you alive while it is being down.

Rough coercive interrogation is not torture and save the pablum about it not working. That is simply horsehit, it works in spades. Grow up or give it up.
It seems to me, that this has been a flaw in every torture debate. No one will agree to a definition of torture and without a legal definition of what torture is, the debate is reduced to the moral argument with one side the claiming the "moral high ground" while the other side is more pragmatic about survival.

This post by Ash 12:53:31 PM seems to characterize the "moralist" worldview:
I would subtract the recent moves to institutionalize torture, secret prisons, and indefinite detentions. by opening this door we have ended up with a multitude of abuses that has given a view of our nation being no different then the Soviets, Chinese or many of the Arab governments, to name only a few governments who ware willing to pursue unethical means to advance their selfish goals. We have forfeited the moral high ground which you so cherish. We have become no better then the rest and now that we are invading an occupying foreign lands we have little of merit to project.
At 05:10:28 PM on Sunday, catherine said...
I trust our side- its mission, sensibilities and deeds. But we all know we’re not perfect. Some think it’s better to give our enemy undeserved advantages in order to be more sporting, fair, humane and moral, even though he accords us naught. These preeners and saints who insist on "no torture" and who define it as most forms of pain and humiliation would prolong hostilities and maybe sacrifice us all.

The rest of us believe it’s better to be merely good and alive, which actually may be more “perfect” than being better and dead at the hand of medievalist mass murderers and oppressors, but who knows? All we can know for sure is that our enemy is lucky our virtuous dissenters think the way they do, and that our dissenters are really fortunate the rest of us think the way we do, because they get to posture while others of us pay.

That's some kind of heaven our fastidiously conscientious have set up for themselves, seemingly somewhere in the ninth ring down below. But who can be sure even about that? Maybe our higher purpose is to self-annihilate on principle. On not succumbing to the human instinct of self-preservation.



As of this writing, the debate is still on-going and I suspect it will continue ad infinitum because, like other moral issues, the opposing sides cannot agree on the essential definitions, (e.g. when life begins, who can be married, what is morality, what constitutes torture.) Like many of the relevant moral issues being debated today, we seem to be at an impasse of conflicting worldviews.

Lately the secular progressives camp which claims the "moral high ground" based on a moral authority emanating from a shifting, enigmatic, humanist, post-modern worldview has not been able to gain the upper hand politically. With the elections tomorrow, we will know if that has changed.

I think it was written somewhere that people get the rulers they deserve.

88 comments:

  1. I just saw the Wesley Clark commercial blaming the War in Iraq for terrorism. I forgot that we invaded Iraq and they retaliated on 9/11.

    He's a disgrace.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chmn Henry H Shelton, was Clark’s boss in 1999 when Clark was told that he was being removed from his position as Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. “I’ve known Wes for a long time,” Shelton said. “I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. . . . Wes won’t get my vote.”

    ReplyDelete
  3. Morality in war. If not an oxymoron then very close.

    To the grunt in the fight it's survival, there is no right or wrong. Only the politicians have the luxury of the morality debate.
    If you're a civilian, never been in a confrontation in our civil society, never beeen threatened then you're more that likely gonna "take the high ground" and list all manner of "inappropriate actions" your military shouldn't or can't take.
    It simply can not be that way on the battlefield. You kill with whatever is at hand.
    In interrogations you know you will extract information that will save YOUR grunts lives. That's as it should be. You do what you do to save your men's lives and the lives of the civilians he/she is/are protecting.
    When you train troops to kill and the fight comes you must let them kill, not hand out candy. Let the USAID people do that later. Don't ask them to multitask war/destruction with nation building. That too comes later.
    You want them to kill and wound as many of the enemy as they can.
    We've lost that as THE MISSION.
    Morality debates are a luxury for the grandees to muse while sipping brandy, and it is the fighter who suffers their ex catherdra pronunciamentoes.



    In this lastest Iraqi action we've discussed the ROE's as naseum.
    If

    ReplyDelete
  4. Whit,
    Wesley Clark was always considered a "dandy".
    His credentials are impeccable. He's just too full of Wesley Clark, and has become a Democratic Party apparatchiki.
    He's there "see we've got one too" ex military mouthpiece.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The military needs to be re-thought beginning with reducing the numbers of woman in front line combat and front line support. Woman should not be on war ships. I have no problem with Amazon ships. We need to have a shock corps of attack troops that no one would ever want to see. They could be followed by military police and then public affairs types. Interrogation should be reserved to a special group of military intelligence. The military should not be an experiment in social engineering.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Habu:
    Clark's credentials may be impeccable but his character is suspect.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So what's all this talk about morality in war for anyway?

