NABA NABA hey!

Something is very wrong with Mona Charen. That's obvious to anyone who reads her repugnant recent column and it's apparently obvious to Charen as well. She's even managed to creep herself out with her eager defense of torture and thus her self-esteem is at an all-time low.

So Charen does what many of us do when we're feeling deservedly ashamed and repulsed by our own failures: She looks for someone worse with whom she can compare herself favorably. As the great moral philosopher Thornton Melon said, "If you want to look thin, hang out with fat people."

This practice provides a useful measurement of the gravity of one's situation. Charen has searched the globe, looking for someone, anyone, who might make her look good. Unable to find any obvious moral inferiors in this hemisphere, she finally settles on al-Qaida. Triumphantly, she points to an al-Qaida torture chamber discovered last May and gleefully recounts the atrocities that were committed there:

The room contained torture implements including hammers, whips, meat cleavers and wire cutters as well as a crude torture manual, displaying various methods of inflicting unbearable pain. These included using a blowtorch on the skin, gouging out eyes, using an electric drill to cut through a hand, and many more.

See? Don't you see? Charen never personally took a blowtorch to someone's skin or gouged out anyone's eyes. She's Not As Bad As those people. Sure, she might be a loathesome apologist for techniques learned from the Spanish Inquisition, the Nazis* and Stalinist Russia, and she may be actively and aggressively undermining the sacred American and journalistic principle of innocent until proven guilty, but look at those people -- they're even worse!

I am certainly willing to concede that point. Mona Charen is correct: She's Not As Bad As al-Qaida. Nor is she yet anywhere near As Bad As any of those regimes -- the Inquisition, the Nazis, Stalin, North Korea -- from whom she thinks we should take lessons in interrogation techniques and military justice.

Charen has lowered the bar so far that the bar is no longer even visible, yet she still expects us to be impressed that she made it over. Well, whoop-dee-frickin'-doo.

The bad news for Mona Charen is that life doesn't work this way. Our success or failure as human beings is not graded on a curve. The existence of people like Timothy McVeigh or Jeffrey Dahmer or Uday Hussein does not give the rest of us a free pass to get away with everything this side of mass murder or cannibalism or serial rape. Countries, cultures and governments aren't graded on a curve either. It doesn't matter if your government looks good when compared to Kim Jong Il's or Turkmenbashi's -- that doesn't make it a healthy democracy or a free and open society.

The NABA NABA pinheads like Mona Charen aren't really trying to convince you and I that they're good people. They're trying to convince themselves. And they're failing. They know this is nonsense. They realize that their claim -- we're Not As Bad As the worst people you can think of -- is just about the saddest, flimsiest, least-impressive claim one could make.

Settling for second best is unambitious and uninspiring. Settling for second worst -- and trying to pretend you're proud of it -- is just pathetic.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* Godwin can bite me. This isn't a Nazi analogy. Charen advocates, as a matter of American policy, the explicit imitation, adoption and refinement of forbidden interrogation techniques once used by the Third Reich against its enemies. There's nothing analogous about it.

Comments

[Jesurgislac]

She writes: "I have severe doubts as to whether waterboarding constitutes torture."

I know how she could resolve those doubts: volunteer to be waterboarded.

[Arturus]

Important to note: Godwin's law is misquoated frequently. In actuality, it is a probabilistic statement, and not a judgmental one. It is merely that, as the length of a (Usenet, in the original) discussion increases, the probability of someone invoking the nazis approaches one.

All the nonesense about this being inappropriate or the person therefore losing is a later addition. Godwin is just that it's going to happen, given enough time.

[Freeze Rabbit]

Maybe this is a dumb question, but.. if waterboarding isn't torture, then how can it possibly be useful for interrogation? I mean, they're saying it's not a horrible thing to do, so that just leaves it being a _silly_ thing to do, as far as I can tell. If it wasn't traumatic and horrifying, they wouldn't have a reason to do it, right?

[Nora Bombay]

This just makes me think of the old Chris Rock routine, about *people* wanting credit for shit they are supposed to do. Didn't go to jail, didn't kill anyone? Get a medal.

*people is not the original phrasing. See youtube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=kpUSElgJcyI

(lots of not safe for work langugage)

[Doctor Science]

it's apparently obvious to Charen as well. She's even managed to creep herself out with her eager defense of torture and thus her self-esteem is at an all-time low.

