The Crowbar

If ever there was a column to read about the idiotic “torture” debate in America, this is it.  Sowell brilliantly explains the moral confusion amongst liberals who refuse to grow up:

Whatever the verbal fencing over the meaning of the word “torture,” there is a fundamental difference between simply inflicting pain on innocent people for the sheer pleasure of it– which is what our terrorist enemies do– and getting life-saving information out of the terrorists by whatever means are necessary.

The left has long confused physical parallels with moral parallels. But when a criminal shoots at a policeman and the policeman shoots back, physical equivalence is not moral equivalence. And what American intelligence agents have done to captured terrorists is not even physical equivalence.

I recommend that everyone read his column, it brings amazing clarity to “torture” issue that few other commentaries have.

The deceptive Andrew Sullivan calls coercive interrogation defenders ignorant because they allegedly don’t know that Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions bans “waterboarding, forced nudity, total sensory deprivation, slamming against walls, multiple beatings, hypothermia, stress positions, hooding, phobias (dogs, insects), confined coffin-like spaces, and brutal long-term sleep deprivation.” How does he prove his point? By citing commentary about Article 3, of course! In Sullivan’s world, approved commentary = fact:

Article 3 has been called a “Convention in miniature.” It is the only article of the Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international conflicts. It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory’s territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3′s protections exist even though no one is classified as aprisoner of war. The article text for Article 3 of the Second Geneva Convention differs from the other three Conventions in that it adds “shipwrecked” to the “wounded and sick.” Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

Oh no! Whatever will the “torture lovers” do when they read this? Sullivan triumphantly beats his chest and authoritatively declares:

Notice that this isn’t just a ban on “torture” however legally parsed. But a ban on all inhuman treatment, including outrages on personal dignity.

Yes, Sullivan, that IS indeed what the commentary is implying. So, why, oh why, did he NOT cite the full text instead of  commentary? What a GREAT question! That would be because the spirit of the full text doesn’t fulfill Sullivan’s neurotic need for reality to conform to his viewpoint. Here is the FULL TEXT of Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ‘ hors de combat ‘ by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict. The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention. The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

My, my OH my – isn’t THIS interesting? So, according to Article 3 Section 1a, “torture” is grouped with “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment.” That effectively excludes ALL of the coercive interrogation techniques used by the CIA; that would mean that they aren’t classified as torture. That’s what Sullivan means by “legally parsed;” yeah, that crazy technical leagalese, LOL. Now it’s clear why Sullivan deceptively quoted commentary and tried to pass it off as the actual Article 3 – it makes him look like a dunce and obliterates his huffy puffy arguments on “torture.”

OMG, the left has dramaticly convulsed with faux indignance about the not-torture memos foolishly released by Obama. The topic has now reached feverish proportions. I’ve noted, in their discourse, leftists are purposely confusing actual torture with hard core interrogation in order to keep themselves outraged enough to distract from the the painful truth they don’t want to face. The left needs something to be Extremely Upset about to keep themselves going, and the not-torture memos fit the bill quite nicely.  Brutal, Unpleasant Reality The anti-interrogationists label those who oppose their view as “pro-torture,” but, here’s the thing of it: Did you know that America trains some of it’s citizens to kill people with guns? It’s called an Army. Do you know what happens to the bodies fo the people on the receiving end of American Army guns? The bodies of people shot by guns die, are torn to shreds, mutilated beyond recognition or sometimes their brains explode, being hit with such extreme force that they spatter all about in a stomach-churning goopy mess. If a targeted person happens to survive being shot by a gun, the bullets that penetrate their body cause excruciating pain, internal bleeding and/or infection that often kills them anyway. If they survive that, the target can face major surgery, possibly amputation of a limb, and months or years of physical recovery. On top of this they will likely face years of psychological recovery – if they ever fully recover. Quite an unpleasant affair, no? Americans have been killing non-American people with guns for some time – no memos justifying that, though. Perhaps we should ban killing by Army guns too, considering how morally repugnanat it is. Oddly enough, people have been involved in killing Americans, too. For example, this event happened about 7 1/2 years ago: That video always puts things in perspective. Facts of the Matter Speaking of perspective, strange how the left didn’t stage a freak out when Obama recently fired missiles killing 15 people, including three children. So the left is OK with America killing children when necessary, but they have an epileptic seizure when a deranged psychopath bent on killing Americans capitulates after being strapped to the floor and having water poured on him six times a day for a month. And, some more moderate voices have joined the anti-interrogation madness. Fox News’ Shepherd Smith exclaimed recently, ”we are America, we do not f**king torture.” But Shep has no such problem with an American Predator drone strike killing children who happen to be in the vicinity of their terrorist relatives. Can you say ‘cognative dissonance?’ We encounter more dissonance in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. telephone poll released in November 2007. 58% of respondents said the government should be not be allowed to use waterboarding to try to get information from suspected terrorists. Altering the question to include the caveat ‘if the safety of you and your loved ones was credibly threatened’ would have significantly altered the percentage, probably placing pro-waterboarding respondents solidly in the majority. Asking that question (including the caveat) of the populace of New York in the months immediately after 9/11/2001 would likely show a dramatic majority in favor of waterboarding. It is easy to hold to lofty, unrealistic ideas over the telephone from the safety of home after six years of no subsequent terrorist attacks. Things change when people feel their safety is truly threatened. Part of the reason there have been no subsequent attacks is because hard core interrogation has proved effective. The CIA confirmed that Khalid Sheik Mohammad supplied the intelligence that aborted 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles:

In the memo itself, the Justice Department’s Bradbury told the CIA’s Rossi: “Your office has informed us that the CIA believes that ‘the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qa’ida has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.”