    War is an all-pervasive phenomenon of the universe. Accordingly, battles are mere symptoms of the underlying belligerent nature of the universe; such a description corresponds with a Heraclitean or Hegelian philosophy in which change (physical, social, political, economical, etc) can only arise out of war or violent conflict. Heraclitus decries that "war is the father of all things," and Hegel echoes his sentiments. Interestingly, even Voltaire, the embodiment of the Enlightenment, followed this line: "Famine, plague, and war are the three most famous ingredients of this wretched world...All animals are perpetually at war with each other...Air, earth and water are arenas of destruction." (From Pocket Philosophical Dictionary). Subcribed to by Habu.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's not so much about the morality in war, its about the morality underlying the people who support or oppose the war. Humanism v. Judaeo Christian.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Whit,
    Of that I have no doubt. I've been eyeballing him for about seven or eight years through conversations with friends who have had dealings with him.

    On paper, in his career ,he's a hero ..real life,real character has placed a less than impeccable patina on the man.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yeah Whit the conversation usually starts with the never to be answered question of what constitutes a "just war"

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thinking about Terrorita being on the US Govt Payroll is cruel and unusual Torture for this US Govt Taxpayer.
    The useful idiots within.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It must be embarressing for someone with Brit Hume's political acumen to have to sit there and cite Fox's horrible polls every election.

    ReplyDelete
  13. We must be idiots. All them experts, even the one on Fox News, say the Dems take the house.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Pass the kool-Aid, somebody; I'm parched.

    ReplyDelete
  15. They meant the Dems take the House results TO COURT, Rufus.
    ...a mere blunder leaving out TWO WORDS.
    Like John Kerry's "1 word."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Deuce, do I have to go back to the previous thread to update my prediction?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm not just "Drinking" the damned kool-aid, I'm bathing in the stuff. I'm going to Rep 53 in the Senate.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Damn, rufus, thanks, classin' me as an "Expert"

    Can't type like on, though

    ReplyDelete
  20. As for waterboarding, that's not torture.

    wee're as endangered as the Bald Eagle, habu. You're up the shitcreek when your National Bird was nearly extinct.

    Gotta do what you gotta do, to save it from extinction, whatever it takes to reverse the trend lines.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rat, yeah, but us Kool-Aid drinkers have more fun.

    ReplyDelete
  22. DR
    re: read you 5x5 on your 8:17

    ReplyDelete
  23. Tend to doubt that, rufus, I do have lots and lots of fun.

    It's what I do best, really.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rufus,
    You Tube ...wow..people get a taste of power and they can't let go...some will do anything.

    ReplyDelete
  25. whit,

    re: Humanism v. Judaeo Christian.

    Why is it the Humanists who insist Man is something he is not? Oh, and then set out exterminate the countless millions who do not conform.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I've lost my fingers and some prepostitions again.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This looks like an interesting spot to check in if you have to be out for awhile, tomorrow night.

    ReplyDelete
  28. whit,

    Some of the "progressive" thinkers you quote from the BC remind me of a DJ I once knew. He was a smug, know-it-all progressive until his daughter was raped, beaten, and nearly killed. From that point, he had no problem with the death penalty and the 2nd Amendment. Those who expect men to be saints are neither Christians nor Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Allen:
    They just can't seem to accept the fact that man is inherently flawed. They put their faith in each other and disappointed every time.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I'm really neither Christian nor Jew but, allen, I have no problem with nuns, guns or killin those folk that need, in fact beg, for that remedy to their disrespect of their fellow man.

    ReplyDelete
  31. rufus,

    The music and the images were so starkly opposed! Marvelous find. Thanks.

    Oh did I say, "BASTARDS"!!!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Whit,
    I think it would be easier to have all the predictions on the original post , but we will be able to check them all. everything is time marked and we don't do hanging chads at EB.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Well, guys, guess who is pissed at the boys, again

    We're not the Roman Empire. But it doesn't matter to me anymore, I'm taking this opportunity to get the hell out of the Belmont Club and the Elephant Bar.

    11/06/2006 02:30:58 PM


    Part of a little ditty at the BC.

    ReplyDelete
  34. buddy dipped the shiv and struck a nerve, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Deuce:
    That's fine by me. That's your baby. I wish I had some idea about the races. I could use the $. Oh, what's that? Employees of the EB aren't eligible? Damn!!!!

