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 (30207)	4/22/2009 5:51:34 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

On Prisoners of War — And Blogging Jonah Goldberg The Corner This post elicited an enormous amount of churn in my email box last night and this morning [see the post this is in reply to], particularly in response to the second emailer who chastised me for posting an email containing a "morally rotten" argument from a military historian, and for not criticizing it myself. First some responses from folks who don't like the cut of the second emailer's jib. The point missed by your contrarian is that the Arabs captured and interrogated by Wingate were not Prisoners of War. By any definition, they were at best unlawful combatants, and at worst brigands. Either of whom qualify as "hosti humani generalis" subject to being summarily shot. All quite moral. All quite legal. From another military historian: <<< Mr. Goldberg, The morally self-righteous commenter who snarkily, but ignorantly, upbraided the military analyst either didn't understand, or dishonestly chose to ignore, a central distinction: who qualifies as a prisoner of war. A century ago, the summary execution of spies and guerrillas would not have been considered, a priori, an outrage. The outrage would have largely depended on whether a person agreed, or not, with the aims of the spy or guerilla being executed. The Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva July 27, 1929 created the framework for treatment of PoWs. The original intent was to provide a safe harbor for combatants who followed the laws of war. Although I do not have enough information to judge, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that the Arab executed by Major Wingate did not fall within the bounds of those afforded the protections of the Geneva Convention as interpreted at that time. In no small part owing to Nazi atrocities, subsequent protocols in 1958, and after, basically defined everyone as a lawful combatant or civilian, thus making the whole thing pretty meaningless. I believe this was a dreadful error because if everyone receives the treatment accorded a PoW regardless of adherence to the laws of war, then the Geneva Convention ceases to have a meaningful, practical impact. Aside from propaganda and world opinion, those who choose to operate outside the bounds of civilized world opinion have no disincentive to treat captives in any manner they see fit. As with your snarky ignorant reader, I am afraid the preponderance of concern during this evolution has been the perceived moral righteousness of those reinterpreting the rules rather than with the protection of combatants or civilians in conflicts. >>> But here's another contrarian response: <<< Your contrarian might have mentioned the verdict on Wingate of Churchill’s personal physician Lord Moran, who recorded in his diaries: "[Wingate] seemed to me hardly sane —- in medical jargon a borderline case." He ate whole raw onions as others (the sound of mind) might eat oranges and attempted suicide in 1941 by stabbing himself in the neck. Are you sure that the self-styled “historian and military analyst” wasn’t an elaborate and ill-intentioned spoof on NRO? >>> Me: Now, as far as me not offering an editorial opinion on each link or email I post, we've been around this horn a few times. I don't think I always have to do that. Sometimes I think an email is interesting. I post it with comment. Sometimes I post it without comment. My motives vary. Sometimes, I haven't figured out what I think of the email or link and want to hear from readers. Sometimes I know what I think, but also know that if I say it I will hear from bazillions of readers and I'm not in the mood. Sometimes, I think it's obvious what I think without me having to say so. Regardless of my motive, I hold fast to my conviction that this is an incredibly minor problem in the universe. I hardly think what this republic suffers from most conspicuously is a shortage of instances where I express my opinions. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (30207)	4/22/2009 7:29:03 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

"It Doesn't Work" Cont'd Jonah Goldberg The Corner Damon Linker has an interesting post about Leo Strauss and the torture debate. But what I find worth mentioning in light of yesterday's discussion, is that he offers an obligatory gesture toward the "it doesn't work argument." This strikes me as an unnecessary genuflection to a liberal argument that undermines his actual discussion. Moreover, he offers no evidence that it's true. He does link to this post by Democratic activist Matt Yglesias in which Yglesias offers no evidence that torture doesn't work either. Instead he basically says you don't have to bother trying to find such evidence because he's basically figured it out already. But he makes a hash of that. The point of these interrogations isn't to get "false confessions" or confessions of any kind. It's to get intelligence you can check against other intelligence. Yglesias is surely right that those interrogated say many false things, but they say true things too, which can be verified. This is a point Mukasey, Hayden and others have made many times now and yet the opponents of these interrogation methods seem determined to ignore it. Again, I have no objection to the moral argument against torture — if you honestly believe something amounts to torture. But the "it doesn't work" line remains a cop out, no matter how confidently you bluster otherwise. corner.nationalreview.com