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.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Ignatieff, torture, NDP

by Paul Wells on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:08pm - 107 Comments

From the Inkless emailbox. This news release from the NDP is pretty incendiary, but readers who don’t welcome the message will want to know (a) that the NDP is putting this stuff about and (b) that this is probably what a general election campaign will feel like. Readers who welcome the message, on the other hand, will welcome the message. Buckle up:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NOVEMBER 24, 2009

REALITY CHECK: Join Ignatieff’s Book Club on Torture

Yesterday in scrums, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff attempted to dismiss charges of hypocrisy against him, by challenging reporters to examine his well known statements about the appropriate use of torture:

“I did twenty minutes [sic] of journalism on protecting human rights, 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.” – Michael Ignatieff, CTV News Channel, 23 November 2009

Okay. Let’s take him up on that:

ON WHEN TORTURE ISN’T EVIL
“…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

But don’t just take our word for it, Ignatieff’s writings on the appropriate use of torture are of concern to Liberals as well:

“To justify violence, he must have really given it serious thought. Otherwise, that’s very dangerous. What guarantee would there be that he wouldn’t change his mind again?” – Terrorism and counter-terrorism scholar Dr. Janine Krieber, Facebook message as reprinted in Toronto Star, 21 November 2009
-30-

Tags: Michael Ignatieff, NDP, the pen is mightier, torture

More by Paul Wells

Mulletaur

Neither of those out of context quotes demonstrate that Iggy is in favour of torture in any circumstances. What utter rubbish from the same people who would have willingly thrown in their lot with Stalin as long as they got Cabinet posts out of it.
Style

I don't think it's fair to compare Dion to Stalin…
Mulletaur

LOL, I knew that was coming …
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Wow. The NDP war room is getting nasty.

It seems like a naked bid to attract disgruntled Liberals who agree with Krieber's manifesto.

quo usque

Ms. Krieber is wrong on many points. Her contention that liberal parties have disappeared from Europe is more than a bit bizarre. If you examine the policies of the current french and german governments you will find that they are typical middle of the road socially progressive / fiscally responsible mix typical of Canadian liberals. The same applies to the Blair/ Brown labor government in Britain. In France the nearest equivalent to our conservatives are the FN and the MFP of Francois de Villiers. You have to remember to look past the party names and look at what they stand for. Outside Britain you wont find to many parties that actually call themselves conservative or liberal. But if you examine the policies of the german CDU and the French gaullists you will find more in common with the canadian liberals than the conservatives.
Anon Liberal

Well it's a stupid naked bid because what it really does is anger Liberals or anyone who is the least bit fairminded.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

Methinks repercussions from the Iggy quick divorce from the quick coalition marriage…

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

Big environmentalist, Stalin.

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

providing humans are responsible for most of the damage and Stalin certainly culled the gene pool – so actually you might have a point – I wonder when the ECO warriors will take their philosophy to it's logical conclusion

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

Awesome. I love it when elbows get thrown about a bit. Keep it up, dippers!

I particularly like the jujutsu technique of using Krieber's quote against Iggy.
leroy

OK … nooowwww I see why the NDP don't want to change the rules for the 10 percenters. It seems they've decided to use the same tactics as the CPC. The next election is already ugly.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Not that the NDP should be held to an unfairly high standard or anything, but could someone explain to me how taking potshots at Ignatieff contributes to either a) holding the government to account, or b) making Parliament work for Canadians?

Won't this make it a bit harder for them to put forward the argument that Canadians can trust them to park the partisan gamesmanship at the door? (Just to be clear, it's perfectly fair game for them to do this, I just don't see how it helps their larger strategey).

Mulletaur

The Dippers want to discredit the Liberals on torture so they will get all the political benefit from holding the government to account on the Afghan prisoners question. Of course, this will be hard for the NDP to do given the fact that they are ardent supporters of the Castro Communist dictatorship in Cuba which tortures political prisoners on a regular basis.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

I know why they're doing it. It just seems to me that Layton's been trying to project an image as the only grown-up on the hill. And this latest ploy tends to be at odds with a party that's "working for Canadians," and is instead "working for the NDP." I wonder if they're paying attention to the broader message they've been trying to convey.

Cuba?! I guess most everybody can be found to have tangentally supported torture, if we work hard enough at it.