    Ruf: That Webb video is great. I kept wondering, "What happened to the man?"

    ReplyDelete
  36. You're Ok whit. Put it up there pal.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I thought everything had settled down with Teresita and the roughhouse boys over here at the EB.

    ReplyDelete
  38. How's it going out there in spud country, Bobal?

    ReplyDelete
  39. BTW Deuce:
    What's the word down there on Ortega's apparent victory next door?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Bobal was here a few minutes ago. I bet he went over to Belmont to check out the brouhaha. You know Bobal.

    ReplyDelete
  41. It would be barbaric and irrational to execute the Madrid bombers. Apparently, sentencing 29 people to 270,000 years is humanistic cool.

    270,000 years' jail sought for bombers

    One cannot make up this Euro trash stuff. And, these are our allies!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Manana all:
    Rat, go vote. Just hold your nose and make sure there's an "R" beside your choice.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Voted about ten daays ago, whit.
    Mr Shadegg will win in my District.
    Bet Mr Kyl does as well.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Hey, Rat, that three person panel approved the asshole's death sentence; now, it's an appeal in Jan, and "Drop the Hatch."

    ReplyDelete
  45. What happened at BC?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Neither of those Congressional seats is in my projection of the Dems winning 18 & 4.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Interesting. I have a couple of Latin American posts ready, but like my post on Nixon, no one cares until after the election. I will hold my fire till then. Just had a great dinner with some fine fine company. Watched that u tube thing on Webb. these guys will sell their souls for power.

    I was thinking about a time I was waiting for a connecting flight from Clark in the Phillipines. I was sitting in the front row of chairs facing some double doors. Two charter planes arrived and the doors opened and I had to sit there while both planes unloaded wounded. they passed on both sides of me like I was a snag in a river with blue robed GI's in gurneys at eye level or in wheel chairs passing to the left and right. I was their age and they looked like kids. You could smell the iodine and the smell of a hospital as the went by. Every wound possible, urine bags, leaking bandages and I dared not avoid their eye contact. They looked at me and through me.

    Some time later, not exactly sure when , I heard and watched that long faced cocksucker,Kerry, out of uniform wearing battle fatigues in front of Congress, out of honor, and out for himself, damning and smearing that same river of suffering that passed to my right and left. I never forgot that phoney Kennedyesque accent. I hated the no good mother fucker then and have never forgotten what a sorry ass piece of shit he is. fuck him.

    ReplyDelete
  48. buddy got under her skin. Seems to me

    ReplyDelete
  49. Where did you see that the Presidental Panel had signed off, rufus?

    It's not even mentioned in the piece drudge has up, I have not seen it, anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Uh, Deuce, could you go over that Kerry thing, again; I think I missed part of it. Did I get it right that you don't like the sorry-assed, no good cock-sucker?

    I mean, I don't want to put words in your mouth, or anything.

    ReplyDelete
  51. It was on one of those little snippets on fox news, Rat. The ones they do every fifteen or twenty minutes, or so.

    ReplyDelete
  52. On a revise and resubmit: "I do not much care the man."

    ReplyDelete
  53. BUDDY? Pissed someone off?

    ReplyDelete
  54. whit wrote:

    "They just can't seem to accept the fact that man is inherently flawed."

    ya, so? are you saying two wrongs make a right? We are inherently flawed so torture to your hearts content?

    Waterboarding is not torture seems to be your fallback position. It seems to me if it is done right the subject truly believes he will drown if he doesn't submit. Perception is reality for the most part is it not? In the end though, he may not have any lasting physical scars (assuming the torturers did their job right and the subject survived) but the mental scars, which are real, will persist. It seems 2164th has lasting scars from watching the wounded being wheeled by whilst Kerry disses them. No physical scar no foul...right?

    Bottom line though, that good ole christian thing, or in ethics, the principle of universiality (or sumtin like that). Do you have any problem with other countries doing institutionalizing procedures like waterboarding to be used on our boys and girls? On you? If it isn't torture, why not use this procedure as a standard method of interrogation in the US for any old person picked up suspected to be on the wrong side of the law? The reason is because it is unethical and the only reason why you accept it is because you are willing to suspend your morality, or delude yourself, that it is necessary to acheive your goals. It isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  55. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Talk about flawless timing, someone mentions JKnK and up pops Ash.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I don't get over to the BC very often but it looks like I missed a really good session on waterboarding etc.
    But the best news out of it all was Teresita saying she was getting out of the BC and EB.
    Now it's not like I don't enjoy a good colloque but she is one whacked out whatever.
    Anyway Ms. T adios and adios and adios. Don't forget to take your lithium.(ok a cheap shot but she'll never read it, if she keeps her word, oh please,please.)

