Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “But in Theory...”

« The Movable Feast of "Torture" | Main | But in Theory... part Deux: the Virtue of Hypocrisy »

January 15, 2009

But in Theory...

Hatched by Dafydd

Of all the crazy memes flogged by Democrats and liberals, this one is, I believe, the most psychotic:

Attorney General-nominee Eric Holder forcefully broke from the Bush administration's counterterrorism policies Thursday, declaring that waterboarding is torture and pledging to prosecute some Guantanamo Bay detainees in U.S. courts.

It was the latest signal that President-elect Barack Obama will chart a new course in combatting terrorism. As recently as last week, Vice President Dick Cheney defended waterboarding, a harsh interrogation tactic that simulates drowning, saying it provided valuable intelligence.

The CIA has used the tactic on at least three terrorism suspects, included alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. In past hearings, Attorney General Michael Mukasey and his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, frustrated senators by repeatedly sidestepping questions about waterboarding.

It was the first topic discussed at Holder's confirmation hearing, and he made an unambiguous statement about its nature: "Waterboarding is torture."

As a practical matter, Holder said torture does not lead to reliable intelligence. And on principle, he said the United States needs to live up to its own high standards, even in the face of fear and terrorism.

Let's walk it through; what exactly is Holder saying? Many members of President George W. Bush's administration have testified -- from those interrogators who were directly involved in the interrogations of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, each in 2003 (the only time evidence indicates we ever used waterboarding), to experienced military and intelligence experts, to high officials (including, op.cit., Vice President Dick Cheney) -- that waterboarding those three top terrorists in fact yielded a wealth of intelligence; that intel directly led to hundreds of arrests and the disrupting and interdicting of scores of follow-on terrorist attacks against the United States, saving thousands upon thousands of American civilian lives.

Numerous people are in custody in Guantanamo Bay today because we caught them red-handed in the midst of plotting terrorist attacks -- with ample physical evidence to back up the charges -- on the basis of searches and investigations sparked by the intelligence gained from waterboarding Mohammed, Zubayday, and Nashiri.

But no... the Left considers waterboarding to be "torture," and the Left's theory about torture states unequivocally and without exception that "torture does not lead to reliable intelligence."

Ergo, none of the foregoing ever really happened: We didn't actually get intelligence from waterboarding the Three Amigos; we didn't really disrupt any terrorist plots; we didn't actually arrest anyone (or if we did, they were necessarily innocent bystanders); and in fact, we didn't stop further attacks on the country; thus, by a simple deduction, we actually were hit again and again by the terrorists -- and the Bush regime just covered it all up, yet another Bush war crime!

Sure, physical observation appears to indicate that waterboarding, the putative "torture," in fact yielded reliable and even vital intelligence; but appearances can be deceiving. Theory proves this cannot be, so logic dictates we must throw out the observations as obviously flawed.

Oddly, this is the same argumentative technique used in the globaloney debate; perhaps it needs its own name: How about Argument of the Irresistable Theoretical Construct?

Your so-called "measurements" claim that the Earth's temperature rise since 1900 correlates almost exactly with solar activity, and there has been no global temperature increase since 1998 (in fact, a decrease). But the theory of anthropogenic ("human created") global warming -- which every legitimate scientist accepts -- belies that claim. Therefore, your measurements must be in error... go and fix them, and don't come back for more funding until you do!

According to all supposed observers in Iraq, including those vehemently opposed to the war from the beginning, since the Bush regime implemented the surge, military and civilian deaths have plummeted to the normal base-level of violence found in Arab countries. But as we told you repeatedly, the "surge" could not possibly work, because there is no military solution to military defeat. So who are you going to believe -- the considered weight of expert opinion from nearly all foreign-policy professionals, including some who have won the Nobel Peace Prize... or your own lyin' eyes?

All those revisionist historians and economists have been busy tarnishing the reputation of the greatest president of the 20th century, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, producing fact after evidence after measurement indicating that none of his New Deal programs did anything to end the Great Depression, that it continued unabated until the beginning of World War II; but it's utterly impossible in theory that programs with such good intentions -- implemented by a brilliant president who was not only the darling of liberal, compassionate professors and socialist progressives and reformers but even of the masses -- could possibly fail. Clearly then, FDR's NRA and other programs restored the American economy and ended the depression... and any claims to the contrary are just mean-spirited attacks by frustrated conservative Republican robber-barons.

John Lott and other eggheads have published numerous books purporting to show that increasing civilian ownership of guns decreases, not increases, the homicide and other violent crime rates; but this is absurd on its face: The only purpose of a gun is to kill; and everybody knows that guns are useless in self-defense because the criminal will simply take it away from the victim (and get very angry). So the only explanation for the spate of pro-gun books is... Lott, et al, are being paid off by the NRA! (The other NRA, the bad NRA -- not the good one of the previous example. Nitpicker.)

