Liberalism, Torture, and The Ticking Bomb

[midcan5]

Sometimes when I watch the coming attractions for TV shows I wonder if they don't needlessly perpetuate the fears that lead people to vote for Radicals such as Cheney/Bush. I have never watched 24 but the coming attractions alone would scare children into thinking we are all going to be blown up at any time. For the fearful it must surely perpetuate feelings of vulnerability.

I came across the article by David Luban noted below reading Dean's book "Conservatives without Conscience," Dean, a conservative calls today's conservatism under Cheney and his pupil George, Radicalism, and not Conservatism. This is a good piece for those interested in a real debate about torture and he quotes one of my favorite philosophers, Bernard Williams.

"As Williams says, "there are certain situations so monstrous that the idea that the processes of moral rationality could yield an answer in them is insane" and "to spend time thinking what one would decide if one were in such a situation is also insane, if not merely frivolous.""

Liberalism, Torture, and The Ticking Bomb

www.virginialawreview.org/content/pdfs/91/1425.pdf

Also posted at:
www.politicalpass.com/

[midcan5]

Additionally

www.reason.com/0306/fe.jw.what.shtml

“I think it’s a nonsense assumption that you can get rid of terrorism with war. Because terrorism is taking the lives of noncombatants, innocent people, to gain your objective. War is basically the same thing on a larger scale. And using military means to fight against terrorism simply teaches future terrorists that they weren’t cruel enough. That they didn’t kill enough.”

“The Pacifist: Gene Sharp
In countless essays and books — most notably The Politics of Nonviolent Action (1973) and Social Power and Political Freedom (1980) — Gene Sharp, 75, has investigated the many ways citizens have overthrown dictatorships and repelled invaders through organized, nonviolent noncooperation. (His next book, not yet completed, will explore 23 such case studies.) His life’s work has been to synthesize these historical experiments into a body of strategic theory, so that dissidents under other tyrannies can overturn their rulers as well.”

[Ian]

We can see what good nonviolence has done for Tibet.

[midcan5]

Ian, you need to read the piece and read some history of Tibet then maybe the conditions the author notes will be more realistic. Sharp is the author.

Out of respect for another's religion you really need to get rid of your infidel.

[MO]

Ian, your avatar is fine.

[midcan5]

Mo, would it be ok if that was Jesus?

[MO]

You mean a derogatory one? No. If a band of "fundie" Christians become dictators of a nation or two and force compliance with the rules of the Southern Baptist convention, it would be politically relevant.

When and if Islam ceases to be a form of government and a system of civil law for millions, his avatar will no longer be appropriate.

[MO]

[Ian]

Ian, you need to read the piece and read some history of Tibet then maybe the conditions the author notes will be more realistic. Sharp is the author.

The lure of nonviolent resistance is as strong as Marx communism, and just as applicable to reality. Your featured piece is founded on a principle that is fundamentally flawed. First of all Sharp accepts the Bush Doctrine to the extent that he believes Arab Muslims to be universally-oppressed, freedom-loving, tolerant individuals who yearn for the Western concept of the “good life”. This would seem to makes sense if it wasn’t for the inconvenient fact that they pound their heads into the ground five times a day because a vile, violent, imperialistic religion that forbids all these qualities tells them to. Nonviolence resistance implies a shared struggle toward a common goal. Where nonviolence succeeded in Serbia it simply cannot succeed in the Middle East. Even if nonviolence succeeded in overthrowing Saddam Hussein it would have done nothing to mitigate the ensuing sectarian strife. Religious conflicts are entirely different animals from political ones. Politics can be altered, religion is far more constant. What makes the Middle East and Islam particularly unique is that we witness two factions of the same religion locked in a death struggle over control of the entire region and ultimately beyond. Sharp himself concedes that nonviolent struggle is utterly valueless against the current threat:

reason: How could civilian-based defense resist terrorism? I don’t see how noncooperation could be useful in dealing with someone who’s blowing up a café.

Sharp: No, it’s not. Of course.

It would be nice if you’d take the time to read your own links from now on.

Sharp’s solution to defeating terrorism through nonviolence:

One is to spread the know-how for nonviolent struggle so widely that the people who now end up being terrorists don’t. They choose to use this other method.

We’ll just educate terrorists to express themselves in less violent ways… How Western! How Bushy! How we’re going to get terrorists to adopt a tactic whose main proponent concedes is easily defeated by their current tactic is yet to be known. You keep trying to get them to sing Kumbaya, I’m probably just too immature to get it.

[midcan5]

The point is the fight against terrorism is more complicated than invading Iraq which as a secular nation, keep fundamentalists restrained, and was a balance of power in the mid-east. Bad guy Saddam was better than the breeding ground for terrorism Bush has created.

[Ian]

I agree with that.