Three cheers for torture
A week ago, in a pique of frustration, I explained to a liberal commenter on Ace's site that he risks encouraging real torture by protesting coercive interrogation techniques. After all, if we're going to be accused of being sadistic monsters, and all efforts to claim otherwise are dismissed without the benefit of real debate, we might as well do it right and get the adreneline rush.
But James Taranto uses his patented not-so-subtle insinuation techniques to suggest there's a better way to get satisfaction.
This is the first time we can remember being the object of torture fantasies aired on a major newsmagazine's Web site. We must say, it's perversely flattering.In other words, if you're not into the sadistic torture of terrorists, you can still get a thrill from laughing at their liberal allies in the press.What of Sullivan's suggestion that we undergo uncomfortable procedures that he thinks are "torture"? We might consider submitting to "waterboarding" out of sheer journalistic curiosity. It doesn't seem as though we'd learn much from sleep deprivation or sitting in a cold room; we can easily imagine the ways in which those would be uncomfortable, and we prefer comfort. Of course, we are not a terrorist, and if we have any useful information, we put it here in this column quite voluntarily.
Comments
Would these same idiotic liberals "torture" someone if they had reasonable suspicion they they would save the lives of their wife, husband, son, daughter, mother, father, friend or other relative? If they answer yes, then the US can save someone's wife, husband, son, daughter, mother, father or relative by applying some temporary pain to a high value terrorist to get information about a possible future terrorist attack. We have done just that and foiled at least ten attacks. If they answer no, then they are either lying or truly incalculably inhumane towards their loved ones while favoring the executioners instead. Now THAT is sickening!
Posted by: Denny | October 2, 2006 05:49 AM