Mulletaur

I would love to know how many NDP members are also members of 'Canada-Cuba Friendship Associations'. I don't think you'll find very many Liberals or Conservatives as members …

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Yes. That would certainly help settle the matter of potential Canadian complicity in Afghan torture of prisoners.
Mulletaur

It would not, but it would at least expose NDP hypocrisy on the question of torture. As far as the NDP and its supporters are concerned, it's okay to torture democratic opponents of the Castro brothers, because they support that particular Communist dictatorship.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

A little thing I've learned from marriage: being right, or showing the other to be wrong, ain't all it's cracked up to be. It's not always applicable to politics, but I think it might apply in this case.

Is it more important for the NDP and Libs to get into a you-support-torture-more-than-me p*ssing match? Or is that little matter of our current situation in Afghanistan, and our government's failure to readily embrace transparency, possibly a bit more pressing?

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

Policy resolution introduced by the Durham NDP at the party's 2006 fall conference :

“WHEREAS the United States government continues to enforce its war-like economic embargo of Cuba, causing increased suffering to the population; and
WHEREAS Cuba’s socialized economy, extensive social equity achievements, and quality social services ensure that human needs are put first, in stark contrast to rapacious global capitalism; and
WHEREAS the loss of the Cuban socialist project would constitute an historic setback for working people everywhere,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the NDP express its solidarity with Cuba, encourage Party members to visit the island, demand the immediate release of the anti-terrorist Cuban five framed and imprisoned in the U.S., demand an end to the U.S. embargo, and demand an end to U.S.-backed efforts to destabilize and sabotage Cuba’s socialist gains and national sovereignty.”

RayK

You really are just dumb, aren't you? One riding association–in one of the least NDP riding's in the country, with very few members–submitting a single policy resolution, doesn't make the party "ardent supporters" of that policy. In fact, it is meaningless.
Mulletaur

Not at all. It is evidence of what ordinary NDP members really believe. The same resolution is repeated virtually word for word by the NDP Socialist Caucus in preparation for the August 2009 NDP convention :

"23. Solidarity with Cuba

Whereas the United States government continues to enforce its war-like economic embargo of Cuba, causing increased suffering to the population;

Whereas Cuba’s socialized economy, extensive social equity achievements, and quality social services ensure that human needs are put first, in stark contrast to rapacious global capitalism;

And whereas the loss of the Cuban socialist project would constitute an historic setback for working people everywhere;

Therefore Be It Resolved That thefollowing be added to Section 4.5 of the Policy booklet: "The NDP will express its solidarity with Cuba, encourage party members to visit the island, demand the immediate release of the anti-terrorist Cuban Five framed and imprisoned in the U.S., demand an end to the U.S. embargo, an end to the U.S. occupation of Guantanamo, and an end to U.S.-backed efforts to destabilize and sabotage Cuba’s socialist gains and national sovereignty." "

The NDP Socialist Caucus also has resolutions calling for nationalization of the banks and insurance companies, nationalization of the car industry, nationalization of the oil and gas industry and repealing the Clarity Act.

The NDP – the same loopy leftards they have always been.
RayK

So, then I guess that given the Sponsorship Scandal all Liberals must be criminals, right?

And siince there numerous Liberal MP that are anti-choice that means the Liberal Party is in favour of banning abortion, right?

Are you really not capable seeing how flawed your reasoning is, or are you just being silly?
Mulletaur

There is nothing silly about the NDP's support for the Castro regime, which tortures its own citizens who are fighting for democratic freedoms. The NDP should be ashamed. Quote me a single statement by Jack Layton denouncing human rights abuses in Cuba to prove me wrong.
RayK

"Quote me a single statement by Jack Layton denouncing human rights abuses in Cuba to prove me wrong."

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

Can you show me such 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?

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

In a minority parliament, every MP is involved in making legislation, every MP in committees is influential, and so on. So why wouldn't all MPs be legitimate targets for debate?

Dakota

Isn't it funny that it's the Liberals who were crying the loudest about the accusations of torture and are being led by a person who justifies the use of torture.

What kind of message does this send to our armed forces? That torture is a necessary evil as long as there is a Liberal government but that it becomes a horrendous war crime when a Conservative government takes over?

Mulletaur

"Isn't it funny that it's the Liberals who were crying the loudest about the accusations of torture and are being led by a person who justifies the use of torture."

