Michael Ignatieff has called for the release of Omar Khadr. He is right to do so. Regardless of what Khadr did his treatment after capture is beneath the dignity of a modern democracy. A Canadian Federal Court judge has found his treatment to amount to torture.
The story below makes the issue even clearer. Torture is wrong -- it happens but it ought not to be government practice.
The mere fact I have to write "torture is wrong" is troubling in itself.
Senior Guantánamo official admits 9/11 suspect was tortured, Paul Lewis, The Guardian, January 14, 2009.
Official says Guantanamo prisoner subjected to torture cannot be prosecuted
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/14/guantanamo-torture-pentagon-crawford-tribunal-qahtani/print <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/14/guantanamo-torture-pentagon-crawford-tribunal-qahtani/print>
L
James Morton
9 comments:
It is difficult to impossible for Ignatieff to be opposed to the torture used at Gitmo when he has endorsed torture in the past - and I mean the UN definition of torture not one Ignatieff makes up.
Ignatieff has categorically condemned and rejected torture. This is a tired and old invented complaint by the anti-Ignatieff crowd, and it grows more tired and older by the day.
Ignatieff says he is against torture but is in favour of coercive interrogations. Except, what he defines as coercive interrogations the UN has defined as torture. So by UN standards Ignatieff is in favour of torture is certain circumstances.
That's quite the interesting contortionist act to get to the point where you can conclude he supports torture.
And even then it is factually incorrect.
In The Lesser Evil, he explores all of the reasons one might support torture in any form, he explores where that line between coercive interogation and torture lies - is it torture to question someone for 10 straight hours? to deny them a Bible? to threaten violence? these are not black and white questions with black and white answers. He even suggests that one reason could be people think it works in extracting desired information.
But he concludes that even if it works, he can't and doesn't support it.
Keep trying though, anonymous.
lol, the contortionist act is from Ignatieff not I. The actions he has explicitly supported as coercive interrogation are torture by UN standards. He can not get around the fact that he has explicity supported torture is certain circumstances, and it is appalling.
By the way, he also supports indefinite detentions, so good luck on getting his support on freeing anyone in Gitmo since he supports locking them up forever without a trial.
Oh gawd. Another sanctimonious, pompous effeminate libtard is going to save the world.
Look Poindexter, torture works. If it didn't it wouldn't be used.
No, Khadr shouldn't be tortured. He should be shot, along with his pig fellating family, and the remains shipped out on the next garbage scow.
And to be honest, a few hours on the waterboard might do wonders for your IQ too.
The voice of a sane "anon" being drowned out by troll "anon"... sad really.
The contortionist does seem to be Iggy - lots of words and no commitment.
We cannot torture, in other words, because of who we are. This is the best I can do, but those of us who believe this had better admit that many of our fellow citizens are bound to disagree. It is in the nature of democracy itself that fellow citizens will define their identity in ways that privilege security over liberty and thus reluctantly endorse torture in their name. If we are against torture, we are committed to arguing with our fellow citizens, not treating those who defend torture as moral monsters. Those of us who oppose torture should also be honest enough to admit that we may have to pay a price for our own convictions. Ex ante, of course, I cannot tell how high this price might be. Ex post—following another terrorist attack that might have been prevented through the exercise of coercive interrogation—the price of my scruple might simply seem too high. This is a risk I am prepared to take, but frankly, a majority of fellow citizens is unlikely to concur.
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7374
As Anon points out, in "The Lesser Evil", Iggy the Bloody does argue for murder, dentention, torture in the fight against Terrorism...
Yes Iggy does say that he does not support torture as HE defines it. Rather self-serving... A little like it's okay if I do, but not them...
I'm sorry, CWTF, how on earth do you read that he supports torture out of that.
It is quite clear that he is saying that as a human moral issue he cannot and will not support torture. But he recognizes that there are consequences to a moral stand.
Just like our commitment to due process and the Charter of Rights means that some criminals will likely go unpunished, it is possible that some great tragedy could have been avoided if we had only tortured some insider. Even knowing that that might be the case, Iggy is clear that he would not allow torture.
That's a pretty high standard. If I knew a little bit of sleep deprivation might save a life, I don't know how I would act. What was at stake would probably make a difference: was it my kid's life or just collecting general information about an enemy? I think if we are honest with ourselves, we know there is a difference.
But it highlights the ridiculousness of saying, as some do, that a little sleep deprivation or denying someone a Bible/Koran or conducting a 14 hour interogation is the same as electrocuting someone to get a confession.
What strikes me as very odd and very revealing is that so many on the left rightly criticize the right for its black and white/good and evil view of the world, without context or without nuance. But when it comes to certain issues and certain people, the same critics take the same approach.
Post a Comment