(Editor's Note: I've bumped this back up to the top because of an exchange that I've had with Wizbang's Jay Tea in the comments that I wanted to make sure was heard. Any response from him will be added here. Update at the bottom)
Wanna get to the heart of the torture matter? This is it.
What has been befuddling to those of us on the left is why is condemning torture a partisan issue? You would think it is all something like the "Love for the American Ideals" and Red, White and Blue uber-patriotism that the Right would hate to see tarnished by committing incredibly un-American acts.
But, some Righty's are showing their true colors in the midst of the ever-increasing reports of torture at the hands of Americans. Let's take a look at Jay Tea of Wizbang's post on this subject today, shall we? He starts by saying that, those of us who chose to be offended by the "flushing of the Koran" story are deluded and unreasonable, and since it is impossible to argue with the unreasonable, he is going to wow us with his own logic and reason:
So I'm not going to bother arguing with the "close the Guantanamo death camp" morons. Instead, I have another idea.
There's an old aphorism that says "as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb." Since we're already being punished for "torturing" these detainees, why don't we go ahead and do it already?
We already know beyond a shadow of a doubt that some of these detainees have extensive knowledge and experience as terrorists. It's time to take the handcuffs off our interrogators and let them do whatever they believe is necessary to get the information we need out of them. Let's use pain, discomfort, drugs, deception, anything we can on these terrorists. Since we're already suffering the consequences of using torture, it only makes sense to me that we gain the benefits of such. Let's show the world just what good old American ingenuity, inventiveness, and resources can achieve.
That's right: America is losing the PR battle, so we might as well go ahead with our torture, since everyone already believes we are torturing anyway.
For a group of people that scream about Liberals being the "Blame America First" crowd, they sure don't seem to be all that interested in keeping America free of blame in the first place. And this is the point: We don't blame America because we hate our country, we blame America because we aren't blameless. If given the choice between patriotism at the expense of rationality and legitimate self-analysis or being tagged as somehow un-American by a group that refuses to admit that we ever do anything wrong anyway, give me the latter. It may not make me a Toby Keith, red-state patriot, but, as Jon Stewart says, at least I can sleep at night.
UPDATE: Responses from Jay Tea and my responses to him, in the comments.
Jay Tea: Amazing how you failed to quote the REST of my piece, where I outlined the two compelling reasons why I DON'T think we should actually engage in torture. Nor the part where I quoted that noted right-wing whacko Alan Dershowitz on torture. Feeling a mite selective, Dylan?
Dylan:
Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your comment, but I work nights, so I just got home.
If your post was meant to be completely satirical, then let me know, and I'll print a retraction immediatly. I, however, don't get the satire sense from your post.
What is clear, barring total satire, is that you are coming out for torture, pausing only to mention that there is the chance of bad information coming from torture interrogations. And giving credence to the idea of "torture warrants?" This is simply asinine to me.
I'm sorry if you feel I was being selective, and if I've somehow unfairly represented your post, then I apologize, but I don't really feel that a couple of qualifications in a post that says "Yes, torture might be ok... especially since we are being accused of it anyway," somehow makes it thoughtful and rational.
Thanks for your input though, I look forward to your response.
Jay Tea:
The outline of the piece, as I wrote it:
1) Outrage at the accusations
2) Screw 'em, we're getting blamed anyway, let's do it
3) No, we don't do that, it's stupid and we're the good guys
4) But since we brought up the topic, are there circumstances when torture is warranted?
Conclusion: yes, but not in Guantanamo.
Most people seemed to "get it," but for some reason I don't understand the Left gets their panties in a huge twist whenever someone suggests a serious discussion on heavy issues -- like war, torture, and the like. It's like the classic image of hypnosis -- they hear certain key words and go completely batshit bonkers, and don't hear anything beyond that. I noted the same phenomenon when I wrote a couple of pieces with provocative titles, "In Praise Of Civilian Casualties" (http://wizbangblog.com/archives/004244.php and http://wizbangblog.com/archives/005417.php), and another two-parter called "Screw The Geneva Convention" (http://wizbangblog.com/archives/004333.php and http://wizbangblog.com/archives/004334.php).
Maybe that's why those prisoners had panties put over their heads -- the guards were simply trying to untwist them.
The Left is the source of the cliche' about "opening dialogues" and "discussing matters," but it seems that that only holds true on certain topics, and the discussion is limited to how much we all agree with each other, and aren't those other guys just plain rotten?
Dershowitz makes compelling arguments for allowing specific forms of torture in very specific circumstances, but anyone who even suggests bringing it up ends up pilloried. I've been meaning to bring it up at Wizbang, and this finally seemed an appropriate place.
Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go back to bed. I've spent far more time and effort writing for your site here than I have for Wizbang this evening, and I have obligations back there -- after I get a bit more sleep.
Dylan:
Before I get started: It's probably not the best tone to take, acting pissed off that the Left won't "engage in thoughtful discussion" while acting, in your comment, like you are annoyed to be engaging that conversation at all.
