Skip to main content

Dana Rohrabacher's America is not mine


You can almost imagine the delight on Eric "All Real Libertarians are Republican conservatives" Dondero's face as he wrote the recent post about Rohrabacher gets it right! Putting panties on a Terrorist Suspect's head does not constitute "Torture".

In it, Dondero quotes the Newsmax story:

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher on Wednesday dismissed the idea that taunting terrorism suspects with women's panties is a form of torture.

In a debate about detainee treatment at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the California Republican cited panties eight times, arguing that making suspected terrorists wear women's underwear on their heads isn't demeaning and degrading enough to be called torture.

"You're suggesting that the behavior of, what, panties on his head ... is unacceptable interrogation technique for a man who was involved in a conspiracy to kill tens of thousands of Americans?" Rohrabacher asked during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing.

Rohrabacher was taking issue with FBI complaints about inappropriate and potentially illegal tactics used to get al-Qaida detainees to talk in the years following the Sept. 11 attacks. He said interrogation-by-panties was more akin to a "hazing pranks from some fraternity," not torture.


This is my favorite line: making suspected terrorists wear women's underwear on their heads isn't demeaning and degrading enough to be called torture.

Let me explain something to the intellectually and ethically challenged Dondero and Rohrabacher:

The United States did not find it necessary to torture enemy prisoners in World War Two, the largest and most desperate conflict in world history. We did not torture Hermann Goering or Wilhelm Keitel. The Israelis did not torture Adolf Eichmann. We did not torture people during the Cold War, when our enemies possessed the power to kill more than 100 million Americans in 90 minutes.

Even though the founding premise of Libertarianism is non-aggression, I don't claim my position results from that. It comes from something more basic.

As an American I want to belong to a society that is too stinking proud to torture our prisoners.

No, scratch that. I demand to belong to a society that is too stinking proud to torture our prisoners.

I don't generally adopt the position taken by many Libertarians who purport to have the right to exclude or include anyone else as a Libertarian based on their own beliefs, but in this case I will make an exception: neither Dana Rohrabacher nor Eric Dondero has a legitimate claim on an ideology that foreswears aggression and harm to others.

Comments

David said…
I couldn't disagree with you more strongly. You make a joke of what people who have been tortured have been through.

This was not U.S. policy, but we don't need to exaggerate to say that it shouldn't have happened. It is important that we distinguish between serious actions and trivial ones.

I have no problem with rare but aggressive interrogation by the CIA to save innocent lives when time is of the essence. I find it hard to understand the opposition. Let thousands of innocents die to allow their killer to feel good about himself. That is immoral.

Alan Dershowitz proposed the best balance. His plan should be adopted.
David
I assure you I do not intend a joke here.

You cite the favorite scenario of "aggressive interrogation": the ticking time bomb.

Two thoughts:

1) Why has this never been necessary in US history as policy prior to 2001? Don't try to give me the answer that the threat has never been greater, because it simply doesn't wash.

2) Show me a single verifiable example of the ticking time bomb scenario at work in which these techniques saved lives. Just one. Torture experts can't find one; all of the CIA released material for enhanced interrogations--all of them--were about background information and not actionable intelligence.

Torture (a) doesn't work reliably and (b) doesn't get used for the scenarios its advocates say it will.

When you've got evidence, bring it.

Until that point, your position places you in league with people like Rorhabacher and Dondero--and at odds with, let's see--every announced Presidential candidate from ANY party.
Anonymous said…
Excellent, Steve. Taking the high road is in our nation's DNA. Even during the revolutionary war, when the British were torturing American prisoners, George Washington refused to torture British prisoners. The only way that Americans will be in as great danger as we were during the revolutionary war is if we continue to help the fascists recruit more terrorists by doing immoral things ourselves.
Eric Dondero said…
Guess listening to Heavy Metal music is considered "torture" by today's modern standards.

Wonder if listening to Swing would have been considered torture, if American Troops had forced captured German soldiers in WWII?

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...