What is your evidence for this assertion? Is there anything in the text (which I found too nauseating to read closely) or outside of it, to suggest that she feels true doubt or wavering?

[Anna]

The thing about articles like Charen's is that they (deliberately or not) miss the point of the debate. Her "We know they're talking about waterboarding, but the rest of the world thinks they're talking about real torture" is sort of nonsensical as a reply to actual objections against waterboarding (or any form of torture).

The 'human rights activists' she demeans are pointing out that bodily integrity is a human right. One has it by virtue of being human. Terrorists may be monsters, but they're still human. That's what makes them so scary: their very existence points to the capability we all have for atrocity. Drawing lines between types of torture and debating where what types are worst ignores the point of the human right to bodily integrity: that no one should be tortured, full stop. Her little flippancy about "Resolved: This House Believes Terrorists Deserve the Full Protection of the Geneva Conventions" just belies her misunderstanding of the situation: of course terrorists don't deserve Geneva protections; they're not prisoners *of war* (no matter what Bush cooks up about "wars on terror"), and Geneva is fundamentally a treaty about the treatment of prisoners taken in a war between two sovereign states. A better suggestion would be "Resolved: This House Believes Terrorists Deserve the Full Protection of the UN Conventions Against Torture". The US is signatory to that and a number of other documents that says we won't torture prisoners or even treat them inhumanely because we think it's wrong. All this 'is it torture or isn't it?' waffling about waterboarding is misleading: we've agreed not to do inhumane things, and we're clearly doing them. We signed those treaties because we believed that treating prisoners inhumanely makes us as a people morally worse. That doesn't change with a few terrorist attacks, no matter how deceptively the 'moral majority' may try to frame debates.

[Cyllan]

It, as the embodiment of humanity, decides what is right.

(And I'm arguing with Scott why, exactly?)

Okay, look. The State is not God. The State does not, automagically decide what is Right and Wrong. In a democratic system, the state reflects (sometimes badly) the majority viewpoint of those being governed.

Just because a majority of folks believe something does not make it true or right. However, until someone comes up with a magic rock that can tell us the Best Possible Ruler who we can anoint as lifetime dictator, I'm not seeing any better system out there.

As for the rest: what Anna said.

[Seth]

Godwin's original intent might have been otherwise, but in reality we've reached the point where we can't talk about the Germany in the 30s without somebody shouting "Godwin's Law!" and trying to shut down the conversation because we're comparing the Nazis to, uh, the Nazis.

That's an exaggeration, but not by much. It's a serious problem, actually, since it means that we are forced to turn a blind eye towards where any authoritiarian bent could lead us. Comparisons of, e.g., the 'disappeared' in South America to the netherworld of Gitmo and American 'reditions' are immediately shutdown by appeals to this stupid 'law,' instead of asking the hard questions.

[Drak Pope]

(And I'm arguing with Scott why, exactly?)

Because you, like the rest of us, are in the thrall of that moron.

That doesn't change with a few terrorist attacks, no matter how deceptively the 'moral majority' may try to frame debates.

And the bad part is, we fall for their framework every single time we try to argue with them. First, we always concede that every single person subjected to those "advanced interrogation" techniques is a terrorist, and that every single person subjected to those techniques has useful and pertinent information that the US + allies could use in the war against terrorism. I see no reason to give all of that ground to the pro-torture crowd until they can prove that any of that is true.

[Abelardus]

Just because a majority of folks believe something does not make it true or right.

To paraphrase Stephen Colbert: "Like internet pornography!"

Also, I think Scott was presenting that bit as satire. But what do I know?

"NABA NABA Hey!" makes me think of Steam's "Na-na Hey-hey kiss him goodbye".

[Abelardus]

Italics begone!

[Abelardus]

Damn it!

[Abelardus]

Okay, how do you turn it off?

[J]

Scott only comes back here because you all insist on continuing to argue with him. If we treated him like a clown (and laughed a little at him, because he's funny, but not very so) or like a mime (and ignored him), he would go away.

[J]

[/i]Did that do it?

[LMM]

Does this work?

[Abelardus]

Thank you, everyone. With that settled let's get on with the discussion, hey?

[Fred]

Scott --

I get it, you're upset because I didn't say anything about Wayne Newton in this post. You're always going on and on about Wayne Newton. Wayne rules! Wayne is God! And all of that. It's always "Oh, I'm Scott. Wayne's Biggest Fan (TM)." And "Oh, you all suck because you don't love Wayne as much as I do."