    ReplyDelete
  58. I give her 5 minutes after it's announced the dems will take the house, or one day and five minutes after it's announced the Pubs keep it.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Okay, so I'm up to 53 Pubs in the Senate and 222 in the house.

    Whew, I'd better stop; I'm getting pretty far out on that ledge.

    ReplyDelete
  60. 2164,
    I'd like to associate myself with you previous sentiments on the junior Senator from Mass.
    He falls into that protected class that gets you in real trouble if you punch their lights out. And I would never do that to an elected official, because it would be wrong and not worth the hassle.
    But golly gee whiz I hate the motherfucker too. and Fonda,T.Turner,G.Soros,T.Kennedy..and on and on.

    ReplyDelete
  61. This is Teresita's benediction:

    "Teresita said...
    I wonder the same thing. It's like two completely different posters.

    That's not fair, buddy. A person can be 100% in favor of taking the battle to enemy combatants on the field (indeed, Bush and Rummy are falling down in that job, only 10% of the forces in the theater go on patrol every night) while being 100% opposed to taking battle to the wounded, to captives, to the sick, to civilians, and other non-combatants. But all I get is fascist crap about how it's okay to burn up civilians and torture people because we might stop a ticking dirty bomb or some other such unlikely scenario. We're not the Roman Empire. But it doesn't matter to me anymore, I'm taking this opportunity to get the hell out of the Belmont Club and the Elephant Bar.

    11/06/2006 02:30:58 PM"

    Why is she mad at us?

    ReplyDelete
  62. I made a distinction between terror and rough interrogation. I did not attack her personally. I rarely attack anyone anymore. She really freaks out on some issues, but she can hold her own and has an interesting point of view. Everyone gets a little hot under the collar. It will pass.

    ReplyDelete
  63. IMO, woman are very welcome, and treated no better nor worse than men. Stick around and see how some of these guys go at each other.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Who us? Nah, it was that damned PossumTater, he's always stirring shit.

    ReplyDelete
  65. re: Ms T ....who cares, it's like just have a nice day and ignore her.
    As Catherine pointed out she's all over the place with her thoughts.
    So Ms. T rest, and more rest, and have a nice day.
    Plus I think we musta fried some of her ancestors at Iwo or Naga or Hiro, cause she gets real defensive about WWII and killing Japs.

    ReplyDelete
  66. ah Mztah Rufus suh,,don't make me come ova and bite yo hand, yo vot'n hand...plus'n da army done trained me up to be a crotch nipper-atter.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I guess that is a good thing about being of English heritage, not many people left that have not killed your kin or you killed theirs.

    ReplyDelete
  68. For what it's worth, I like her. I was mean and roughed her up once, I was wrong. I regretted it and wish I had not done it, the way that I did.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I'm sorry, P'Tater; I was way outta line. You ain't never caused no trouble in here. I was just bein cowardly, blamin you for stuff that I had done.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I guess I should work on forgiving Kerry.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Nunya Bizness

    Man, which housing project could you fry? which ones giv'n ya trouble?
    just make sure you do it during the dark of the moon. and my goodness have a good reason before you go attacking a housing project.
    I must have missed the story on the project that attacked us..or was it just you?
    anyway good luck if you're gonna take retribution on that project....are ya dropping leaflets first?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Uh guys, you don't recognize the writing style of Nunya Bizness? It might be time to sign the tab, and call for the cab.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Deuce, why in the world would you do that? I mean, it's not like he's changed or anything. He's the same sorry sack of shit he's always been; witness, his statement last week.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Good night, all; good night P'tater, have fun in the bog. Last one to leave, lock up, okay? And, throw a coupla them Bud Lights in the cooler, okay. Good, see ya in the mornin, big doins.

    ReplyDelete
  75. dragonbiscuit,

    Hey good buddy, welcome to the EB.
    Kids OK? Wife do'in fine? Great.
    Just send ole Habu $10.00US and I'll get it to a worthwhile charity. Why charity is practically my middle name. Yep good ole CH, Charitable Habu
    But I do say that when the bad guys are try'n to kill ya, ya just gotta kill'm first...do it for the kids, your kids, you wife, you freedoms ..say take care and have a nice night.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Nunya Bizness

    oh yeah ..one more itty bitty insight...when the shit starts don't get to analytical or start think'n 'bout logic....that's another thing the fog of war obscures.
    just get on with the business at hand that mans been do'in since like forever dude.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Just can't take those radical christian lesbos at their word, if that's who they really are to begin with.

