"Torture" and Misplaced Distrust

“I'm not sure what the morbid fascination is.”

http://contemporarycalvinist.blogspot.com/2007/12/torture-and-misplaced-trust.html

Well, Lee, I guess it goes something like this. The jihadis have declared war on America. In order to defend ourselves, we need counterintelligence. In order to obtain counterintelligence, we must sometimes interrogate those in the know for information.

Congress is trying to outlaw waterboarding. Therefore, the morality and utility of waterboarding becomes a pertinent topic of conversation.

“But the boys at Triablogue are still praising the use of torture.”

Please supply direct verbatim quotes where we praise the use of torture.

“I guess knowing that a suspected terrorist is being waterboarded (or worse) thousands of miles away.”

Where have we argued that distance is a factor one way or the other?

BTW, do you think that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is merely a “suspected” terrorist? Do you think that Abu Zubaida is merely a “suspected” terrorist?

“Somehow makes them feel safe.”

That may have something to do with the fact that I’ve cited cases in which the use of interrogation was said to yield information that allowed us to intercept terrorist attacks in the pipeline. What, exactly, are you taking issue with?

“Just remember this: the government you trust to protect you now.”

Where have I said that I “trust” the government to protect me? This is not a question of “trust.” I judge gov’t claims on a case-by-case basis.

I do happen to think we have some honorable men and women serving in gov’t. Do you think all our soldiers and CIA and NSA and FBI agents are untrustworthy? Gov’t is just a bunch of people. It is not something over and above the people who comprise it.

Do you think we should disband the American military and retreat into the Smokey Blue hills?

“Is the same government that was completely powerless to protect anyone on September 11, 2001.”

What makes you think our gov’t was “powerless” to protect us on 9/11? There are various things the gov’t could have done to prevent 9/11, like tightening up student visas or taking Bin Laden out of action, &c.

The fact that the gov’t failed to do its job in no way implies that it was powerless to do so.

“It's also the same government that saw to it that no one on board those planes could protect themselves.”

And what are you referring to, exactly? Are you saying that the flight crew and/or certain passengers (e.g. law enforcement officers, citizens with concealed weapons permits) should be allowed to carry firearms on board in order to defend themselves against a hijacking?

If so, I don’t object to your contention, but it’s a bit superficial to blame the ban on the gov’t, don’t you think? Why not blame the electorate? Voters could insist on arming the flight crew, &c.

So do you also distrust the electorate? What’s your alternative to representative democracy?

“Is that the kind of track record that warrants trust?”

Of course, that’s a non-sequitur. What does that have to do with waterboarding?