But while we are on the point of hypocritical conflicts in your comment, it isn't congruous for you to write provocative titles, or post of provocative subjects for the purpose of being sensational, and then take offense when the sensationalism is addressed.
The reason the left "gets their panties in such a huge twist" when we hear conversations by people seeking to justify the use of torture under any circumstances, well, we get our panties in a huge twist! Torture is, completely and unequivocally, wrong. Moral Relativism is a charge that the Left gets branded with quite a bit, but the worst example of it is the idea that, because circumstances might make it convenient to use such methods, acts of torture, which are otherwise wrong, may be acceptable and correct. Torture isn't right, and it is above the dignity of everything we (left and right) both agree our country represents.
So, to outline this comment:
1)Your tone is hypocritical.
2)Your arguments are contradictory.
3)Your premise is wrong.
UPDATE II:
Jay Tea:
Dylan, it's called PROGRESSION. A NARRATIVE PROCESS. I started out with citing the item that provoked my attention, followed with my initial reaction (outrage), my second reaction (anger), then went to third reaction (reflection, and rejection of the second idea), finishing off with a look at how one notable person views the general issue.
I freely acknowledge contradictory feelings, but that's human nature. Many things often give people mixed feelings. I was trying to show the progression of my thoughts, and how they led to my conclusion -- that torturing the detainees would be a Bad Thing. But since the topic came up, why not take a look at what Dershowitz is saying on torture? Perhaps that should be looked at. What he says seems to have a smidgen of reason behind it.
Dylan:
Why are you angry in the first place, Jay Tea? Are you angry because there are those of us out here who are trying to say as loudly as we can that torture is wrong under any circumstances? If you did, as you say, reject that premise in your pose (which I'll address in a minute), I fail to understand why you were angry in the first place.
As long-time readers of this blog will attest, I'm a frequent practicioner of the "using my writing to work through an issue" tool. You explain your post by saying that this is what you were doing as well, and I'll trust you that this was your intent.
One reason you gave for torture being an unacceptable option was a good one: That we are the good guys. This has been precisely my point all along. The problem is, I don't believe that is how we are acting. I believe that there is overwhelming evidence that we are torturing people, and that it is, though how far up the chain the approval goes is unclear, sactioned by some of our leaders. It appears to me that there are many on the Right who not only don't believe that we are committing such acts of torture, but that it would be ok if we were, defending those positions with red herrings like, "We are dealing with uncivilized combatants," or, "Compared to what Saddam Hussein did, we treat prisoners like they are at a spa." Nevermind considering just how far we've lowered the bar when we compare ourselves to Saddam Hussein to justify our actions.
It isn't that I don't think your post was thoughtful, or appreciate that you are trying to spark conversation (which, I'd hope, is what we are doing here), but that I have a hard time understanding the mentality of your post which, as you admit, says that there are circumstances under which torture is, in fact, appropriate. Using Alan Dershowitz as an example only proves to me that Alan's gone of the deep end with you guys.
I don't believe that torture is ever justified. So, when I come across posts like yours, even if they are well-crafted and attempt to approach the subject with thought, my reaction will always be the same: This is just wrong, and I must say so.
Thanks for pointing toward this. I tried to comment in their thread, but I couldn't think of anything to say ... it just made me sick.
It just makes me sick that Americans are talking about torture in these terms. Don't these people on the Right know that in 20 years there will be Senate resolutions apologizing for torture, just like the recent resolution (unbelievably unsigned by 19 right-wing Senators) apologizing for lynching?
Posted by: True Blue Liberal | June 17, 2005 at 03:20 PM
That's a really, really good point, TBL. Why is it that Republicans constantly do whatever is opportune for them, and then, 20 years later, they wash it away by asking for apologies?
Posted by: Dylan | June 17, 2005 at 03:44 PM
Amazing how you failed to quote the REST of my piece, where I outlined the two compelling reasons why I DON'T think we should actually engage in torture. Nor the part where I quoted that noted right-wing whacko Alan Dershowitz on torture. Feeling a mite selective, Dylan?
J.
Posted by: Jay Tea | June 17, 2005 at 04:56 PM
Hey Jay Tea,
Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your comment, but I work nights, so I just got home.
If your post was meant to be completely satirical, then let me know, and I'll print a retraction immediatly. I, however, don't get the satire sense from your post.
What is clear, barring total satire, is that you are coming out for torture, pausing only to mention that there is the chance of bad information coming from torture interrogations. And giving credence to the idea of "torture warrants?" This is simply asinine to me.
I'm sorry if you feel I was being selective, and if I've somehow unfairly represented your post, then I apologize, but I don't really feel that a couple of qualifications in a post that says "Yes, torture might be ok... especially since we are being accused of it anyway," somehow makes it thoughtful and rational.
Thanks for your input though, I look forward to your response.
Posted by: Dylan | June 18, 2005 at 12:03 AM
The outline of the piece, as I wrote it:
1) Outrage at the accusations
2) Screw 'em, we're getting blamed anyway, let's do it
3) No, we don't do that, it's stupid and we're the good guys
4) But since we brought up the topic, are there circumstances when torture is warranted?
Conclusion: yes, but not in Guantanamo.
