Comments on: Conservative Leninists and the War on Terror

By: Duglarri

Duglarri — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:54:06 +0000

Our culture used to be based on the thinking of men like William Blackstone, the 17th-Century English judge who said, "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Now, instead, we have would-be opinion leaders who would check "fully agree" to this question on the questionnaire:

"Better that a thousand innocent men should die than to leave one guilty man alive"

- Feliks Dzerzhinsky

Leninists indeed.

By: robert

robert — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:24:17 +0000

"Those in favor of using torture may argue that this is a new historical situation for the U.S. for which the U.S. is working out new ethics."
The purpose of torture has always been to get to the truth. The rack, the screw, the dunk tank- -- all of these ancient mechanical practices were designed to arrive at a true confession from the suspect. Our civilization has from time to time attempted to revive the old practice but has normally given it up after realizing that folks having a limb twisted nearly off or gasping for air between water dunks, are likely to say or do anything to get some relief. The investigative method becomes exposed again for what it is --unreliable and is then soon abandoned. We Catholics have sat through endless hours of history classes listening to some old bag who knew nothing of our Holy Religion drone on endlessly about the ruthlessness of our old Church torturing and killing its way to power etc. etc.. Never satisfying its lust for cruelty until the populace could no longer tolerate it, banned together, revolted, killed all the evil doers and priests, banished religion from public discourse and having lived enlightened and civilized lives ever since etc.. I simply see in this recent renewal and thirst for human cruelty and torture by the now "enlightened ones" simply another lesson in historical fairy tales which they embraced the last time.

By: Jim Dooley

Jim Dooley — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:36:07 +0000

That the morality of torture (an ugly word beneath which uglier reality hides)remains, must remain, under discussion testifies to what happens when Uncle Sugar's excellent bureaucrats have defecated into the well.
What is important to remember is that torture requires more than a victim, the justice of whose cruel deserts are indeed not so easily settled. It requires the whole shebang of enlightened administration from the Oval Office right on down to the god fearing family man who turns the radio up, strips, wakes up, dresses in women's underwear, slaps around, waterboards, humiliates, and otherwise destroys the will of the 'monster' he has been given to tame. It is nice work if you can take it.
What I personally cannot fathom is why, after such an excellent piece of work has been done, the victim is not dragged through the streets of Washington so that everyone can enjoy what degradation looks like.

By: S.L. Toddard

S.L. Toddard — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:15:06 +0000

"I understood the argument for torture of terrorists to be that the terrorists are in a category of being a danger to society far worse than criminals"

There is no argument for torturing "terrorists". The argument is in favor of torturing persons whom the government *accuses* of being terrorists, which is also - by definition - an argument in favor of torturing innocent persons *suspected* of terrorism.

Either way, torture - of anyone - by the U.S. government is illegal, and our laws mandate prosecution of alleged torturers.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 02:07:56 +0000

I understood the argument for torture of terrorists to be that the terrorists are in a category of being a danger to society far worse than criminals, and therefore the ethics for dealing with terrorists, are not the same as the ethics for dealing with criminals. I don't think those who favor using torture would argue "the ends justifies the means", but rather argue for what is ethical in dealing with terrorists. Those in favor of using torture may argue that this is a new historical situation for the U.S. for which the U.S. is working out new ethics.

The argument for capital punishment is that some criminals are a danger to society, and should be executed in order to defend society. However, John Paul II wrote that execution is only appropriate "in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady improvement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

In working out a new ethics for dealing with terrorists, those arguing for the use of torture of terrorists in order to defend society may keep in mind that terrorists are persons endowed by God with the dignity of being created in God's image and of being redeemed by God.

Are terrorists still a danger to society once they are imprisoned?

By: Jim Dooley

Jim Dooley — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 01:31:38 +0000

I would like to thank Clyde Wilson for laying bare the root. The sacrifice of 500,000 young men "to preserve the union" qualifies as a national abomination, a founding evil. That Abraham Lincoln has been yoked with George Washington for generations in the shared sensibilities of America is a national disgrace, is an indelible reproach to the art of history, and has left our country with a withered leg.
There can be no restoration until that idol has been toppled.
Thank you Professor Wilson, may you prosper in wisdom and courage, and God bless you.

By: RK

RK — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:32:29 +0000

A sobering essay. Thank you Mr. Carpenter.

By: CS

CS — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 06:19:44 +0000

There's a reason I've referred to these establishment "conservatives" as Neo-Trots and Busheviks for some time now. There's nothing really conservative about them in the traditional meaning of the term. They're really believers in the same utopian gnosticism - achieved via the power of the almighty state - that Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists and other assorted Marxists are. "Conservative Leninists" also works pretty well as a description of their real nature. Our native Neo-Trots (Frum, Gerecht & Co.) and Busheviks have a slightly different program for bringing about heaven on earth: endless wars to make the Umma safe for feminism, sodomy and Wall Street bankstas. This is done in the name of "national security" of course. The interesting thing to note is the complete disappearance of the formerly loud sector on the left that was ostensibly against the imperial wars. Now that their Mau-Mau Messiah is seated atop the Cherry-Blossom throne, the ongoing wars are suddenly just and necessary. One half of our bi-factional ruling cartel tends towards massive Soviet-style statism while the other half favors the the same thing with a thin veneer of free enterprise and faux-patriotism. Old George Wallace told the truth decades ago: "There's not a dime's worth of difference."

By: jack bailey

jack bailey — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:37:15 +0000

Differnce between Cheney and Oliver North is that in the case of the latter at least we knew why and it made some sense.

By: Clyde Wilson

Clyde Wilson — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:22:31 +0000

As in all else, the policy of "the end justifies the means" became prevailing U.S. government policy with Lincoln. Any manner of immoral, cruel, and dishonest acts were justified in "preserving the Union."