Anyone here a Thomas Sowell fan?
 

I love this guy. How did he get a job at Berserkely?

Tortured reasoning
By Thomas Sowell

Nov 22, 2005

Some people seem to see nothing between zero and infinity. Things are either categorically all right or they are categorically off-limits. This kind of reasoning -- if it can be called reasoning -- is reflected in the stampede to ban torture by Congressional legislation.

As far as a general policy is concerned, there is no torture to ban. Isolated individuals here and there may abuse their authority and violate existing laws and policies by their treatment of prisoners but the point is that these are in fact violations.

When some individuals violate laws against murder, no one thinks that requires Congressional legislation to add to the existing laws against murder. What it calls for is enforcement of existing laws.

Banning torture categorically by federal legislation takes on a new dimension in an era of international terrorist networks that may, within the lifetime of this generation, have nuclear weapons.

If a captured terrorist knows where a nuclear bomb has been planted in some American city, and when it is timed to go off, are millions of Americans to be allowed to be incinerated because we have become too squeamish to get that information out of him by whatever means are necessary?

What a price to pay for moral exhibitionism or political grandstanding!

Even in less extreme circumstances, and even if we don't intend to torture the captured terrorist, does that mean that we need to reduce our leverage by informing all terrorists around the world in advance that they can stonewall indefinitely when captured, without fear of that fate?

This is not only an era of international terrorist networks but also an era of runaway litigation and runaway judges. Do we really want a federal law that will enable captured terrorists to be able to take their cases to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?

Regardless of what the free-wheeling judges in that unpredictable body may end up deciding, they are not likely to decide it soon. Anybody can call anything "torture" at virtually no cost to themselves but at huge costs in money and delay to the efforts to protect Americans from terrorism.

There is no penalty for false claims but potentially deadly consequences for letting international terrorists tie up our legal system by exercising rights granted to American citizens and now thoughtlessly extended to people who are not American citizens and who are bent on killing American citizens and destroying American society.

After decades of ignoring the fact that rights and responsibilities go together, it was perhaps inevitable that an under-educated and easily confused generation should include some who do not understand that the rights granted to captured troops by the Geneva Convention apply to those who have accepted the terms of the Geneva Convention. It does not apply to people who are not troops and who have blatantly violated the whole framework of that convention.

For more than two centuries there has been a tendency on the political left, here and overseas, to make wrong-doers look like victims rather than people who are victimizing others. So it was perhaps inevitable that some would extend this attitude from criminals to terrorists.

But it was not inevitable that most would carry things this far or that so many others would be taken in by the rhetoric of moral superiority -- or be oblivious to the implications of an international network of cut-throats bent on destroying us even at the cost of their own lives.

Think of those implications. During the last election, Osama bin Laden warned Americans that those places that voted for President Bush would be targeted for terrorist reprisals.

We could ignore him then. But will our children and grandchildren be able to ignore similar threats after the terrorists are given nuclear weapons by Iran or sold nuclear weapons by North Korea?

This is a chilling prospect under the best circumstances. It is madness to tie our hands in any way in trying to forestall or counter the catastrophic potential of international terrorism.

Re: Anyone here a Thomas Sowell fan?
 

I've heard this type of justification repeatedly and it sounds very logical on the surface, but I read an article not long ago by an ex-CIA type guy whose job was to interrogate suspects and he was saying that torture does not produce good intelligence when used in interrogations. He said that people, generally, will tell you anything at that point and that it usually takes quite a bit of effort to corroborate the info, as a result.

So...is "using any means necessary" really the right thing to do? Even in the above circumstance?

Just asking the question. I don't know the answer.

Mike

I've always been a big fan of Thomas Sowell. I've read one of his books and try to catch his column whenever I can.

I don't care about whatever methods they want to use. It's all ok with me. But especially in a situation where an attack is imminent and the interrogator(s) can't spend weeks or months building a rapport with a suspect, they should not have to fear prosecution for extracting info by whatever means necessary. I don't care if it's breaking fingers one at a time or a nice shot of sodium pentathol. Whatever saves lives.

FWIW, I found the article I was referring to:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111205E.shtml

Mike

Thomas Sowell is great. If he were on the left, he'd be a household name and an icon of the media...

