Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Ignatieff and torture: the Liberals respond

by Paul Wells on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:50pm - 156 Comments

From the Inkless emailbox: the DonOLO responds.

Michael Ignatieff argues against torture from 1987 – 2009

Lesser Evil Lecture at the Miller Center of Public Affairs – April 23, 2005

“If you ask me what I would do and what I endorse, I would have an absolute prohibition on torture”… (58)

“Let me be clear on what water boarding is. You put somebody in a tank of water upside down until they have the experience of downing and you pull them out just before they drown. And that’s torture. Because it is the most awful experience a human being could have short of dying violently. So we don’t want to do that.” (54:12)

Ignatieff, Michael. “Lesser Evil.” Penguin Group, Toronto: 2004.

“I argue that actions which violate foundational commitments to justice and dignity – torture, illegal detention, unlawful assassination – should be beyond the pale.” (x)

“States should absolutely ban extreme interrogations, targeted assassinations, and other use of violence, “ (118)

“For torture, when committed by a state, expresses the state’s ultimate view that human beings are expendable. This view is antithetical to the spirit of any constitutional society whose reason d’etre is the control of violence.” (143)

It (torture) violates basic commitments to human dignity, and this is the core value that a war on terror, waged by democratic state, should not sacrifice, even under threat of imminent attack.”(140)

“The rights to due process of law, to basic dignity in treatment, are independent of conduct and irrevocable under any circumstance. We believe that our enemies deserve to be treated as human beings.” (167)

LEADER, THE ECONOMY, TORTURE, AND MACHIAVELLI. Maclean’s , Mon Feb 16 2009  Page: 13 , Byline: Michael Ignatieff interviewed by KENNETH WHYTE

“So getting to the issue of interrogation, interrogation has to be consistent with Canadian law, consistent with international conventions — like the Convention on Torture — consistent with our international obligations. It has to be rigorous and thorough, because we’re up against some threats to our security, but it must be within the traditions of the Canadian Charter and the applicable laws, and it must be subject to democratic scrutiny. ”

“When I talked about coercive interrogation, people then made the allusion right away to torture. That was never, ever, ever intended/desired/stated. There is a clear line between tough interrogations that stay on the right side of the law and stuff that gets into the area of moral disgrace, and I’ve always been clear what that line is.”

Ignatieff sets the record straight; [National Edition]

Michael Ignatieff. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Oct 29, 2005. pg. A.23

“Diane Francis says I support torture because I believe authorities interrogating terrorist suspects should be allowed to engage in disinformation or disorientation techniques.

To call these practices torture is to distort the plain meaning of words. I am on record as being opposed, both on moral and on strategic grounds, to any infliction of physical or psychological pain on interrogation subjects; I am on the record as believing all interrogation subjects held by the United States anywhere in the world, whether U.S. citizens or not, should be regularly inspected by the International Committee of the Red Cross; and in order to prevent abusive treatment, I am on record as supporting the right of all detainees, citizens or not, to habeas corpus review of their detention by U.S. federal court. I am also opposed to any practice regarded as cruel or degrading under international law. My views on this matter are fully set out in my book The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror.”

Balancing foreign and domestic;

Michael Ignatieff. Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Jun 2, 2005. pg. A.19

“When a Canadian citizen, born in an Arab country, finds himself arrested in the U.S., deported to a foreign country, where he is tortured, what are the rest of our new Canadians to think about the capacity of our government to protect them? The Canadian passport must confer indivisible rights and protection to all its bearers, regardless of their origin and place of birth.”

The myth of citizenship. The Kingston Whig-Standard, Tue Oct 20 1987

Section: Magazine , Byline: Michael Ignatieff

“When a man is being tortured in another jurisdiction, I can no longer regard our difference of citizenship as grounds to leave it to someone else to protest.”

Bookmark and Share
  • Mulletaur

    Instead of trashing the Liberals, the NDP would be better off cooperating with the other opposition parties to hold the Harper Conservative government to account for knowingly handing over Afghan detainees to be tortured.

