Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (28077)	2/15/2008 2:31:35 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

I'm Going to Burn In Hell Jonah Goldberg The Corner From a reader in response to my column today: <<< Jonah, I would call your latest NRO column a perfect expression of fascist thinking—but that would be mean and intellectually unrespectable, wouldn’t it? So here’s a piece of advice instead: go read The Gulag Archipelago, by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. It will tell you all you need to know about torture. Oh, and one more thing: There’s a word for someone of your ilk arging that something is okay because some Democratic legislators didn’t object: It’s called sophistry. Dude, you’re going to burn in hell. >>> Me: I know it's a waste of everyone's time, but let me offer some quick responses. Line 1: No, it would simply show your ignorance. Line 2: I've read the Gulag Archipelago. It didn't tell me everything I needed to know about torture, it told me almost everything I needed to know about the evil of the Soviet Union. And, guess what? The comparison between the United States and the Soviet Union is idiotic and slanderous. Our recent experience on waterboarding proves exactly that. Line 3: A. I didn't write that waterboarding was okay because some Democratic legislators didn't object. I wrote that waterboarding wasn't carried out as some sort of rogue operation by a cowboy president because (in part) Democratic leaders were briefed. B. Your distortion of what I wrote is in fact a better example of sophistry. C. As William F. Buckley has noted, if you believe in Hell you should at least capitalize it. One last point, I don't like the headline of my column. The syndicate put it on there. "Five Minutes Well Spent" sounds like I think waterboarding is a good or enjoyable thing. I don't. Just as I don't think bombing targets where civilians could die is a good or enjoyable thing. I do think, in very rare circumstances, it might be a necessary thing. And preening pests who take comfort in absolutes and assert that anyone who tries to think these things through is going to burn in Hell do nobody any favors. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (28077)	2/15/2008 2:33:45 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Ethical Conundrum Jonah Goldberg The Corner From a reader: <<< Jonah, I've emailed you previously, so hopefully you know that I am truly conservative - not someone who states that they are a "life-long conservative" before spouting off liberal nonsense. I had a bit of an epiphany last night regarding waterboarding. I have thought of it as not being torture as defined by the Geneva Conventions, etc., and defended it as not torture ad nauseam. My thinking was that it does not create any physical injury and it is only applied for a very short time period, is used sparingly and gets results. First, I have to concede that the time period it is applied, whether it is used sparingly and the fact that it gets results are irrelevant to whether or not the technique is torture. So really, I am left with just the fact that it does not produce any physical injury when used - only psychological harm. However, I was thinking about this last night - using electricity to shock someone for 5 minutes also would not produce any lasting physical injury (depending on voltage, amps). Also, Chinese water torture (dripping a drop of water on someone's forehead) does not produce a physical injury. Yet, I think we would all agree that both of those examples are in fact torture. So, I am left in kind of a conundrum. I can understand why people believe that waterboarding is torture. I believe a very strong case can be made that it is torture under the Geneva Conventions. But, on the flip side, I do want some techniques available that can break a terrorist quickly if needed. >>> Me: I think this is an entirely humane and morally serious quandary. And I largely share it. Hence my frustration with some of the readers who insist that I'm rah-rah for waterboarding (though, as I suggested below, if all you read was the headline, you might get that sense). I really don't like that we've done it. I don't like the idea that we might ever do it again. But I also find the explosion of sanctimony and righteousness about the issue very frustrating. That's one reason why I focused on the slippery slope point. Most of the people complaining about waterboarding don't dwell on the people who were actually waterboarded (in much the same way that death penalty opponents usually ignore the obviously guilty and evil people on death row). Instead, they conjure dark predictions about the "direction" of the country. Well, we did it three times (according to Mukasey) and while I think you can defensibly argue that we shouldn't have even done it those three times, I don't think you can argue that America lost its soul or is well on its way to becoming akin to the Soviet Union. My own quandary is that I'm a big believer in settled dogma. And I think having the question of torture permanently settled on the anti-torture side is a good and healthy thing. On the other hand, we now have this debate because life has thrust it upon us and distinctions need to be made. Personally, I could live quite happily with a permanent and complete ban on waterboarding (we're almost there now). But if I was president of the United States would I want an out in case of a ticking time bomb situation? Absolutely. corner.nationalreview.com