Thursday, March 15, 2007

Yet Another Category Mistake

Is the short way that I view this. While Mark may regard Ron Suskind as a credible source for terrorism information (after all, he writes bad things about the Bush administration), I have serious doubts about the veracity of his information based on the fact that his characterization of Abu Zubaydah differs so dramatically from every other piece of publicly available material on the man. Suskind characterizes this as just another area where the Bush administration lied to the press, but the simple fact is that serious terrorism experts, including the former Democratic and anti-administration ones, don't hold his view. The same goes for numerous foreign governments. Now maybe Suskind knows something that all of us don't, but there is a fine line between a revelation and a conspiracy theory.

Moreover, I think even Suskind would acknowledge that he wasn't party to all of the interrogation techniques that were used against KSM. We really don't know what was done to him or what the results of the interrogation were. We can reasonably discern from his statements that whatever the techniques that were used that they have not broken his belief in the fundamentally correct nature of his cause. His confession was essentially a boast and inferring anything from it as far as the torture debate is concerned strikes me as quite unsound. Now if Mark wants to talk about Rashid Rauf or Abdul Hakim Murad, both of whom we know a good deal more about what was done to them, that would be quite a different story.

One other point is that while Mark covers himself by stating that torture is morally wrong (which has always been his position), making an issue of torture's effectiveness while in the context of a morality argument of this nature strikes me as unwise. While the idea that torture is never effective has always struck me as more of a myth than anything else (the same thing with the idea that it is always effective), whether or not it is effective from a utilitarian standpoint has nothing to do with whether or not it is immoral. As Mark himself noted during his latest attempt to argue that Michael Ledeen is responsible for the death of a bookseller in Baghdad (rather than, say, the terrorists who built and detonated the bomb that killed him), you can't do evil so that good can result. The same advice might also be applied to his maybe Judaism would be better if we got rid of Israel thoughts from a few weeks back. Then again, he and Buchanan seem too preoccupied at the moment from trying to protect Iran (whom General Petraeus says is training and arming Iraqi insurgents) from the increasingly impotent Bush administration. This leaves them in a functionally pacifistic position, but I will address that later today.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

JOSEPH D'HIPPOLITO SAYS...

Of course, you all know why Mark disapproves of alledged torture so much. It has nothing to do with Catholic teaching or compassion for the incarcerated.

It has to do with the fact that Mark is jealous that he doesn't get to wield the rubber hoses and whatnot.

Just look at the way he treats people. He tortures them by issuing baseless personal attacks, deliberately distorting their arguments, dragging their names through the mud as long as it suits his purposes and raping their souls publicly -- until he decides to embark upon a false campaign of public repentence to save his sorry hide and his blog hits.

Given what we all know to be his MO, what do you suppose he would do with rubber hoses, Iron Maidens, racks and the like?

Mark, you were born at the wrong time, dude. Depending on your ideology, you would have made a great second-in-command to Oliver, Cromwell, Reinhard Heydrich or Felix Dzherzhinsky.

Donald R. McClarey said...

Nonsense. Mark is a talented writer. He is also a short-fused individual, very sure of his opinions on a wide range of subjects, who has a penchant for ticking some people off and getting involved in lengthy feuds on blogs. His flamboyant verbiage against his adversaries tends to alienate much more than it attracts. He also takes all of this back and forth on the net far more seriously than is warranted, something not to emulate.

Anonymous said...

JOSEPH D'HIPPOLITO SAYS...

Double nonsense, Donald. I am a professional writer, like Shea, and I know that words can be used as weapons. History demonstrates that through more important works than Shea and I combined have written -- The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, Common Sense, The Rights of Man, Mein Kampf, Das Kapital...

Moreover, bullies and sadists have a tendency to move from one stage of targets (animals, insects) to another (people).

The only thing keeping Shea from being a Catholic Heydrich (or a sociopathic criminal) is his alledged allegiance to Catholicism's moral and ethical principles. I say "alleged" because we all know that Mark is one of the best examples of the "whitewashed sepulchre" phenomenon that we've all seen. His faith does not extend beyond theologcially correct platitudes.

Take Catholicism's moral parameters away from Mark and you have a sociopathic sadist who believes he has the divine right to act as he does.

Mark Shea is one of the most profound examples of incarnate evil that I have ever had the misfortune to meet.

Anonymous said...

JOSEPH D'HIPPOLITO CONCLUDES:

One more point: If Shea can behave this way with words and under a facade of moral scruples, then what would he do with rubber hoses, truncheons and the like without those same scruples to which he gives nothing but lip service?

Anonymous said...

JOSEPH D'HIPPOLITO AMENDS...

I know, I know, I said this would be the end. But I cannot resist one more thought:

Mark, the public critic of moral consequentialism, is the biggest practioner of that consequentialism when it serves his own agenda and purposes!

Donald R. McClarey said...

"The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, Common Sense, The Rights of Man, Mein Kampf, Das Kapital"

None of which are to be confused with 99.99% of what is thrown up on blogs which is of absolutely zero consequence either now or in the future.

"Mark Shea is one of the most profound examples of incarnate evil that I have ever had the misfortune to meet."

You have led a sheltered life then indeed Joe. Among people I have met in my career whom I would categorize as profoundly evil I include a gentleman who murdered his girlfriend and his two small children 3 and 5. Then there was the individual I represented by court appointment who raped numerous kids including his son. Mark isn't profoundly evil. At most he is profoundly annoying.
Once again Joe you have amply demonstrated that you are just as obsessed with Mark as he is with you. You should both simply declare each other arch-enemies for life and move on to save wasted energy in a futile feud.

Anonymous said...

JOSEPH D'HIPPOLITO SAYS...

Donald, I have no doubt that the people you mention are incarnate evil. Even so, I would suggest that somebody who engages in an obsessive campaign of character assassination against one individual for five years is no less of an example of incarnate evil than the ones you site.