    • Style

      Instead of cooperating with the Conservatives, the Liberals should have cooperated with the opposition parties to remove Canadian troops from Kandahar, or never have deployed there in the first place…then we wouldn't be in this position. Because, really, what were the options once we were in Kandahar and taking detainees?

  • Amateur Hour

    But these are facts.
    What on earth are CPC-loyalists supposed to do with facts?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

      Dude, in case you arrived late to the party, the DonOLO is responding to NDP attacks, not Tory attacks.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

        These are Tory attacks that the NDP is parroting.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

          I'm sure that most Dippers (and more than a few Liberals, like Mme Krieber) would consider the NDP attack memo to be legitimate. Personally, I don't.

          This really isn't a Tory thing so much as an NDP thing.

          • wilson

            A blogger Alberta Aardvark ,has posted many past Kinsella writtings on this issue too.

          • Anonymous

            "A blogger Alberta Aardvark ,has posted many past Kinsella writtings on this issue too. "

            Now those are impressive credentials and scholarship.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Lord_Bob Lord Bob

          The wicked Conservatives are influencing the NDP, like bad boys on the playground offering kids cigarettes?

          I hadn't heard of the Conservatives accusing Ignatieff of being a torture supporter, but that doesn't prove anything. It would be pretty off-message for them to do so anyway, since their reaction appears to be more "TORTURE TORTURE WHAT TORTURE THERE'S NO TORTURE (sticks fingers in ears) LA LA LA"

      • the realist

        So the Dippers have been infected with the Harper disease, telling lies even when the truth would serve better. With them lying is not compulsive so they may recover. No such hope for the Harperites.

        • Orson Bean

          Yes. Dippers Good, Tories Bad. (repeat ad nauseam with monotone and glazed, zombie like eyes)

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    The last quote is the most interesting.

  • Amateur Hour

    Fair, though I imaging Donolo intends to blunt the past year's worth of CPC of anti-Iggy activities, too.

  • able to read

    One of the best ways to lie is to selectively tell only part of the truth which is of course one of Harper's favorite methods. If as the old saying goes, the truth will set you free then the reverse is true of conservative lies.

  • Anon Liberal

    Nice to see Donolo on the job. A refreshing change.

    • Invictus

      There is no mystery in what you have to do to beat the Liar's Party of Canada (aka CPC). You did like Obama did with the Republicans. You tell the truth immediately. In the the end Harper has no defence against it.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

        Oh ya, that Obama truth. Like closing Gitmo, unemployment topping out at 9% (it's over 10% now), and free unicorns for everybody. Like that kind of truth? Or the kind of truth when Bill Clinton claimed he didn't have sex with that woman?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

          yeah…I sure that's EXACTLY what he meant.

  • Dot

    That was almost too quick.

    • Anon Liberal

      The Libs should have had this on standby for the last 3 years. It's an entirely predicatble attack. Hopefully this is a sign of more things to come.

      • the realist

        I second the motion. Its not as if the CPC were not vulnerable to attack. They are so incompetant and tell so many lies that it is difficult to decide where to attack first.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/delano_d delano_d

    They've been expecting this exact attack for a week now, from someone…the only surprise was the NDP bringing it up first.

    • wilson

      They have been expecting this attack since Dion won the leadership race.

  • Anon Liberal

    I applaud for yor linking this. Happy now?

  • Anon Liberal

    Whoops. Lets try that again…

    I applaud you for linking this. Happy now?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

      I'm sure Wells is thrilled that you caught up.

      • Anon Liberal

        Well he seems very preoccupied with what i think of his punditry. I though a pat on the head was appropriate.

        • Anonymous

          He only responds. to attacks. Give 'em what he wants, I say.

          • Anon Liberal

            I know eh? I find it hilarious how someone who's job it is to be critical of others is so thin-skinned when he gets called out. Ah well, at least he's not boring usually (jazz posts excepted).