Argument of the Irresistable Theoretical Construct: Add that one to the list; it will crop up again and again.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, January 15, 2009, at the time of 3:01 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/3432

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference But in Theory...:

» But in Theory... part Deux: the Virtue of Hypocrisy from Big Lizards
Thursday, we explored the psychotic nature of Argument of the Irresistable Theoretical Construct, wherein liberals reject all facts, observations, and measurements that conflict with the liberal "theory" about something. (Here "theory" is one component... [Read More]

Tracked on January 19, 2009 11:44 PM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

It’s not just a theoretical construct. It’s demonstrable: Torture doesn’t work.

Sometimes people can be induced, under torture, to render false confessions. So there! That proves it. Torture’s not 100% reliable, therefore it doesn’t work -- at least not always.

Don’t bother me with irrelevancies like ticking bomb scenarios. The chance to save thousands (millions?) of lives with illegally obtained information just isn’t worth getting one’s hands dirty, is it?

We’re going to be so much better off with an Attorney General and a President who understand this.

Pardon me, but I need to puke.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E at January 15, 2009 5:28 PM

The following hissed in response by: LarryD

Torture doesn't work.

Waterbording works.

Therefore, waterboarding isn't torture.

The above hissed in response by: LarryD at January 16, 2009 8:37 AM

The following hissed in response by: Karl

You don't need a new classification of logical fallacy for this -- it's a variant on the argumentum ad verecundiam, or appeal to authority. "I'm an expert, you're not. I'm right, you're not."

The above hissed in response by: Karl at January 16, 2009 12:29 PM

The following hissed in response by: Karl

You don't need a new classification of logical fallacy for this -- it's a variant on the argumentum ad verecundiam, or appeal to authority. "I'm an expert, you're not. I'm right, you're not."

The above hissed in response by: Karl at January 16, 2009 12:29 PM

The following hissed in response by: Karl

Dick E writes*:

It’s not just a theoretical construct. It’s demonstrable: Torture doesn’t work.

Um... how do you demonstrate a negative? You'd have to show that in all the cases where someone was tortured, no one obtained valid information.
All someone has to do to show you to be wrong is produce one case -- just one -- where torture did yield valid information.
I have a case linked from my live journal in which a German deputy police chief was dealing with a kidnapper who had buried a boy alive. The kidnapper had resisted hours of interrogation, but a few minutes after being threatened with torture, he revealed where the boy had been buried.
Now, where a body is buried is easy to check. Dig there, and you either find the body or you don't.
Of course, for the "Torture Doesn't Work!!!" crowd, not even the thread of torture could have worked. The kidnapper would have said anything to avoid the torture, and he did. He named a random location. The fact that the kidnapped boy was buried there was nothing more than a very lucky coincidence.

(* Hope your tongue doesn't get stuck in your cheek, there...)

The above hissed in response by: Karl at January 16, 2009 12:46 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

Sorry, I was hyperventilating above.

Actually, I agree with Paul and John of PowerLine: I think Obama is smart enough that he won’t actually take torture completely off the table. He might, as John suggests, create a “loophole” for situations under which torture might be tolerated. The loophole could be tacit, to be employed only under very unusual circumstances -- something like the way Bush has used waterboarding.

Or he might let torture be illegal, but then become a heroic outlaw himself when the ticking bomb scenario occurs. “Gee whiz, folks. There were so many American lives at stake. I just had to find some way to get the information out of that terrorist.” The Left will still venerate him. It could even gain him some respect on the Right.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E at January 17, 2009 12:49 AM

The following hissed in response by: UNRR

This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 1/17/2009, at The Unreligious Right

The above hissed in response by: UNRR at January 17, 2009 5:44 AM

The following hissed in response by: JohnSal

A minor nitpick. The Great Depression "... continued unabated until the beginning of World War II." Not quite accurate. To assume this is to assume Paul Krugman knows something about depression economics, which is unsafe at any speed. WWII sopped up the unemployed only on a short term basis, with massive public debt, to win the war. The Great Depression ended after the war with the softening of anti-business policies and rhetoric, more stable government monetary, fiscal and regulatory policy and appropriately targeted labor/education policies to educate and employ civilian and military personnel previously engaged in the war effort. The Krugman chorus for a "stimulus" is essentially calling for a virtual WWII. It won't provide any long-term solution, unless, of course, we really do want to become Oceania.

The above hissed in response by: JohnSal at January 17, 2009 10:33 AM