Interesting - a right wing pundit championing a shades of grey argument.

I thought the conservative line was that everything was black and white - right or wrong, etc.

Either way, it is a pretty good article.

So you "thought" in black and white terms where the "conservative line" is concerned? Where were your shades of grey...seems narrow minded to me, out of character, so to speak. You may want to read and get out more.

Thomas Sowell is not a, "pundit", btw.

Re: Re: Anyone here a Thomas Sowell fan?
 

I keep hearing the same thing on the cable talk shows. Even a former CIA Director said it on Hardball. And it really makes me wonder what the debate is about. I even pondered starting a seperate thread on Pelican to ask. So what is the real deal? Does anybody here know? Does torture work? Is it useful for anything (perhaps some purpose aside from gathering information)? Why is the VP putting so much effort into limiting restrictions on something that supposedly has no value? I believe he is not stupid and so I assume I must be missing something here. Can anyone shed light on this?

:confused:

Really, he's boring to listen to when he's on radio...until you learn to listen. In a way, I feel sorry for the students who listen to his lectures. On the other hand, I hope they've awakened enough to really listen! He's a brilliant man!

He is too a pundit! What on earth else would you call him?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/archive.shtml

Syndicated columnist = pundit. He writes opinion columns.

Back to the topic. So - I pigeon-holed conservative views as being black and white. So sue me. This is stupid - my point still stands that, as a generalisation, conservative opinions tend to favour black and white views of the world and liberal opinions favour excruitiatingly shades of grey.

I have read Sowell for years. He is brilliant.

Torture works very well, regardless of what you have been told. Just ask John McCain.

It does not work on the incredibly brave or principled...but terrorists are neither.

Did he explain why it worked on him?

He is a scholar and author who also writes columns...a thoughtful and learned man.

You on the other rely on silly generalizations as the foundation for specific accusations, which is neither thoughtful or learned.

Oh for craps sake. Yes, I make a generalisation, but no, it's not silly and I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about it.

Conservatives - as a generalisation - appear to believe:

- you are for the war or against the US
- you are for the war or against the military
- no part of any enemy's problem with the US has any validity
- abortion has no shades of grey
- homosexuality and/or same-sex marriage has no shades of grey
- welfare has no shades of grey - moreover, it is generally abused

It seems to me that conservatism is defined by black and white views of the world? "Conservative", by its very nature, implies resistance to change. Resistance to change implies (for good or bad) a lessened desire to depart from the established view and to consider others.

I consider the separation of individual items into "good" and "bad" as being the foundation of conservative belief. On the other hand, I would consider relativism (not that I'm a fan) to be the foundation of liberal views.

By the way, I might resort to quoting our one of our resident arch-conservatives as Black and White King:

You missed on all points...think again. What seems to you to be true are the remnants of poor arguements, ill considered. I am a libertarian, more a Federalist, which means I engage my brain before I type.
Resort to any quote you wish, btw, I welcome your input. All the best.

That's not particularly helpful - a blanket rebuttal of "you're wrong, try harder" doesn't work. So far it's my opinion (detailed) against yours (not). Basically, I'm not getting why you think what I'm saying is wrong. I've thought about it and (right or wrong) I believe it.

My own hypocrisy in stating a black/white opinion over conservative views, and Sowell's views, doesn't particularly worry me.

If you aren't conservative, why are you worried? I didn't say libertarians are about black and white. You've actually stood out in the past as someone who considers both sides of an issue.

What matters is whether Sowell is conservative or not, and he certainly appears to be.

Ok, I give in. Everyone's guilty :) Especially me! Miscategorisation of extreme positions, pidgeon-holing, hypocrisy. I do it too.

Unfortunately, I still think black and white is a conservative trait - both a strength and a weakness - and that it certainly applies to your president (Bush: You're with us or against us).

Matching that, I think that shades of grey is a liberal trait - again a strength and a weakness - embodied by Clinton or Kerry's inability to pick between ever more intricately defined shades of grey (Kerry: I am anti-abortion but pro-choice).

I don't really know where to go with this discussion. I see your point, accept that I was unfair in making the generalisation and applying it to Sowell, but at least hope you can see why I might believe what I do.