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/psiclone psiclone

    "…in a situation of extreme necessity, the possibility, even a slight possibility, that it [torture] may reveal some life saving result would almost certainly overwhelm any consideration that it is evil." – Michael Ignatieff, The Gifford Lectures, University of Edinburgh, January 2003

    ON HOW DEMOCRACIES SHOULD JUSTIFY TORTURE
    "The use of coercive force in a liberal democracy…is regarded as a lesser evil. This particular view of democracy does not prohibit emergency suspensions of rights in times of terror. But it imposes an obligation on government to justify such measures publicly, to submit them to judicial review, and to circumscribe them with sunset clauses so that they do not become permanent." – Michael Ignatieff, The Lesser Evil: Political ethics in an age of terror, Princeton University Press, 2004

    Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomm…
    The New Financial Post Stock Market Challenge starts in October. You could WIN your share of $60,000 in prizing. Register NOW

    • fool me once

      There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. You can keep wallowing in conservative make believe. I see you have learned well from the master liar. You are very careful to selectively tell only part of the truth. As you are aware that is still the best way of lying … first item on the curriculum when training new members of the CPC.

    • the professor

      What you are doing here, partial and selective quoting of material with the goal of misleading, is a particularily insidious form of plagiarism which is frowned upon by reputable universities. Wherever you got your degree from, they should ask for it back since apparently you failed to learn even the most basic concepts of intellectual integrity.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

        So the only legitimate criticisms are ones that quote the entire book? Have you ever visited the Interwebs before?

  • http://chuckercanuck.blogspot.com chuckercanuck

    "To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war."

    some of his most quotables didn't make the press release!

    • Ted

      What about the very next part of that quotation Chucker, where he says that if that is what it costs to actually defeat evil then the price is too high.

      Funny you stop short of his conclusion and analysis.

      • http://chuckercanuck.blogspot.com chuckercanuck

        Actually Ted, on Charlie Rose, he says – without nuance or equivocation – he thinks we should deploy a strategy of targeted assasinations. So, what's the point of reading a conclusion that you know he'll unconclude the very next day?

        • RayK

          Or, from Lesser Evils:

          "To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war. These are evils because each strays from national and international law and because they kill people or deprive them of freedom without due process. They can be justified only because they prevent the greater evil."

          • Mulletaur

            NDP Socialist Caucus Resolution Number 1 :

            "1. Canada out of NATO, NATO out of Afghanistan

            Whereas NATO is a relic of the Cold War and a tool of US aggression in pursuit of corporate interests and militarism;

            And whereas Canadian forces in Afghanistan are engaged in combat against national resistence forces, to prop up a US-puppet government of human rights abusers, drug traffickers and warlords, to occupy and control a region of the country for the purpose of constructing through it a lucrative oil/gas pipeline, and to justify aggressive militarism increasingly allied to Washington’s global corporate agenda;

            Therefore Be it Resolved that the following be added to Section 4.5 of the Policy booklet: "The NDP actively campaign to get Canada out of NATO, to get NATO out of Afghanistan, and to disengage Canadian forces from any support role for the U.S. and its client regime in Iraq, from the training of Iraqi soldiers in Jordan, and policing the shipping lanes of the Persian Gulf." "

            According to the NDP, because we are in Afghanistand, we are dupes of 'Washington's global corporate agenda', whatever that is supposed to mean. Looooooooooo-py.

          • RayK

            Do you even know what the "NDP Socialist Caucus" is?

            They are a small, dissenting group of NDP members who's raison d'etre is that they believe the NDP needs to move further to the left. They are, by definition, in opposition to the concensus within the party. They have no official standing within the NDP whatsoever. Saying "the Socialist Caucus believe X" is tantamount to saying "the NDP doesn't believe X" in the sense that they exist to differ with the mainstream view within the NDP.

            And, besides, what does this have do to with the quote I posted?

          • Mulletaur

            They are NDP members and they have a say in the party and its policies. It is perfectly legitimate to draw attention to the fact that the NDP is full of loopy lefties who want to pull Canada out of NATO, nationalize the banks, nationalize the oil and gas industry and get rid of the Clarity Act. They are not insignificant within the NDP nor are they without influence. Apparently their influence is growing as the NDP Socialist caucus signed up 80 new members at the August 2009 convention in Halifax, and a number of candidates who were officially endorsed by them for party positions won elections within the party. So don't try to pretend they don't matter within the NDP.

