“The fact that waterboarding seems to contravene international law (unless you get a international judge who's willing to legislate from the bench and allow it) suggests a strong presumption against using it.”
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/11/i-wish-i-could-quit-this-discussion_20.html
I’ve responded to this “presumption” on several occasions now. Reppert is merely repeating himself without advancing the original argument in the face of my counterargument.
“But then you have to worry about the Potato Chip Effect (you can't eat just one). A waterboarding program that hits only the right people would be better than one that waterboards people who don't fit the category.”
Does he have any hard evidence to back up that conjecture?
“It doens't look as if our program has done that.”
Once again, does he have any hard evidence to back up that contention?
“You then have to look at the collateral damage caused by the harm to our reputation. Does anyone seriously deny that Abu Ghirab photographs weren't put on al Qaeda recruitment posters?”
Speaking for myself, I regard that as a failure, not of counterintelligence, but the coed military:
http://www.cmrlink.org/culture.asp?docID=225
And I daresay that that’s what Muslims found especially offensive about Abu Ghraib. Not the “torture,” but the nudity and sexual depravity—especially in the presence of female soldiers.
So, if Reppert is so concerned about our reputation in the Muslim world, will he lobby to disband the coed military?
“You have the fact we could be brought to trial for war crimes for doing this.”
How, exactly, is that going to happen? Will the Duchy of Grand Fenwick indict Bush for crimes against humanity and then send its squadron of crop-dusters to escort Air Force One to the Haag?
“The fact that it would be hypocritical of them to do so is beside the point.”
Why is that beside the point? Why should Muslims be held to a lower moral standard? Indeed, isn’t that the source of the problem?
“You have the fact that this requires brutalizing and desensitizing the people who do the waterboarding.”
Being a soldier can be a brutalizing and desensitizing experience. Being a policeman can be a brutalizing and desensitizing experience. Being a prison guard can be a brutalizing and desensitizing experience. Being a surgeon in the ER on Saturday night can be a brutalizing and desensitizing experience.
If Reppert were trying to be philosophically serious rather than philosophically frivolous, he would consider some obvious counterexamples to his argument.
“What happens to our character when preventing an admittedly horrible attack like a repeat 9/11 is so important to us that we treat anybody, even a terror suspect, as a subhuman”
i) To the contrary, we’re treating the terrorist as a moral agent who is responsible for his actions.
ii) By contrast, Reppert is treating Muslims as subhuman by having one standard for Americans and another standard for Muslims.
“The Gonzales memo suggesting that the ‘post 9/11 paradigm’ ‘renders quaint’ some of the provisions of the Geneva conventions is a scary statement.”
Of course, Gonazales is a political hack, so the case for or against coercive interrogation hardly rises or false on the quality of his argumentation.
“It says that because "those people" are the way that are, we shouldn't have to follow the rules we agreed to FOR GOOD REASON (and yes, I am shouting!)”
i) A treaty involves more than one party. Terrorists aren’t party to international conventions since they aren’t even signatories to international conventions. Terrorism is inherently extra-legal. Only nation-states can be signatories to international conventions. Only a legal entity can enter into a legal contract.
ii) The Geneva Accords have a historical context—conventional warfare with conventional POWs. Yes, the passage of time can render that assumption out-of-date.
“When we were attacked, the world sympathized with us.”
Sympathy? You mean, like greeting cards, a box of chocolates, or a bouquet of flowers? How touching!
It’s not as if “the world” is doing us a special favor by cooperating with us in the “war on terror.” The rest of the world has a personal stake in the outcome, too. The rest of the world is more threatened that we are.
“There have been brutal and ruthless enemies before. 9/11 is nowhere near the top of the list of great crimes of the world's history. It's only American conceit that suggests otherwise.”
That’s completely irrelevant to *our* national self-defense. Moreover, the point of the current counteroffensive is to prevent an escalation from 9/11 to a nuclear or biochem attack.
No comments:
Post a Comment