    Let's see, as to Hope, that's in Arkansas, right?

    Hope is winning the War, or not going to War at all. Hope to know who the Enemy is and then beat them 'til they are dead or give up on the War. That's the Hope

    We don't torture and we don't War.
    That's the fact of the matter.

    No rack and no branding irons, not at Gitmo, any way.

    TWAT is SWAT, truth be known, one arrest after another. Writs and Warrants, but not WAR.
    And it is not another "kind" of War, either. That's spin with a capital S.

    ReplyDelete
  78. anyway glad you folks stopped by. it's Happy Trails To You ..nite little troopers.

    and to the real men OOhh Rah, Semper Fidelis.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Trish,
    I just want to say that I'm a full blooded paleolithic warhawk. But I bet you had a good sense of that.

    I wasn't a poster at the BC long enough to catch the flavor of the group other than the eloquent dissertation many produced with great vigor.
    I guess you're say'n they were a bit shy on real warhawk'n? Danced around it,mincing PC'ers?

    ReplyDelete
  80. DR,

    You did that Hope thing real justice, but they'll never learn. But they will want protection.
    A pitiful group.

    Amigo, bedtime....Sleep that knits the ravelled sleeve of care..MacBeth

    ReplyDelete
  81. Just for clarification:


    2164th said...
    I guess I should work on forgiving Kerry.

    11:25 PM, November 06, 2006



    2164th said...
    I need to think about it.

    11:25 PM, November 06, 2006

    That was a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Would it be OK for me to set the record straight, since the situation with Teresita was mentioned up thread? Buddy only seconded something I addressed to Teresita, and I was the one who pushed her a bit. I almost felt sorry for doing so, until I remembered how she has insulted Christian fundies (I’m not devout but she’s pretty gratuitous about it), Republicans (that’s fine ‘cause we do too and also Dems), our military policy and history (she’s DoD…), and EB and BC, calling the blogs and their commenters “fascist” on several occasions that I know of.

    It’s swell of you not to take offense, but when she’s pushed to defend her shallow position as she was last night, the feminist takes insult and uses a hurt female, you awful brutes kind of reaction to make those who address her inconsistencies feel guilty and like bullies. Funny thing, though, her comments are nearly always “strong” and disapproving of others. She’s cited some of my writing and acted like my opinions were inhumane- they’re not, but whatever. I didn’t cry that she or anybody hurt my feelings.

    It’s not my style to really pursue someone’s opinions and motives, and if her full name were appended to her comments I wouldn’t say anything that would follow her around in search engines forever (I hate that!) But this time her self-contradictions and resorting to cheap emotionalism and leftisms on a post about interrogation and waterboarding were too hard to take, and I cracked. (I’d make a terrible soldier.) She wrapped herself in the flag (dissent is patriotic), found God and Jesus (Bible verse after verse, though in the same thread she disparaged Repub Biblecrats), and became Mother Theresa just wanting to be sure the weak, infirmed and helpless enemies and civilians are not abused by an “inhumane administration” and its troops (this is just insulting in every way, considering the care with which our military has treated local populations and how the enemy treats its unlucky prisoners.) In her world, hardened sociopathic killers we capture are “helpless prisoners,” and those of us who support strong interrogation are cruel.

    We’re fighting hot and terror wars and most of us know people on the line or live where the terrorists keep plotting. Our enemy is not uniformed and in formation. He looks “civilian.” In fact, terrorist insurgents over there and plotters over here ARE civilians and are supported by other civilians. Obviously, we don’t have easily identifiable targets to take out. In order to shorten our wars and tamp down terrorism we must have intel. Information. Data. And interrogation is an hugely important way to get high-value intelligence.

    In war one must take sides. One must want to win and win decisively. One commits to be at war for as long as it takes and also to end it as quickly as one can. One values the lives of one’s troops and civilians over those of the enemy. Teresita can argue whether that is heartless or just human, but she needs to make more consistent points and not resort to cheap appeal or digs at others’ character without expecting people to take her on in return.

    Do I owe Habu $100 for commenting for too long? At least, apologies to 2164 for taking up cyber feet. You’re welcome to delete this comment, and I hope that your Teresita comes back. It’s a really good blog you’ve got here.

    ReplyDelete
  83. catherine,

    re: Teresita

    Here, here! Well said.

    ReplyDelete