            What I posted is perfectly relevant for the very reason that your posting is perfectly irrelevant. You are simply peddling lies, taking Ignatieff's words out of context. You and the NDP have no credibility whatsoever on the issue of torture. You support Castro's torture of dissidents in Cuba and you want Canada to leave both NATO and Afghanistan because of some imagined "Washington global corporate agenda". Really.

          • RayK

            "They are not insignificant within the NDP nor are they without influence… So don't try to pretend they don't matter within the NDP."

            Nonsense. Their candidate for the NDP leadership in 2003 got 1.6% of the vote–on the first ballot! Their views, indeed, insignificant within the party.

            "What I posted is perfectly relevant for the very reason that your posting is perfectly irrelevant."

            Nonsense. Ted wrote "What about the very next part of that quotation Chucker, where he [Ignatieff] says that if that is what it costs to actually defeat evil then the price is too high." I posted the rest of the quote that Ted was referring to and it says nothing of the sort. How could that be more relevant to the thread?

            "You support Castro's torture of dissidents in Cuba and you want Canada to leave both NATO and Afghanistan because of some imagined 'Washington global corporate agenda'."

            Nonsense. As I have already informed you, these are positions held by some individual rank-and-file members of the NDP and these positions have been rejected by the party.

          • Mulletaur

            Yes, but nobody in any other party, except for the Bloc, supports torture in Cuba like the NDP does. The NDP should be ashamed of itself.

          • RayK

            Do have any idea what you're talking about or do you just post random claims about the NDP?

            Follow the link below and search for the word "Broadbent".

            http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publicat…

          • Mulletaur

            There is nothing random about the fact that the NDP supports the Castro regime, which tortures those who are fighting for democratic reform in Cuba. Last time I looked, Broadbent isn't the current leader of the NDP. If you want to convince anybody that what I am saying is wrong, show us a recent quote from Jack Layton about human rights abuses in Cuba.

          • RayK

            "There is nothing random about the fact that the NDP supports the Castro regime."

            But that's just not true. It is totally random. It's made up.

            "Last time I looked, Broadbent isn't the current leader of the NDP."

            The testimony I linked to was of Ed Broadbent speaking as the NDP critic for democratic reform. It was four years ago.

            "If you want to convince anybody that what I am saying is wrong, show us a recent quote from Jack Layton about human rights abuses in Cuba."

            Can you show me a recent quote from Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff? Does that mean they–and their party–support human rights abuses in Cuba?

            First, you use the nonsense logic that you can extrapolate that because one NDP member believes X that's means NDP as a whole believes X. Now you're suggesting that if I can't prove that a given person doesn't believe X that means they must believe X.

            I'm seriously asking: do you really think this kind of argument is logically valid, or are you just trying to be a jack*ss?

          • Mulletaur

            Wow, pointing out the fact that the NDP supports the Castro regime, which tortures political prisoners, really seems to be getting under your skin, Dipper. Where's your quotation from Jack Layton condemning human rights abuses in Cuba ?

          • RayK

            As I wrote:

            Can you show me a recent quote from Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff? Does that mean they–and their party–support human rights abuses in Cuba?

            First, you use the nonsense logic that you can extrapolate that because one NDP member believes X that's means NDP as a whole believes X. Now you're suggesting that if I can't prove that a given person doesn't believe X that means they must believe X.

            I'm seriously asking: do you really think this kind of argument is logically valid, or are you just trying to be a jack*ss?

          • Orson Bean

            This is fascinating to me — watching a Dipper supporter try to pretend that the NDP is not, in fact, socialist and left-wing and that it's not congenitally sympathetic to the Castro regime.

            Awesome. Wells, thanks for hosting this entertainment.

          • RayK

            Obviously, the NDP IS left-wing and IS a social democratic party. I would also certainly agree that most New Democrats are sympathic to CUBA (particularly visa vis the embargo which is totally unjustifiable).