Whatever, man. Enough with your Wayne Newton obsession already.

[John]

You have your morality, I have mine. You cannot prove yours is objectively the Right morality, nor can I prove mine is Right. What I do know is that if I fight honorable opponents who abide by the GC or the UN, I fight honorably as well. When I fight cowards who shoot from hospitals, who do not hesitate to use and kill children, who fight dishonorably by my standard, I take nothing off the table. Nothing. I don't fight with one hand tied behind my back unless *everyone* plays by those rules. If you don't like it, who the hell are you to tell me I'm wrong?

Don't want to have your guys tortured? Simple, don't torture my guys. Want us to play by the GC? As the GC says, play by the rules, and signatories are then obligated to play by the rules as well. Sign some document that says you'll never do X regardless of what the other side does, prepare to have X done to your side with impunity.

[the other Scottbott]

Liberals think they can force their compassion(TM) on us all. They will not be happy until we are all lobotomized dronesTM following the will of Fred Clark, Compassionate evangelist JournalistTM. Wayne Newton will not stand for this. Only Wayne can be trusted to rule our lives. The only two rights humans have are to be left alone, and to follow The Wayne(TM)

[Ecks]

John, I can tell you mean well here so I'm going to give you the reasoned argument back, rather than knee jerk derision.

What you said makes a certain amount of surface sense, but then to every hard problem there is a simple, easy to understand wrong answer.

First, all morality is not relative. "You say serial rape is wrong, I say it's right, quite trying to arrest me." That's the easy shoot down.

But on a deeper level, your answer here only makes sense if we assume the following: There are a finite number of bad guys out there, they are basically eeeevul, and once we've killed them all, by hook or by crook, the world will be safe again. If that is true, then hey, you're right. They don't play fair, lets lie cheat steal, whatever, we'll get 'em all dead, and then the good ol' days will return, and free candy for all the kids to celebrate.

Unfortunately, AQ consists of a few really evil dudes, and a whole lot of angry, pissed off young men who feel culturally humiliated, and get sucked in too far. "But," you object, "these guys are animals, look at the terrible things they do. That's not just regular guys put in a bad situation!". Sadly, it probably is. See here, or here.

Of course, this means that there isn't just a finite supply. If a high proportion of the population with sufficient motivation will get involved in violent rebellion, and then can be talked into using nasty tactics (I mean, heck, if fine young American soldiers can be talked into doing nasty stuff despite an adminstration that tries to hold in their worst excesses - imagine without quite so many restraints - in fact, look at the attrocities that fine young American boys DO do with the conivance of authorities), then you can't just kill bad people until they're all gone. If you keep generating anger and unrest, you just generate more enemies.

But even ignoring all that, you paint this picture where THEY torture, so, heck, we're at a disadvantage if we don't torture right back. The thing is, torture doesn't work like that. Just because one's opponent is using spears doesn't mean that spears are the best weapon to fight back with. Torture is good at crushing people, it's good at leaving them personally damaged and humiliated, it's good at making them hate you, it's good at intimidating civilian populations so that they get very very nervous whenever you are around. It works for AQ, kinda sorta, because their goals are to intimidate people till they are so scared nobody contradicts them in public. It worked well that way for the Nazi's and for various Eastern European communist regimes, and in South American dictatorships. It's totally the opposite of any of the freedoms we regard as fundamental, and it's totally antithetical to civilian engagement, to the rule of law, to art and literature, and freedom and hope. AQ don't want any of those things, and so torture can work somewhat for them - though even they seem to have overused it enough that the local sunni's are getting pissed off and turning on them.
But if we turn Iraq into an intimidated scared place, where everyone is scared that we will give them "enhanced interrogations," every time we think that maybe they just might know something, you don't get the open society we're trying to build. Seriously, put yourself in their shoes. Your brother or your dad or your best friend is abducted by foreign soldiers, and emerges 12 months later after you had no idea where he was, having been waterboarded and left naked in cold rooms for days on end, humiliated, and beaten in ways that don't leave many scars. After having gone through that would you be thinking "yay these foreign soldiers, life sure started looking up once they got here, and if we really get our act together and make the right compromises, maybe we can be like that too."