No, he doesn't. There is nothing in either of those two out of context quotations which support your statement.

Dakota

Really…because when I read them it is pretty plain. Ignatieff believes torture to be a necessary evil when it comes to saving lives. But I guess he doesn’t mean the lives of our armed forces, or the lives of innocent Afghans. He must mean the lives of downtown Toronto Liberals.

Mulletaur

There is a huge difference between discussing the practical and philosophical implications of the use of torture and actually endorsing its use, the subtlety of which clearly escapes you. Nowhere and at no time has Michael Ignatieff ever condoned the use of torture in any circumstances. Period.

RayK

But he wasn't "discussing the practical and philosophical implications of the use of torture"; he was advocating national US policy in the wake of 9/11–and it was a policy that that viewed torture as an acceptable "lesser evil".
Mulletaur

RayK, your lies have already been largely surpassed by other postings on the Inkless Wells blog. Give it up.
RayK

Yes, we should all just take Liberal press release as fact.
RayK

Furthermore, even Dick Cheney claims he's against quote-unquote "torture". But of the twelve quotes in that Liberal press release, six are from after Ignatieff leaked that he was running for public office, one is from 1987 and the other five are from the same book in which Ignatieff writes:

"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."

Not too convincing.
Mulletaur

Yup, the facts prove you wrong.

Mulletaur

Well well Wells.
able to read

Dakota you might actually want to read one of his books for a change. I know that in the conservative circles you frequent where willful ignorance is considered a virtue and reading a book not associated with hockey gets you labelled as an elitist liberal but you can always read it in secret and later pretend to be as ill informed as any other conservative.

Dakota

Maybe if I can find a used copy…but I imagine it would be a slow and arduous endeavor, the content is probably very dry.

John D

pathetic

Michael

Yes, let’s answer the charge of being intellectually dishonest by using out-of-context remarks with…more out of context remarks.

I wish I could expect better from the NDP.

anguished

Its the conservative disease spreading. Wherever Harper conservatives appear you can expect vulgarity, brutality and lies to become the common currency. Poorly educated and proud of their ignorance members of the CPC are reducing public discourse in Canada to a series of big lies of which Goebbels would be proud.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Mike514 Mike514

That's right. An NDP press release criticising the Liberals is the fault of… the Tories.

Oh, Tories. Is there nothing you can't be blamed for?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Mike514 Mike514

That's right. An NDP press release criticising the Liberals is the fault of… the Tories.

Oh, Tories. Is there nothing you can't be blamed for?

Orson Bean

I don't know, I find this educational and informative — until anguished's post, I didn't realize that it's been proven that CPC members have less education than supporters of other political parties. I must have missed that scientific study.

BTW Mike514 I believe that Tories are also responsible for AIDS, bad weather and bad hair days.

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

I hate it when the NDP does stupid crap like this.

John W.

Agreed. Makes it impossible for disgruntled Libs to even think of going there. Puts little Ottawa point gains ahead of principles. Come on guys don't get caught up in these Cons style hate games. Direct your attacks in a direction derived more from principle than day by day tactics.
But I guess the coalition is pretty well dead now!.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

Agreed. Great opportunity to make some headway.
Instead, it's like they pulled out their manhood in a room full of people asking "Who's In?"
Poor strategy……

Anon Liberal

Disgusting. Not just the NDP taking quotations out of context. That is, of course, replusive and demonstrates once again how the Layton-led NDP has no principles and is just another political party willing to do or say anything in the pursuit of power.

But also Wells trying to present this as some sort of 'well some readers will like this, others won't. I am, of course, just presenting it for your information as a neutral observer" BS.

Everyone with the least bit of objectivity who has actually read "A Lesser Evil" acknowleges that it is a work in which Ignatieff, in his then capacity as an academic, tries to grapple with the morality of torture. Is it ever justifiable? If so, in what situations? He ultimately concludes that it should never be employed by democratic goevrnments.

His politcal opponents, the ones without any integrity, select those parts of the arguments that present the case for torture while ignoring his arguments against it (and his final conclusion).

Wells is perfectly aware of this. But he's here faciliating the ongoing distortions and lies. I know he hates Ignatieff but this is beneath him.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

I have to admit I've never read it – mainly because I don't really care that much about his prior academic musings. Is his ultimate conclusion really that democratic governments should *never* torture? Because I'm thinking the Liberals would have put that paragraph out by now, if it existed.