            But there's big difference that and "support[ing] Castro's torture of dissidents" as Mulletaur put it. That's beyond the pale.

          • Orson Bean

            Well, a lot of people tend to argue that there ain't too much difference between condoning, remaining silent, and "supporting". Hell, that's basically the argument that Tory-haters are making about the Tories in connection with this whole Afghan torture issue.

            Fact of the matter is, lefties are just as guilty as right-wingers of overlooking or ignoring bad behaviour on the part of those whom they consider to be ideologically aligned with them. Lots of right-wingers have overlooked or condoned bad behaviour by certain regimes. And I think it's clearly true that left-wingers have gone easy on people like Castro, Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe, because those guys are seen as left-wing revolutionaries and are rabidly anti-American — therefore, they stroke the political g-spots of Western lefties.

          • Mulletaur

            Right on, Bean. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do (and say) nothing.

          • the realist

            Before commenting you should consider the cases of Reinhart Heydrich and Admiral Yamamoto (targeted assassination) or the shelling of the French fleet in North Africa (preemptive war) both of which were . There are other examples but you could look them up with very little effort. Of course to do so would evicerate your spurious attacks so I wont hold my breath waiting for you to do so. Conservatives are nothing if not consistant in their spreading of false and misleading statements. Intellectual integrity must be listed under weaknesses in the CPC training manual.

          • http://chuckercanuck.blogspot.com chuckercanuck

            interesting, but is there a point, realist?

          • Orson Bean

            Sounds like the realist favours targeted assassination and torture of Tories. They're that evil.

        • Anonymous

          What's your problem, exactly? The Right believes in these thing and hardly every varies their thinking, even when circumstances change.

          • http://chuckercanuck.blogspot.com chuckercanuck

            good point. "The Right" does believe in these things. I am part of "The Right". Ergo, I believe in these things.

            Thank you for doing my thinking for me! Maybe you could do some for Iggy so he doesn't get dizzy changing his mind all the time!

    • wilson

      Video of Chuckers quotes above

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jecz9WHAbQ0&fe…

  • Mike514

    It's a response to NDP attacks?

    I thought it was a response to Krieber's attacks…

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

      The NDP attack referenced Krieber's attack, so in a way, the DonOLO is responding to both.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

      Of course it's the NDP attacking him on this front. The CPC wouldn't attack him for it, because a large part of their base esentially agree with what he's saying. Thats not a slag on the CPC base either, just a fact that most right-wing minded people in the western world were completely comfortable with their governments engaging in these activities, and Iggy simply voiced that opinion.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

    psiclone: Allow me to complete your second quotation in full (italics is what you left out, bold is added to make my point)

    In the first chapter, 'Democracy and the Lesser Evil,' I explain why the use of coercive force in a liberal democracy, not just in times of emergency, but in normal times as well, is regarded as a lesser evil. This particular view of democracy does not prohibit emergency suspensions of rights in times of terror. But it imposes an obligation on government to justify such measures publicly, to submit them to judicial review, and to circumscribe them with sunset clauses so that they do not become permanent. Rights do not set impassable barriers to government action, but they do require that all rights infringements be tested under adversarial review.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

    Continued:

    I try to chart a middle course between a pure civil libertarian position which maintains that no violations of rights can ever be justified and a purely pragmatic position that judges antiterrorist measures solely by their effectiveness. I argue that actions which viloate foundational commitments to justice and dignity – torture, illegal detention, unlawful assination – should be beyond the pale."

    • fool me once

      Keep up the good work. The insidious practice of lying by using half truths as practiced by psiclone and other harperites is easily countered but like all other defenses of true democracy requires constant vigilance.

    • Style

      Are these books and speeches available online anywhere?

      • the realist

        Not that I know of. I actually bought copies. I would very much like to get the equivalent thoughts of Chairman Harper but writing books apparently is one of the many things he is not good at.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

      But he doesn't say weather he thinks coersive interrogation is torture or not. Far from clear.