Most people seemed to "get it," but for some reason I don't understand the Left gets their panties in a huge twist whenever someone suggests a serious discussion on heavy issues -- like war, torture, and the like. It's like the classic image of hypnosis -- they hear certain key words and go completely batshit bonkers, and don't hear anything beyond that. I noted the same phenomenon when I wrote a couple of pieces with provocative titles, "In Praise Of Civilian Casualties" (http://wizbangblog.com/archives/004244.php and http://wizbangblog.com/archives/005417.php), and another two-parter called "Screw The Geneva Convention" (http://wizbangblog.com/archives/004333.php and http://wizbangblog.com/archives/004334.php).
Maybe that's why those prisoners had panties put over their heads -- the guards were simply trying to untwist them.
The Left is the source of the cliche' about "opening dialogues" and "discussing matters," but it seems that that only holds true on certain topics, and the discussion is limited to how much we all agree with each other, and aren't those other guys just plain rotten?
Dershowitz makes compelling arguments for allowing specific forms of torture in very specific circumstances, but anyone who even suggests bringing it up ends up pilloried. I've been meaning to bring it up at Wizbang, and this finally seemed an appropriate place.
Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go back to bed. I've spent far more time and effort writing for your site here than I have for Wizbang this evening, and I have obligations back there -- after I get a bit more sleep.
J.
Posted by: Jay Tea | June 18, 2005 at 12:45 AM
Before I get started: It's probably not the best tone to take, acting pissed off that the Left won't "engage in thoughtful discussion" while acting, in your comment, like you are annoyed to be engaging that conversation at all.
But while we are on the point of hypocritical conflicts in your comment, it isn't congruous for you to write provocative titles, or post of provocative subjects for the purpose of being sensational, and then take offense when the sensationalism is addressed.
The reason the left "gets their panties in such a huge twist" when we hear conversations by people seeking to justify the use of torture under any circumstances, well, we get our panties in a huge twist! Torture is, completely and unequivocally, wrong. Moral Relativism is a charge that the Left gets branded with quite a bit, but the worst example of it is the idea that, because circumstances might make it convenient to use such methods, acts of torture, which are otherwise wrong, may be acceptable and correct. Torture isn't right, and it is above the dignity of everything we (left and right) both agree our country represents.
So, to outline this comment:
1)Your tone is hypocritical.
2)Your arguments are contradictory.
3)Your premise is wrong.
Posted by: Dylan | June 18, 2005 at 01:19 AM
Dylan, it's called PROGRESSION. A NARRATIVE PROCESS. I started out with citing the item that provoked my attention, followed with my initial reaction (outrage), my second reaction (anger), then went to third reaction (reflection, and rejection of the second idea), finishing off with a look at how one notable person views the general issue.
I freely acknowledge contradictory feelings, but that's human nature. Many things often give people mixed feelings. I was trying to show the progression of my thoughts, and how they led to my conclusion -- that torturing the detainees would be a Bad Thing. But since the topic came up, why not take a look at what Dershowitz is saying on torture? Perhaps that should be looked at. What he says seems to have a smidgen of reason behind it.
J.
Posted by: Jay Tea | June 18, 2005 at 08:48 PM
Why are you angry in the first place, Jay Tea? Are you angry because there are those of us out here who are trying to say as loudly as we can that torture is wrong under any circumstances? If you did, as you say, reject that premise in your pose (which I'll address in a minute), I fail to understand why you were angry in the first place.
As long-time readers of this blog will attest, I'm a frequent practicioner of the "using my writing to work through an issue" tool. You explain your post by saying that this is what you were doing as well, and I'll trust you that this was your intent.
One reason you gave for torture being an unacceptable option was a good one: That we are the good guys. This has been precisely my point all along. The problem is, I don't believe that is how we are acting. I believe that there is overwhelming evidence that we are torturing people, and that it is, though how far up the chain the approval goes is unclear, sactioned by some of our leaders. It appears to me that there are many on the Right who not only don't believe that we are committing such acts of torture, but that it would be ok if we were, defending those positions with red herrings like, "We are dealing with uncivilized combatants," or, "Compared to what Saddam Hussein did, we treat prisoners like they are at a spa." Nevermind considering just how far we've lowered the bar when we compare ourselves to Saddam Hussein to justify our actions.
It isn't that I don't think your post was thoughtful, or appreciate that you are trying to spark conversation (which, I'd hope, is what we are doing here), but that I have a hard time understanding the mentality of your post which, as you admit, says that there are circumstances under which torture is, in fact, appropriate. Using Alan Dershowitz as an example only proves to me that Alan's gone of the deep end with you guys.
I don't believe that torture is ever justified. So, when I come across posts like yours, even if they are well-crafted and attempt to approach the subject with thought, my reaction will always be the same: This is just wrong, and I must say so.
Posted by: Dylan | June 20, 2005 at 05:48 PM
I got tired of arguing this over here, so I just posted a revision of my original piece over at Wizbang. And at 11:00 this morning, a followup piece will be published.
J.
Posted by: Jay Tea | June 21, 2005 at 06:03 AM