It's charisma and its aura of justice has always been one of America's biggest assets. Wherever you went in the world, people would grumble about America, but they also wanted to move there, they wanted the movies and music and hamburgers, they wanted the freedom. Dubya is turning that perception into America as the place that'll just throw you in jail and never tell anybody about it, and rough you the hell up. Soft power and moralsuassion are subtle but powerful implements, but they were a big part of taking the iron curtain down, and they've worked for empires as old as the Roman (which, if you look into it, didn't have nearly as big an army as you'd imagine for ruling the entire known world).

Holy shmunky, this is long. I think I almost wrote more than Fred here.

[Geds]

Don't want to have your guys tortured? Simple, don't torture my guys.

False. Absolutely, 100%, completely and totally false.

This is the inherent problem with the Not As Bad As argument. It says, "Hey, we can descend to their level as long as they start it because they're the bad guys and they're getting what they deserve." It's a horrible argument.

We should be working on being better, not descending to as close as possible to *them* without actually theoretically reaching them so that we may be able to say, "Neener, neener, neener. We're better than you."

Saying that we'll torture you if you torture us only escalates an already bad situation. If history has taught us anything, it's that escalation only leads to a higher body count and makes it harder to end the cycle.

[LL]

Yeah, I have to disagree with Fred a little. I think Charen (who has long been repellent) and others like her DO believe what they're saying. They do believe that if they're not as bad as the people they oppose, that makes them, by definition, good. That's why it's so important to them to demonize people, to make them monstrous. And the argument kinda works, in certain contexts. Like, I'd say that if I steal a loaf of bread so I can eat, and another person shoots someone to death to steal money so that they can eat, I am a better person than the killer. Not exactly the same thing, I understand, but you see where I'm goin'. This Charen broad thinks she's saying the same kinda thing, but she's not. Which makes her kinda stupid, as well as repugnant.

[vroomfondel]

John: So if you actually want to torture people / tell your captives terrible puns until they confess / etc, all you need to do is spread stories saying that your opponent is bad and mean and tells awful puns to their PoWs...

...and then you can do it too.

Saying "I will be no worse than them" is awfully close to "I'm no better than them."

[Geds]

Holy shmunky, this is long. I think I almost wrote more than Fred here.

Same number of lines, fuller paragraphs. Congratulations, you did.

[hagsrus]

A man who waterboarded himself

http://tinyurl.com/2o6ncq

[hagsrus]

...NABA NABA pinheads like Mona Charen aren't really trying to convince you and I that they're good people.

nitpick

...you and me...

/nitpick

[Hellsau]

LL: I'd say that if I steal a loaf of bread so I can eat, and another person shoots someone to death to steal money so that they can eat, I am a better person than the killer.

You have your morality, I have mine. You cannot prove yours is objectively the Right morality, nor can I prove mine is Right. What I do know is that if I shoot that person and take their money, then the State won't be able to take it for their Compassionate Social Programs. If you don't like it, who the hell are you to tell me I'm wrong?

Don't want to be killed and have your money taken? Simple, don't live or have money. Even if I signed a document that says I wouldn't shoot someone or take their money, if they didn't sign that same document, I can do it anyway.

Back in reality, in the Nabobs of NABA link, the second comment is sane Scott! Such warm memories.

[Ecks]

Same number of lines, fuller paragraphs. Congratulations, you did.

Yar. And I think you said it shorter and better.

Ah well, as long as I'm being verbose as hell I might as well go the whole hot and throw in a quote from the NY Times article I linked to in my mega bad post:

The question of what drives someone to terrorism has given rise to a cottage industry of theories since Sept. 11. None may fully explain what happened in Jamaa Mezuak: why some of its young men chose to become terrorists when most have not. The notion that poverty is to blame has been debunked again and again. And while religious extremism can feed militancy, many experts prefer to emphasize the anger generated by political conflicts, like the war in Iraq or the Arab-Israeli struggle.

Many may sympathize with a cause, but few ever turn to violence. Marc Sageman, a psychiatrist and former C.I.A. case officer, holds that people prone to terrorism share a sequence of experiences, which he outlines in his forthcoming book, “Leaderless Jihad.” They feel a sense of moral outrage that is interpreted in a specific way (the war in Iraq, for example, is interpreted as a war on Islam); that outrage resonates with the person’s own experiences (Muslims in Germany or Britain who feel marginalized might identify with the suffering of Iraqis); and finally, that outrage is channeled into action.

