Bill's Notes

I haven't waded into the argument over torture until just now ... mostly I see more heat than light in the blogosphere and MSM. To get to the bottom of it, I'd need to add a few general principles:

1. Of course I'm against torture.
2. The problem is the definition.
3. All definitions of torture are going to probably lead to endless hairsplitting about terms such as "intense suffering," "degrading treatment," "cruelty," and the like. In fact, these terms are far more culturally specific than we might like. I would consider it degrading and cruel to be forced to eat gefilte fish and pickled herring. To others it would be a delightful snack.

Thus:

1. Lets not be a bunch of pansies about this.
2. But let's not lose our humanity, either.
3. So let's cut the crap: in general, the Golden Rule applies. And the Army, apparently, has their own definitions, which I can't seem to find. But I wouldn't say the U.S. Army's definition is the last word. At the same time, it probably is an effective guideline.
4. Also applying are rules of effectiveness — that is, does it work?
5. Remember we are talking about harsh actions designed to elicit information only. We are not talking about punishment. I am talking about interrogation techniques only, and what qualifies as torture.

What would be allowed for purposes of interrogation?

Well, it depends on the circumstances, see ... do you start to see the problem? All humans have certain inalienable rights, we believe that. I would argue that terrorism and waging war against the United States are special cases, designed as they are to tear at the very fabric of our community and attacking our public spaces. We cannot harden every possible target in the U.S. So getting info is rather important, unless you want to pay for hardening every target in the U.S. You see, this is a real problem, not an abstract intellectual exercise.

Things like "humiliating treatment," "degrading treatment," and "cruelty" need to be defined. And everyone draws a line somewhere. Even Mark Shea would say that one thing may be used to apply pressure, but that, that's over the line. And by the way, it doesn't help our cause when our enemies KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO.

Which is one reason the torture debate irritates me the most, and also why I've been trying to ignore it. Our enemies shouldn't be exactly sure what we're willing to do or not do. But that's water under the bridge now.

Now, I understand waterboarding has been declared off limits. I suppose we'll try to live with that. There may be other methods of interrogation just as effective. But it's sure disquieting to know that we've just told the world we won't do it anymore. Thanks, guys.

But I suppose the CIA will have to get very creative in their interrogation techniques. I don't despair. They'll probably come up with something. There's always mind games. We better get good at them.

I've been fisked by Mark Shea.

Utterly surprised by the number of straw men Shea hauls out. It's also difficult to argue when your being fisked both generally and specifically at the same time.

Apparently, Shea doesn't understand the difference between defining terms, and attacking language and truth. We stick up for language and truth on this blog.

Here's what I posted over there in response:

That was quite a rant.

Love ya, Mark. Really. Enjoy yer blog.

But defining terms is not a "gambit" to attack the magisterium of the church. Where did you get that idea? Do you NOT have a definition of torture? Or do you just think yours is right and that's all there is to it? Is the definition up for debate, even if certified elsewhere by the Army? (BTW, I know waterboarding was just made illegal, and it's too bad. We apparently got a lot of good, life-saving info from KSM. So I disagree.)

Don't you realize there's a difference between recognizing a lot of terms are pretty subjective in definitions and being a full-fledged postmodernist?

That said, since you're interested in "gambits" so much, you should know that you've used one of the most manipulative there is -- and that's to confuse general and particular categories when criticizing someone.

If you disagree with my comment, comment in those terms, but don't lump me in with another group of commentators and then criticize the whole at one point, and me at other points. Say, "That's what these dimwits do 'cuz they don't want to admit the truth to themselves."

One thing you might want to do is explain why defining torture is a gambit, without trying to read my mind or determine the state of my soul or make assumptions that I'm trying to get around magisterial teaching, which you can't, you shouldn't and I'm not. Defining terms is an essential part of any discussion. Applying general principles isn't easy. That's not a cop-out, it's reality. Making fun of that is silly. Would you use no techniques whatsoever to pressure suspects during interrogation? Would you use some pressure, depending on what it is? What you use a lot, depending on the circumstances?

This is not a "24" gambit, it's reality. And posting a picture isn't reality, either. Reality's what happens when you get up from your computer.

Next time you criticize me, I'd suggest you don't be so snide. It doesn't make me want to agree with you.

Perhaps I set you off. Seems like I got under your skin. Sorry about that.
IB Bill | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 4:25 pm | #

Only in the last week or so have I seen this guy Keith Olbermann ... and I had a visceral reaction: This guy's a humorless, sanctimonious dirtbag. I can't watch him for more than a few seconds ...

Maybe the problem is his head seems too big for the screen. Maybe if they just pulled the camera back, he'd be more tolerable.

For the record, I can't watch Bill O'Reilly, either. It seems MSNBC thought, hey, let's get a liberal Bill O'Reilly. Problem is, O'Reilly's heart is in the right place. So what you get with Olbermann is obnoxious and wrongheaded.

To paraphrase Harry (and slightly change his meaning): Our public discourse is becoming more and more indistinguishable from professional wrestling.

An American Muslim defends America and Islam here.

Turns out the offensive part of the Mozart production in Germany didn't really have much to do with Mozart and had everything to do with the producer of the avant-garde production.

Here's a good wrap-up.

This is a complex problem. Neuenfels's production takes the easy faux-daring route of "Piss Christ" and the Madonna crucifixion, but at least he had the nerve to hit all religions equality, and not to single out one religion. Perhaps he did that because it wouldn't have made any sense to go after the conventional target of Christianity when it's an opera about the Trojan War. It doesn't make all that much sense to drag Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad into that setting either, but bringing them all in to join their super best friend Poseidon made some kind of crazy sense.