      • YSP

        I'm trying to picture non-coercive interrogation would look like.

        "Please, sir, help yourself to some tea & biscuits. In the meantime, if it's not too much trouble, would you mind telling us where you planted the ticking time bomb?"

        It's spelled "whether", by the way. One might wonder how Ignatief would weather coersive interrogation, but we've geen getting examples of that.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

      Note: Ignatieff spelled the word "violate" correctly in his version!

    • RayK

      That's substanially undermined by what Iggy said in Lesser Evils:

      "To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war. These are evils because each strays from national and international law and because they kill people or deprive them of freedom without due process. They can be justified only because they prevent the greater evil."

      The point that he is either totally contradicting himself, or he just wants to avoid "illegal" and "unlawful" conduct by redefining it as legal and redefining "torture" as "coercive interrogation". I suspect he's actually just contradicting himself and hasn't thought it through that much–but, as Ms. Krieber said, that's dangerous.

  • http://www.TennisVagabond.com Big Dave S

    There you go again Wells!
    Could you be any more pathetic?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

      Just watch me.

      • kcm

        Hey that's got a patent on it! Did you know that? At least swagger when you say it!

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/CanadianSense CanadianSense

        Channeling PET?

  • Mulletaur

    Hold them in our own prison camps just like we did during the Second World War. We could have recruited and trained Pashto speakers with Canadian nationality to undertake interrogations and done our own investigations. Those who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time could have been released, the others held and turned over to the Afghans provided adequate conditions of their detention could be assured. Instead, the Harper Conservative government just turned them over, knowing they would be tortured, damaging our international reputation and endangering our soldiers.

    • Style

      That sounds about right. Why wasn't there a Canadian prison camp in Afghanistan in 2006? It wasn't a Conservative decision for Canada to turn detainees over to others.

      • Mulletaur

        Good question. Let's have a public inquiry and get all the facts out in the open, agreed ?

  • Loraine Lamontagne

    Ignatieff quote from Wells previous post : "I have no explanations to make here, I have always been against torture. If you would take the trouble to read what I have said, you will see that it’s a terrible accusation"

    Wrong, Mr. Ignatieff. You should have explained your position from day one. You let your opponents define your position and the public at large will not read what you have said in the past. It's like Dingwall's pack of gum. You could have twenty reports attesting that you are innocent of what your opponents accuse you of doing, the first 'scandalous' accusation will stick.

    • the realist

      That assumes that you believe the accuser. Anyone who believes a conservative now really should have his prescription reviewed. It is easy to prove that Harper is an accomplished liar (see what he used to say in his previous incarnation at the NCC). What has been lacking so far is a consistant policy of calling him out on his lies (a full time job for a staff of 20 no doubt). If Mr. Donolo can put in place a machine to do that consistantly then he will have done the country a great service.

      • wilson

        This attack is coming from the NDP,
        not the CPC.

        • the realist

          The disease spreads. The original attacks came from the CPC in the spring of the year. They were spread among the party faithful as talking points to be used in attacking Mr. Ignatief.

          • wilson

            The original attacks came during the Lib leadership race,
            and it was Liberalsdoing the attacking.

          • Orson Bean

            Nonsense. Only Tories and those who support them are capable of wrongdoing. Haven't you been following the realist's posts?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

          Yes, it was from the NDP and note they quite often try to portray both the Cons and Libs as evil and they are purer than the driven snow – - only because they've never been the Federal government. They sure have some provincial scandals under their belts.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/CanadianSense CanadianSense

          I don't classify repeating the position(s) of MI as an attack.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

    So… Is he saying that he never condone the use of torture?

    I read this and still unclear on what he actually said. Coercive interrogations imply the use of torture, does it not?

    Frankly, I'd be ok with him just saying that he once condoned it but now sees the error of his ways. Isn't that what he did with regards to his previous support of the invasion of Iraq?

    This whole "i never said that," just doesn't make sense to me.

    • Anon Liberal

      "Coercive interrogations imply the use of torture, does it not?"