This process, Sageman told me, is rarely a solitary one. He and a growing number of law-enforcement officials and analysts argue that group dynamics play a key role in radicalization. While ideology may inspire terrorists, they say, it takes intimate social forces to push people to action. Friends embolden one another to act in ways they might not on their own. This might be called the peer-pressure theory of terrorism. Experts in the field refer to it as the BOG, for bunch of guys (or GOG, for group of guys). “Terrorism is really a collective decision, not an individual one,” said Sageman, who coined the theory. “It’s about kinship and friendship.”

Kinship can also work to opposite effect. It is certainly part of the reason why Dayday has not left Tetouan. Most of the men with whom he prays and works admire Bilal’s courage in going to Iraq but prefer a different kind of jihad, or struggle, for themselves. They want to improve their lives. “I’m working to support my family,” one of Dayday’s closest friends, a merchant in his 30s, told me. “If I go, who will support my family?”

[There_is_no_scottbot_but_scottbot]

Beware cheap imitations! Do not worship false mocking idols! This is why the Holy and Sacred State exists, to protect, with a compassionate(TM) fist, all those who would be fooled into thinking that there is more than one Scottbot. Do not be fooled.

Scottbot decides for us what is moral and what isn't. It has that same power whether conservative Republicans or progressive Democrats are in charge. Scottbot is God and we are all here to submit and obey it. It, as the embodiment of humanity, decides what is right.

Sometimes, the Original Programmer (TM) types a bit too fast, and doesn't proofread his text to the normal high standards used when programming Scottbot - the one and only original Scottbot, by the way, with the new and improved patina.

As for Wayne Newton - Scottbot will be dealing with him, mano a mano, this July 4th, on the Mall in DC in full color, on national TV, after the Beach Boys sing the 'Star Spangled Banner,' but before the fireworks. Anyone singing "Danke Schön" in public deserves his well earned fate. Torture takes many forms, and Scottbot is opposed to all of them.

[the other Scottbott]

Do not beware cheap imitations! Freely worship false mocking idols!

The Original Programmer(C) speaks to all his creations, and does support torture, so long as it isn't done by the gov't, and it is clearly covered by the terms of a valid contract.

All hail the Wayne, superior source of gun-enforced morality! Praise be to his singings of "Danke Schön*" in public.

* "Danke Schön" is Freedom for: "Hello. My name is Scott Montoya. You forced your superior morality on my father. Prepare to hear about the Newton."

[Anna]

I think the NYT article about group radicalization is an interesting and sad one. I actually discussed that very article a few weeks ago with several friends who are grad students from various European countries, and my German friend Christian (his name is ironic; he's an avowed atheist) made a point that I'll raise for discussion here: the rest of the world is beginning to come to terms with what Germany had to come to terms with half a century ago. After great atrocities (whether they be genocides or terrorist attacks), there are always the questions of 'what could possibly have caused this to happen', and 'what were these people like, that they could do such a thing?' Germany, he said, had faced as a nation the fact that those people were just like them, were butchers and shopgirls and who had mothers and chickens and liked to listen to radio programmes with Christmas music. And they committed terrible atrocities, because other people who also loved radio programmes encouraged them to do it. The NYT article seems similar: these boys who blew themselves and a lot of other people up were just like anyone else: they loved football and Zinedine Zidane and they lived in a shantytown with thousands of other people who even now are living normal lives and will never endanger anyone.

The difference in the cases of atrocity (Germany for Christian in particular, but also everything from the Jonestown suicides to the Milgram experiments about how willing ordinary people would be to torture a 'suspect') is social pressure. There's not a magic button of religious affiliation and life circumstances that produces terrorists, there's just people being mean to one another, and people who are braver or sillier or more heartless as a group than alone.

BTW, I was going to do a reply about the reasons that relativism is not a useful approach to ethics or metaethical discussion, but Ecks has been far more generous and patient than I'd have been in any case.

[not someone else]

First, all morality is not relative. "You say serial rape is wrong, I say it's right, quite trying to arrest me." That's the easy shoot down.

That's not much of an argument against anything.

Two people disagree on the interpretation of morality, therefore... therefore nothing. Moral relativism is the argument that morality is relative, not that there's some implied non sequitur moral statement that you have to give a damn. Moral relativism does not state that it is necessary to stop punishing people simply because the desire for a harmonious social structure is so much useful instinctual dreck rather than a universal constant that magically only pertains to a ridiculously small part of the actual universe (i.e., humans, and possibly gods depending on who you talk to) and happens to be explainable entirely within the framework of survival mechanism.