That’s called “actionable intelligence,” but the left is convinced we have placed ourselves in Grave Moral Danger by obtaining it through harsh coercion.  Blood-Colored Glasses The humiliating truth is the left doesn’t have the stomach to face harsh, ugly reality. Protecting America is a dirty business and most leading liberals don’t like dirty – it offends their delicate sensibilities. They’d rather put the terrorists in therapy or send them home with reparations.  The debate the left is trying to usurp is about where we draw the line, about what is and isn’t too much. Waterboarding and the other coercive techniques used by the CIA walk up to that line, but not past it. It is good for America to question itself, to ensure we are doing the right thing, but the left keeps trying to rescue us from the thoughts they’re afraid we’ll have. They tell us there is no way they can be wrong, no way any opinion other than theirs can possibly be considered – and you’re vilified if you do. But, the leader of the left has already showed signs of retreat from his previous life as an anti-”torture” leftist. Obama knows that he’s in dangerous territory by “banning” these techniques. His adminstration’s waffling shows he wants it both ways; to obtain vital intel without using harsh coercion – but I can’t help but get the feeling he wants the “torture” option in his back pocket. Obama is responsible for protecting the U.S. from another terrorist attack; he knows he has undermined himself and, believe you me, he’s worried about the ramifications. He needs hard core interrogation to stop those insane maniacs from killing more innocent Americans, but he promised to shut down Gitmo and gave the terrorists an interrogation resistance manual to boot.  Left wing opinion leaders have made a major misstep in selling the waterboarding-as-torture narrative, though given their warped ideology it was probably inevitable. The attitude which produced that narrative, ignoring all unpleasantries and hiding inside a hero costume made of faux morality and self-righteousness, is what undermines American security and will be ultimately responsible for the needless, preventable deaths of more Americans at the hands of terrorists.

John Aravosis over at AMERICAblog has accused former CIA director Michael Hayden of cowardice. Hayden has criticized Obama’s senseless release of the CIA “torture” memos:

“What we have described for our enemies in the midst of a war are the outer limits that any American would ever go to in terms of interrogating an al Qaeda terrorist. That’s very valuable information,” Hayden said during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday.” “By taking [certain] techniques off the table, we have made it more difficult — in a whole host of circumstances I can imagine — for CIA officers to defend the nation,” he said.

Aravosis gets snitty:

Yeah, that’s cute. Except that the US agreed a long time ago that torture was off the table. And even John McCain is opposed to torture. But of course, Hayden has a more personal reason for opposing the release of information pertaining to the torture of foreign prisoners. Mr. Hayden, I suspect, isn’t very interested in spending the rest of his life in some foreign prison as a war criminal.

Yes, I’m sure Hayden is shaking in his boots. Eerily similar to the Global Warming topic, all of Liberalati has declared the debate over where the line between interrogation and torture is drawn to be SO over. They sure to love to be in charge of definitions, don’t they? Take a look at Wikipedia’s waterboarding entry – it has Liberalati fingerprints all over it. Who are those “legal experts, politicians, war veterans, intelligence officials, military judges, and human rights organizations”, anyway? Phew! I’m smelling the putrid stench of “consensus.” So, following in Aravosis’ footsteps, I’ve decided that I am the ultimate authority on what constitutes torture. I thusly declare reading Aravosis’ blog, AMERICAblog, to be a form of torture. I call on the Obama administration to finish taking over the internet and then shut down Aravosis’ blog due to the long term psychological damage his writing inflicts on those who choose to read it.  Huh, so this is what it feels like to be a modern liberal opinion leader? I feel almost god-like and I’m starting to think that I am.

Krugman joins the 183 crowd:

I think I ought to say something about the torture memos — namely, that there is now no way to view the people who ruled us these past 8 years as anything but monsters.

There is no way, eh? Krugman the populist economist has spoken, the debate over what constitutes torture is SO over.

We had all these rationalizations of torture over the “ticking clock” and all that — then we learn, for example, that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in one month. I really don’t even want to think about all this. But this was our government — and these people might be back.

Yes, those TERRIBLE rationalizations. I mean, the HORROR of pouring lots of water 6 times a day on someone who knew of plans to murder Americans to get them to spill the beans. What HAVE we come to???? Are the walls of civilization CRUMBLING??? OHHHH!!!! I just can’t think about it either! C’mon Krugman, get a grip.