Anon Liberal

SeanStok – I don't have access to the actual quotations (although they've been cited before on Macleans) but Ignatieff concludes that torture should never be employed becuase it dehumanizes both the prisoner AND the torturer and removes the moral high ground for states who practice it.

The only qualification he makes is that he does not consider "forms of sleep deprivation that do not result in lasting harm to mental or physical health, together with disinformation and disorientation (like keeping prisoners in hoods)" as being torture.

RayK

That's nonsense. Ignatieff questions whether waterboarding is torture; he explicitly advocates "coercive interrogation"; he says that a conscientious security offcier would have to use torture if he thought it would ssave lives; he says that we have to assume that torture works or less it wouldn't be used so often.

Dick Cheney says he's opposed to torture. That's meaningless. What matters are specific policys (advocated or implemented).

Mulletaur

RayK, do at least try to keep up, your lies have already been exposed elsewhere on Wells' blog.

Lord Kitchener's Own

How about this from his shorter essay in Prospect: "So I end up supporting an absolute and unconditional ban on both torture and those forms of coercive interrogation that involve stress and duress, and I believe that enforcement of such a ban should be up to the military justice system plus the federal courts. I also believe that the training of interrogators can be improved by executive order and that the training must rigorously exclude stress and duress methods" (emphasis added).

Or this section later on: "We cannot torture, in other words, because of who we are. This is the best I can do, but those of us who believe this had better admit that many of our fellow citizens are bound to disagree. It is in the nature of democracy itself that fellow citizens will define their identity in ways that privilege security over liberty and thus reluctantly endorse torture in their name. If we are against torture, we are committed to arguing with our fellow citizens, not treating those who defend torture as moral monsters. Those of us who oppose torture should also be honest enough to admit that we may have to pay a price for our own convictions. Ex ante, of course, I cannot tell how high this price might be. Ex post—following another terrorist attack that might have been prevented through the exercise of coercive interrogation—the price of my scruple might simply seem too high. This is a risk I am prepared to take, but frankly, a majority of fellow citizens is unlikely to concur. " (emphasis added again).

The problem is, Ignatieff went through all the ways one COULD, or would attempt to justify torture in coming to his conclusion that it really CAN'T be justified, and now his opponents quote all the "coulds" and "maybes" and "hypotheticalies" of his argument and conveniently leave out quoting his ultimate conclusion.

RayK

That was published in April of 2006–after Ignatieff announced he was running for the leadership of the Liberal Party and long after he entered poltiics.

No one disputes that Ignatieff has denied being against torture after entering politics; it what he said/wrote before that's at issue.

(In that same Prospect piece Igantieff claims that torture is so commonly used that it must be an effective way of collecting intelligence and that not using torture increases the threat to society from terrorist attack. But most interrogation experts say that simply not true; torture is not an effective way to collect intelligence. Leave it to Iggy make the forces of good fight with one hand behind their backs for the sake of an intellectual exercise.)

Mulletaur

RayK, do at least try to keep up, your lies have already been exposed elsewhere on Wells' blog.
RayK

Even Dick Cheney claims he's against quote-unquote "torture". But of the twelve quotes in that Liberal press release, six are from after Ignatieff leaked that he was running for public office, one is from 1987 and the other five are from the same book in which Ignatieff writes:

"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."

Not too convincing.
Mulletaur

You are not convincing at all, I quite agree. Your lies are countered by facts.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Thank you! Why on earth haven't the Libs managed to get this out? It seems fairly unequivocal.

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

Knock me over with a feather. Anon Liberal is offended.

Anon Liberal

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/02/22/does-michael-i…

http://www.googwesadgt.com Jacob

Consider who is levelling these criticisms.

[youtube ZGawr9InNFg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGawr9InNFg youtube]

Mulletaur

Ah yes, the so-called '9-11 Truthers' ; what the NDP and their supporters truly believe.

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

That's it, counter stupid, dishonest crap with your own stupid, dishonest crap.

Mulletaur

Not at all. Every lefty I know, many of them also NDP supporters, think 9-11 was a put up job by who knows what crazy conspiracy.

http://intensedebate.com/people/c_9 c_9

What a fascinating and non-representative sample of lefties you know!

http://intensedebate.com/people/c_9 c_9

Yeesh. Some edited quotes, and more detailed quotes from someone other than Layton, does not an argument make.