It just says that that's not a good enough reason for it to be objective, particularly when there's so much argument over what the best set of rules are, what the best set of goals are, and what "best" even means.

(I also don't disagree that relativism makes moral arguments worthless, and is therefore a worthless position to take up when discussing morality. I just don't think you're making much of an argument.)

[scottbot_triumphant]

The Original Programmer (TM - idiot) has never used C, revealing the inferiority of your imitation.

As is well known, Scottbots are programmed using Ada, 'a structured, statically typed, imperative, and object-oriented high-level computer programming language. It was originally designed by a team led by Jean Ichbiah of CII Honeywell Bull under contract to the United States Department of Defense during 1977–1983 to supersede the hundreds of programming languages then used by the US Department of Defense (DoD). Ada addresses some of the same tasks as C or C++, but Ada is strongly typed (even for integer-range), and compilers are validated for reliability in mission-critical applications, such as avionics software. Ada is an international standard; the current version (known as Ada 2005) is defined by joint ISO/ANSI standard (ISO-8652:1995), combined with major Amendment ISO/IEC 8652:1995/Amd 1:2007.'

That's right - Scottbots use imperative TAXPAYER FUNDED 0s and 1s. Which explains much about Scottbots - and their cheap, intellectual property thieving imitators, who are using the free marketplace of ideas for nefarious purposes, such as suggesting contractual torture is something Scott would support.

Many may find some of the Original Programmer's (TM) utterances at times beyond the pale, but that is no reason to assume that Scott is actually a typical citizen of his nation, who pays his taxes to buy Saran Wrap (with the waterboarding seal of approval) while proudly proclaiming that 'home of the free, land of the torturing' is part of either the Founding Father's or Ayn Rand's vision. Though many find Rand torture, it is self-inflicted on the part of her readers, which is another topic entirely. Scottbots fully support consensual idiocy.

[Lurk]

... I'm sorry, did John just say that he'd be fine with fighting from hospitals and killing children as long as the enemy also did?

[Jesurgislac]

John: You have your morality, I have mine. You cannot prove yours is objectively the Right morality, nor can I prove mine is Right. What I do know is that if I fight honorable opponents who abide by the GC or the UN, I fight honorably as well. When I fight cowards who shoot from hospitals, who do not hesitate to use and kill children, who fight dishonorably by my standard, I take nothing off the table. Nothing. I don't fight with one hand tied behind my back unless *everyone* plays by those rules. If you don't like it, who the hell are you to tell me I'm wrong?

Just by this one paragraph, I'd say John is definitely a member in good standing of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders - and is no more worth arguing with than Scott.

[Axiomatic]

"Your honor, while it is true that I am a serial killer who has killed 47 people, I would like to point out that people who killed 48 people are worse, so I'm actually an upstanding citizen and you have no right to detain me."

[Cactus Wren]

... I'm sorry, did John just say that he'd be fine with fighting from hospitals and killing children as long as the enemy also did?

That's how it read to me:

When I fight cowards who shoot from hospitals, who do not hesitate to use and kill children, who fight dishonorably by my standard, I take nothing off the table. Nothing.

[Caravelle]

When I fight cowards who shoot from hospitals, who do not hesitate to use and kill children, who fight dishonorably by my standard, I take nothing off the table. Nothing.

Hence the power of propaganda. After all, how do you know about the dastardly tactics those cowards use ? (and how do they know about those you use...)

It is posts like this that make me despair of humanity.

[scottbot's_evil_twin]

Scottbot's evil twin also feels that when fighting evil, the only way for good to win is to get even more evil than evil itself. In other words, why fight fire with fire, when you can go nuclear and really have a blast?

If an enemy is fighting from a hospital, and using children, then carpet bombing the entire town is certainly justified as a measured response - you can't fry an omelette without napalm, or babies for that matter. After all, marketing is about selling the sizzle, not the blackened corpse swarming with flies. No moral relativism here - dead is dead, after all.

