Andrew Sullivan accuses me of “astonishing ignorance” because in an earlier post on waterboarding I said that “as universally understood, torture is the infliction of physical injury through the application of physical force.” He quotes the phrase “severe mental or physical pain or suffering” from U.S. law to prove me ignorant. Once again, as ever, Sullivan asserts that what he believes is law when it is, in fact, nothing of the kind. Here is the applicable language under U.S. statute:
“Severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.
It is true that the law speaks of the “threatened infliction” of “severe physical pain and suffering.” But this is an extraordinarily broad phrase that could indicate that a nine-year-old bully who terrifies another kid on the playground by threatening to rip his arm off is guilty of torture.
Such statute language does not clarify; it muddies, as legal language often muddies. If someone says, “I am going to kill you,” and by so doing causes fear in the person to whom he says it, is that torture? Clearly not, though the fear experienced by the person might be severe.
The question is whether the panic induced by waterboarding rises to the level of lawlessness as defined by that statute and by international law. And though Sullivan refuses to acknowledge this, that is a debatable proposition, as demonstrated by the simple fact that many people of good will (like Michael Mukasey) are unable to come to a conclusion about it as definitive (and definitively self-righteous) as Sullivan’s.
What is not debatable, however, is what everyone, even those of us whom Sullivan feels free to liken to Nazis who make the “arguments of the Gestapo,” knows to be torture without question, which is doing physical injury to someone without an ability to defend himself in any way, or mental injury so severe as to cause impairment.
Wow. J-Street should call the US Congress and beg for a cease-fire before people like Wexler and Franck completely decimate them.
Perhaps J-Street will dry up and blow away, the way most mainstream Jews who have heard of them or bother to think of them want them to . . . .
I didn’t realize that the US had made clear its willingness to turn over part
of the West Coast to the Taliban before attacking, and to dismantle some of
its settlements in California (Beverly Hills?) as a sign of good faith. Thanks
for pointing that out, Barney.
J Street, it was nice knowin’ ya (not really)
America really is an exceptional country.
We still don’t know what Obama thinks of all this. I suspect he isn’t hostile to Israel. But if he is hostile to Israel, Congress is schooling him now.
Europe and the Arab “street” will have to suck it up and deal.
Nonetheless, no one who’s ever had a good word to say about either disengagement or the peace process should be surprised by supposed aberrations like J Street. There is a direct correlation between the legitimation of minimalist sentiments and the proliferation of such groups. Perhaps we should ask Prof. Walt to do a thought experiment on the might-have-beens had Oslo never happened.
Nonetheless, no one who’s ever had a good word to say about either disengagement or the peace process should be surprised by supposed aberrations like J Street. There is a direct correlation between the legitimation of minimalist sentiments and the proliferation of such groups. Perhaps we should do a Walt-style thought experiment on the might-have-beens had Oslo never happened.
I never actually read the terms of the ceasefire, so cannot say for sure that bringing weapons into Gaza was a part of it, or that Hamas brought in weapons during the so-called ceasefire, but I think it is fair to assume that both are true. In my mind, this is almost a worth threat to Israel then the firing of the rockets. This violation is what could create the existential threat to Israel’s existence. This fact is never mentioned by even those that defend Israel. The right of self-defense is not only to stop the rocket fire, but equally or more so to stopthe smuggling of weapons
It is easy to dismiss a group like J-Street. But I wonder what Peace Now’s membership actually amounted to. Yet the media pushed it at every turn.
Jamie,
Congrats on getting the difference between moral equivalency and moral equivocation right. I’m so proud of you.