      Coerceive interrogation is a dubious expression, but can apply to things like mild sleep deprivation or hooding

      —————————

      "Frankly, I'd be ok with him just saying that he once condoned it but now sees the error of his ways. Isn't that what he did with regards to his previous support of the invasion of Iraq?"

      You might be ok with him saying that but its not what he actually said and, unlike Iraq, mea culpas are not in order (still waiting for Harper's mea culpa on Iraq by the way)

      ————————————–

      "This whole "i never said that," just doesn't make sense to me. "

      That may be more of a reflection of your reading abilities than Ignatieff's writing.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

      "Coercive interrogations imply the use of torture, does it not? "

      I think this is the nub of the issue. Is there a difference between torture and coercive interrogations? I would argue there is a great difference indeed but others think they are exactly the same.

      I assumed when people accused Iggy of supporting torture they meant coercive interrogations because few people want us to use The Maiden or The Rack on prisoners.

      I also wondered if Iggy was pro-torture for Jack Bauer type scenario where there is a nuclear bomb in the city and we have only 3 hours before detonation and authorities have the guy who knows where the bomb is.

      • wilson

        MI said torture is not evil if it is life saving:
        listen here

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=766fbhLyoO8&fe…

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

          and you disagree, wilson?

          • wilson

            I have never been introduced to an auditorium filled with people as a human rights expert.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            nice dodge.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

        "I think this is the nub of the issue. Is there a difference between torture and coercive interrogations? I would argue there is a great deal of difference indeed but others think they are exactly the same."

        jolyon, what is the difference?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

          "torture and coercive interrogations?"

          Quick answer is that torture is meant to inflict severe pain while coercive interrogations is more to do with stress and discomfort. Torture leaves you dead or maimed while coercive interrogation doesn't.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            "Torture leaves you dead or maimed while coercive interrogation doesn't. "

            Then most forms of torture (electricity, beatings, etc.) aren't torture.

            There's no necessary difference between "coercive interrogation" and "torture," because "coercive interrogation" is what you call torture when you don't call torture torture. As long as there's the potential for overlap, they're both torture.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

            "Torture leaves you dead or maimed …. "

            I was also going to write 'or unable to walk away when it's over' but removed it because it was too wordy.

            What I have read about what allegedly happened in Afghan jails sounds like torture to me. No question.

            But I don't believe water-boarding or any other coercive technique qualifies as torture. Coercive interr has more to do with fear/terror than pain. You can reasonably expect to live if you are being coercive interrogated while it's far from certain if tortured.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            "But I don't believe water-boarding or any other coercive technique qualifies as torture."

            Iggy thinks that waterboarding is torture. he's against it but supports coercive interrogations. which one of you is right?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

            "which one of you is right?"

            Both, neither, either. It is moral question, there is no right answer.

            You are afghan terrorist who has just been picked up by Canadian forces and they ask you who would you prefer being handed over to: Afghans/Torture or Americans/Coercive Interrogations.

            Would you have preference or would you say it doesn't matter because they are both torturers? I think it is easy answer but I am curious about what you would do.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            With the premise you set up which would have the Yanks suppossedly applying "coercive" techniques, I'd probably pick the Americans and hope that they have Iggy's definition of the word so I wouldn't get waterboarded.

            That being said, they both are torture to me so my decision would be based on which torturer would stop before I died. Keep in mind that this is a question being asked of me AFTER Obama banned torture from being used. I don't know that he supports sleep deprivation or stress positions. I'll assume he doesn't.

            Does that answer your question?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            I believe Obama has banned such things as sleep deprivation and stress positions (which are torture), along with waterboarding — which definitely is, contrary to jolyon's mistaken assumptions about how mild it is. Everyone who's experienced waterboarding, even with a one-word escape option, says emphatically that it's torture.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            joylon, Omar Khadr was kept awake for 21 days straight. You are going to tell me that this isn't torture?

            I don't mind having an academic discussion on the subject just as long as everyone understands that the actual application of "coercive" interrogations is not as mild as it sounds.