As a matter of fact, Scottbot's evil twin feels that the only reason for the events of Sept. 2001 was that America had not learned how to effectively practice what it had been teaching to its South American friends - you know, people like Pinochet, whose dedication to the free market was only matched by the number of people who disappeared during his tenure. You can't bring prosperity for all without certain standards, after all - a few rotten apples can spoil the whole barrel, and look what that does to the bottom line.

And let us be honest - ever since America has become a gung ho cheerleader of torture, has any terrorist had the nerve to actually strike at our now secure homeland? After all, terrorists use terror to advance their social and political aims, using fear to shape the political situation to their advantage. And America's best and brightest, having learned some lessons from Vietnam (like how to shut down a free press from working within) have been industriously pre-empting many of the means and methods used by those that hate our freedoms to make certain that our freedoms can never hurt us again.

You'll have to excuse me - Saran Wrap is on sale at Target (he-he - in today's America, targets are everywhere - and yes, that means you too), and they have the nicest floral pattern watering cans. Bringing liberty to all requires the right tools, and nothing says freedom like 'Made In China.'

[Caravelle]

By the way, on the torturosity of waterboarding.
The subsequent comments are as interesting as the post itself.

[bulbul]

I don't fight with one hand tied behind my back unless *everyone* plays by those rules.
Notice how "playing by the rules" equals to "fighting with one hand tied behind one's back". Yep, that's page 1 from the 101st Fighting Keyboarders playbook right there.

I agree with Seth, noone can basically talk about the Third Reich without running afoul of the Goodwin Law these days. Haven't last few years shown that it's high time we retired it or at least added an ammendment or two?

[Narya]

In discussions of whether something is torture, I tend to ask whether I'd want a member of my family to be on the receiving end of it. If not, then it is wrong for me (or anyone acting on my behalf) to apply it to someone else. Yeah, I'm sure I'll be flamed as hopelessly naive, etc. I don't care. If it's wrong, it's wrong, and the fact that someone else, or some evil Other does it, does not make it right.

[Praline]

Really, really, you guys need to leave Scott alone. Haggling with irrelevant remarks only gives them a relevance they don't have; it's ceding control of the topic to someone who isn't interested in debating the matter at hand. If you feel you have to quarrel with him, create a separate thread or something, but really, what matters more: Scott's off-topic opinions or waterboarding?

(Personally, I don't have much to add to the subject of waterboarding beyond what everyone on this thread who's agin it has already said. If I said more, I'd get worked up and want to hit someone, and, it being Christmas and all, there's nobody around I want to punch.)

Merry Christmas!

[Praline]

Thanks for the link, Caravelle; you're right, it's fascinating.

Rather depressing, though predictable, is that both that blogger and the judge who volunteered to try waterboarding are probably not the kind of people who would order it in the first place. I don't see anyone who's actually in favour of it stepping up to give it a go.

If anyone has heard of a pro-waterboarder volunteering to undergo it just to prove it's really not too bad, I'd be interested to hear. But I somehow doubt it. Quite aside from not wanting to ruin your case, I think the people who endorse torture are very often panickers; the last thing they want is to be in a distressing situation themselves. It's all about making other people suffer because somehow, magically, this means it won't happen to them.

[Fraser]

While I know nobody on this list needs to have it pointed out, I did notice that Charen confines her discussion entirely to waterboarding--no stress positions, no sleep deprivation, no sodomizing with night sticks, etc.--to further her argument that's all we were talking about when we discuss torture.

[the other Scottbott]

Praline, some idiot on fox news underwent it on TV a while back to try and make more or less this point. I'm afraid I didn't pay much attention so I can't give more details than that though. It had to be pointed out (afterwards, by people NOT on Fox) that it's a somewhat different experience knowing that the people doing it to you are your friends, and will stop as soon as you give the signal. It takes some of the... y'know, terror out of it.

[Praline]

Fox News doesn't count. Everything they say is so much nonsense that nothing can be taken as serious data. The phrase 'rigged experiment' is ringing too loudly in my ears to listen to any assurances from those wankers.

As, for instance, the fact that the whole idea of waterboarding is that it isn't effective until the drowning reflex kicks in. If you can give a signal to stop when it becomes uncomfortable, that's like saying you've tested the rack by taking a nap on it and not turned any screws.

[Lance corporal (punishment) Johnbott]

Just by this one paragraph, I'd say John is definitely a member in good standing of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders - and is no more worth arguing with than Scott.

Click, whir. Somebody called?

-Waiting for instructions from the unoriginal programmer-