My mistake. I took the Coalition's latest farrago of insults and torture justification to mean "since our troops have committed torture in the past, that means it's okay now." Evidently, I was mistaken. When they declared I would call Professor Bainbridge a torture apologist for noting that our troops have tortured in the past, I assumed they were saying something. It turns out they were saying nothing--nothing at all. Because, of course, I've always been aware that our troops tortured people in the past, just as the good Professor notes. These things used to be called "war crimes". As far as I could see, Professor Bainbridge did not say "prisoner abuse by our troops in the past was good". So I don't see why he would be taken by the Coalition as an ally in the campaign for Greater Fog, nor by me as somehow justifying what he documents as a fact of history. But they did seem to think that I would think he was somehow justifying torture. In reality, it has only been they who have tried so hard to justify it that I foolishly assumed they were doing so here. Apparently, they were not trying to justify torture. Instead they were simply forming a schoolgirl pack of jeerers and sneering at me for not knowing history, even though I know it perfectly well, in this case. My apologies for mistaking an adolescent jeer for a substantive attempt to make the case for torture. It was entirely my fault. I thought they were saying something. They were, to be clear, saying nothing at all. Simply making fun of fantasy named "Mark Shea".
Which once again demonstrates that he completely misses the point.
Here again, was Victor in the post:
Shea constantly insists that the moral world didn't change on September 11 (true) and that the military already regulated interrogation techniques and "torture" was illegal then under US law (true) and so therefore the only reason to want to have new rules post-September-11 would be to gain the right to torture (false ... but that's not really my point). Shea will claim, in support of this position about the how the desire to torture is being pushed by Bush, that the US was able to win World War Two and the Cold War without "torture" ... in that specific context and as a rebuttal argument, not a prima-facie argument (that we be "we tortured during World War 2, therefore we should now"), what sort of practices the US actually did engage in during World War II become relevant (to me at least) for that purpose.
In other words, he was noting the disconnect between the rhetoric and claims that you enlisted and what actually happened regarding history. When people have brought this up in the past, you have usually argued that the only reason that anyone would want to note this was to justify contemporary torture, which does not flow logically in any case. In this particular instance, my understanding was that Victor was pointing out the disconnect between Mark's rhetoric and what actually happened. In other words, if saying X ("the US tortured during WW2") is proof we are Torture Apologists™ worthy of every kind of slander, why isn't Professor Bainbridge, who says the same X?
He also continues to conflate torture and prisoner abuse while arguing that we advocate both, one of which strikes me as a category mistake. Of course, if Mark really wanted to know what we think on this subject, he could refrain from using his charism of telepathy and instead read our answers to Dave Armstrong. But that would be asking him to actually understand our positions, which is probably too much to hope for.