            I don't know that you have ever tortured anyone, joylon, but I suspect that you would have a hard time referring to Omar's treatment as "mild" after just 5 days.

            I think that Iggy was naive and spoke as someone would when they've never tortured anyone but want to try to justify it.

          • wilson

            I thought Khadr was moved every 3 hours for 21 days straight?

            Well then ranchers and new parents live tortured lives.
            I swear I didn't sleep for 8 years, between new born babies and calving 120 cows!

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            After 21 straight days without sleep, you go insane. Which, if it's analogous to your experience, explains a lot.

    • kcm

      "“When I talked about coercive interrogation, people then made the allusion right away to torture. That was never, ever, ever intended/desired/stated. There is a clear line between tough interrogations that stay on the right side of the law and stuff that gets into the area of moral disgrace, and I’ve always been clear what that line is"

      But you're right, coersive interrogation is a particularly nasty euphemism, te sort that politicians and academics adore…but i doubt MI came up with it.
      Someone should ask Harper straight out whether torture is ever permissable, and if so under what circumstances…odd that nobody to my knowledge yet has.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

        kcm, I'm sure Harper supports it. He probably believes that using it against accused terrorists is justified.

        Iggy supports some form of torture from what I gather. He can call it coercive interrogation if he so chooses, it doesn't change what it is. I don't believe in a middle ground on this one.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Bartolomeo Bartolomeo

          "I don't believe in a middle ground on this one"

          As evident from your post in the "Colvin Affair: Who knew what when?" thread a few days ago. You don't see a middle ground between Rwandan war criminals found guilty of murder, rape and genocide, and alleged the war crime committed by the Canadian military.

  • Style

    Let's make sure the New Democrats write the terms of reference and choose the chair of the inquiry, so we don't have to worry about the Liberals and Conservatives manipulating this to hide their own culpability. Sound good?

    • Mulletaur

      No electoral gifts for the loopy lefties who want to pull us both out of Afghanistan and out of NATO, thank you very much. Instead, I would be in favour of having three retired former leaders, one from each of the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP, agree by consensus on both the terms of the inquiry and on the chair. I think that would be fair. Broadbent, Martin and Manning ? What do you say ?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

        LOL

      • Style

        The New Democrats still seem to have the higher ground on this issue, but I can understand your reluctance to let another party control the debate…

        Neither Martin nor Chretien are good choices, given their personal involvement in the decisions. Dion?

        • Mulletaur

          Sure.

    • wilson

      And Dippers can do that, just as soon as Jack is elected PM.

      • Style

        Hooray – another highly sought endorsement for Jack!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

    Anon Liberal,

    dubious expression? As in torture-lite? I'm not even going to bother asking you what "mild" sleep deprivation is. I'm sure you can see how the "mild" version would vary from one country to another.

    And no need for the insults, ok? You want to get mad at someone, get mad at the people who decided to crown Iggy as their leader.

    Splitting hairs on what constitutes torture doesn't wash.

    • Anon Liberal

      And "splitting hairs" as you call it is very important. Details matter. Otherwise you'll have people claiming that being put in handcuffs is "torture".

  • Orson Bean

    But he's very good at torturing cute little kittens. I think I read that on a bathroom wall once. Or maybe in this comments section.

  • Style

    Great – can I leave it with you to get that done? I have to make dinner now.

    • Mulletaur

      You think it's easy to make public inquiries ?

  • Anon Liberal

    I don't know. We should ask some grad students.

  • oppoguy

    Liberals know they have a timebomb on their hands, and I give them full credit for trying to defuse it.

    But just like his infamous (and borowed) statement on the coalition: "Coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition," most of Ignatieff's statements on torture start with one proposition but morph into allowing the exact opposite.

    Perhaps the best example is from January 2003:

    "But having said everything that I can say about this, and I say how much I loathe the use of torture, the best we can assert is that torture is less efficient than is often portrayed; but in a situation of extreme necessity, the possibility, even a slight possibility, that it may reveal some life saving result would almost certainly overwhelm any consideration that it is evil."

From Macleans