Bret Stephans devotes his Opinion Journal column this week to the meaning of a word. Or rather to the intentional twisting of the meaning of a word: Torture. The continued efforts by the left to define the meaning of that word downward – and an increasingly absurd, downright suicidal faux moral outrage – is damaging the real meaning of what should be a very precise term.
It all but goes without saying that torture, properly defined and in nearly every circumstance, is wrong. But what do you make of the following statement, from a recent editorial in the Economist: "Dozens of plots may have been foiled and thousands of lives saved as a result of some of the unsavory practices now being employed in the name of fighting terrorism. Dropping such practices in order to preserve freedom may cost many lives. So be it"?
The subject of torture is again in the news thanks to a front-page story last week in the New York Times. It claims that in 2005 the Justice Department issued secret legal memorandums authorizing what the paper calls "severe interrogations," even after the administration had apparently renounced such methods. President Bush responded to the Times's story, as he has previously, by insisting "this government does not torture people." But the editorial writers at the Times were not impressed: "Is this a nation," they asked, "that tortures human beings and then concocts legal sophistries to confuse the world and avoid accountability before American voters?"
Two significant questions arise from this debate. First, what do we really mean by the word "torture"? And second, is the "So be it" standard put forward by the Economist a persuasive one?
Go read it. He cites a very interesting decision by the European Court of Human rights that specifically refused to call many things "torture". Including ones that the New York Times are calling just that. Neither Stephens or myself is arguing that no limits should be placed on our behavior in dealing with detainees. Far from it. But a debate over where those limits should be is completely short circuited by the tendentious mendacity of twisting words into improbable new meanings.
On the subject of twisting words, I have to wonder if the Sado/Masochist club doesn’t want their pursuit of pleasure(much of which is horridly inhumane like electrocuting genitals) to be identified with tactics used to gather intelligence.
I suppose if ‘torture’ were done for the pursuit of pleasure rather than protecting a nation those screaming would be silent.
Excellent point, Syn.