Now that some Muslims have made it painfully obvious that religion-taunting is not an easy game anymore, abandoning it expresses fear, not respect for religion. And continuing to disrespect the religions that don't lash back only highlights that cowardice. Poor transgressive rebel artists! How are they to shock the middle class anymore?

(From Instapundit.)

Bottom line: If you think you're transgressive, let's see you make fun of the Koran and Mohammed the way you've made fun of everything holy and sacred in our own culture. And if you're not willing to take the same kinds of potshots at Islam because you want to "respect Islam," well then how about respecting the rest of us, too?

Note: Yes, I've been tough on Islam, but my point of view is more nuanced than sometimes comes across here. Most religions start good, then go awry. Islam is one of the few that started insane, and then got better (and then worse). That is to say, Islam is a religion, but it's a cultural phenomenon, too. It has by its size and success over centuries and the lived experience of a billion or so Muslims to incorporate and transmit a lot of valuable human knowledge, including spirituality. I've been meaning to write that post for a long time ... I just never seem to get around it.

This quote on the Dhimmi opera house:

Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble also criticized the decision. "We tend to become crazy if we start to forbid Mozart operas being played. We will not accept it," he told a news conference during a visit to Washington.

Okay, so a German politician is telling us that if the Germans don't get their Mozart, they tend to become crazy. Hmmm...

Muslims? Don't get the Germans crazy. You wouldn't like them when they're crazy.

I recently read The Emperor's Children by Claire Messud. Well, I read the first half, and then having figured out where the plot must be going, skipped to the last four chapters.

The book is worth a look. Ms. Messud has done some reporting, and has a good feel for characters. One touch was utterly brilliant ... there is a character who sees himself as a man-about-town, a man of leisure, and he disappears for a while. His friends miss him and wonder what he's up to. He hints at a severe pornography problem. Actually, he's working as a temp secretary. Oh, the shame of it!

Reminds me of one of my favorite jokes. During a class in kindergarten, all the little boys and girls are telling what their parents do for a living. "My mommy's an editor!" "My father's a fireman." "My stepmom's a nurse." But little Johnny Jones says, "My father plays piano in a whorehouse." The teacher banishes the student to the corner for lying, where he cries and proclaims his innocence. A few weeks later, during parent-teacher night, the teacher approaches Mr. Jones.

"You have a sweet boy, Mr. and Mrs. Jones," the teacher says. "But I had to punish Johnny for saying you played piano in a whorehouse! Where did he get that from?"
"That's what I told him," said Mr. Jones.
"Why?" the teacher sputtered.
"I'm a lawyer," said Mr. Jones. "But how am I supposed to explain that to a five-year-old?"

Novels. Cartoons. Academic speeches. And now, Mozart.

Still think there's no price to pay for letting Muslims in a country? Political correctness + cowardice + Islamic intimidation = dhimmitude. Worse, it's self-applied dhimmitude.

Piss on Islamic intimidation. Piss on old time hockey. Piss on Eddie Shore.

I finally get the brand spanking new washing machine hooked up ... and the dryer knob breaks. So the dryer's on borrowed time.

And just for good measure, the front of a kitchen cabinet drawer fell off. Mebbe it'll just have fixed itself by the time I get home.

boy he really lets them dumb-ass maroons in the ole yew es have it. thank the stars fred's here to set us strate. Yep. I feel better already.

Mebbe someone else can figure out what I'm trying to say -- I'm thinking that perhaps ... the U.S., with its mass media, is caught in some kind of weird feedback loop in the War on Terror. Jihadists are fighting, for the most part, a war of attrition, and their focus point is our mass media. In this case, it's similar to Vietnam.

I'm not sure if there's a solution, or if I've identified the problem.

Granted, we tried ignoring the problem ... and that didn't work. But it seems like the media attention the terrorists got is what the terrorists are after. Without that media attention, the rules of the war are different.

I see a lot of stuff about President Bill Clinton, who went a little ballistic on a recent TV interview, as a failure who ignored terrorism. Plenty of blame here, folks. Does the GOP have any responsibility for distracting Clinton from his job by the endless, stupid, moronic, impeachment proceedings?

Of course. Impeachment was pure power politics at the expense of all of us and our national security. There was a time when our political class would have known to overlook indiscretions such as Clinton's. And that would've been the best thing to do.

Clinton may have had flaws, but you know what? I don't care. I believe that he did all he could, knowing what he knew, and hindsight is 20-20. Leave the man alone.

My friend TWS here has had a couple of posts talking about traditionalists as "haters". One concerns a bishop of South Carolina and the other the Archbishop of Canterbury.

TWS explicitly describes the debate in the Episcopal church in terms of hate. "Another face of hatred" is the title of the former post. The second describes Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria as "hateful."

Hate? The Anglican Communion's fuss over homosexuality is not an issue of hatred. It's about sin.

To love, we know, is to will the good for another. That involves knowing The Good (see Plato, all philosophers until Kant). The disagreement among the Anglicans is over the Good. One sees The Good as allowing homosexuals to express their sexuality in the way they choose; the other sees The Good as encouraging men and women to put their same-sex attraction at the foot of the cross and following Christ.

Hatred really isn't the issue, unless you believe that being mistaken about The Good is hatred.

FWIW.