But still, great example of how the people you call "good friends" can have an impact on your credibility. I'm a big fan of Layton's serious work, but I dislike his unserious side (like this, if the video is actually representative of beliefs) and some of his unserious/unrealistic associates (Bev Collins).

Anon Liberal

People wonder why Ignatieff is so careful to wtach his words and so reluctant to share his policy ideas. Is it any wonder when people are allowed to get away with this kind of idiotic spinning. I mean this attack should have been debunked 3 years ago and yet it keeps being recycled employing the logic that if a lie is told long enough people will eventually believe it is true.

If I was Donolo I would CRUSH Layton for trying this BS. Expose him for what a little power hungry weasel he is. His positions on the Green Shift and to letting the Green Party participate in the last leaders debate should have expose him for what he is. This seals the deal.

Dakota

And exactly how is Donolo going to crush Layton?

Isn't Donolo the guy involved in Ad-scam?

Anon Liberal

Yes Daklota, he is the guy "involved" in Adscam. He was tried and found guilty in criminal court. He is currently running the OLO from his prison cell Conrad Black-style. Thanks for reminding us.
kcm

Pathetic troll!

wilson

Does this mean the NDP will not try to stop information on detainee treatment prior to the day the Harper govt was sworn in….?
Jack can thank his lucky stars that Harper prorouged Parliament.

Dakota

I think we'll see less co-operation with the Liberals from the NDP on this file from now on, and a whole lot less noise from the Liberals throwing around accusations of war crimes involving torture.

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

Anon Liberal and others:
We hear from Ignatieff supporters that these quotes are taken out of context- as part of Ignatieff's thinking-out-loud on the subject, leading to his conclusion that torture is NEVER justified.
If that is the case, can you please supply a quotation from that work that supports that? Something like, "That said, its just never worth it!"
If these quotes are out of context, please prove that.
Or is the book called A Lesser Evil because, umm, he actually sometimes supports something evil, but less so than some other stuff he doesn't support (say, oh, torture for the former and bombing thousands of civilians for the latter)?

I'd just rather get the Coles Notes than give Ignatieff $32 or whatever the book goes for.

Thanks!

Dakota

Don't hold your breath. If such a quote existed the Liberals would have tattooed it onto their foreheads.

Mulletaur

Don't you ever get tired of always being wrong Dakota ?

Anon Liberal

For your reading pleasure: http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/02/22/does-michael-i…
catherine

You can search the book yourself on amazon's website. Just picking the sentence that first uses the word torture (p2 of preface):

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

He even explains his title:

Using the word evil rather than the word harm is intended to highlight the elements of moral risk that a liberal theory of government believes are intrinsic to the maintenance of order in any society premised upon the dignity of individuals.

But, really, why not do your own searching.
http://www.TennisVagabond.com Big Dave S

The readings you have provided are convincing enough.

Good work.

I'm no fan of Ignatieff but it looks like those making these accusations really are being douchebags (except Prof. Krieber, who seems to actually believe what she is saying and must therefore be a doorknob).

And I will open the floor to Krieber supporters to prove that she is actually a douchebag and not a doorknob herself.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Lord_Bob Lord Bob

To be fair, Ignatieff's share of that book sale is going to be a lot less than $32. Really, you give Iggy more money than an author's residual just by working for two weeks.

That's just more depressing, isn't it?

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

Iggy really shot another foot with another bullet – the guy is going to have to buy new shoes pretty soon – the very last thing you ver what to do as a polticician is dare people to actaully review your past when you are on record for such – there is no taking out of context going on here – he said what he said and he meant it – so fess up Iggy it's time after all it is exactly what you want your oppostion to do = isn't it?
kcm

Wow! How does this advance progressive politics again dippers? Oh right by insisting that you be the ones to lead…good one jack…watch out for Harper though, he's looking over your shoulder…reading your game plan.

As for the quotes. Even read straight up, lacking context, they're debateable.
ON WHEN TORTURE ISN’T EVIL
Seems to me MI is talking about the ticking bomb crap…way to prove him wrong by misrepresenting him dippers.
ON HOW DEMOCRACIES SHOULD JUSTIFY TORTURE
Depends how you define coercive force?
In any case you'd need to see the context.
So after 4 years of watching Harper the NDP have learned what precisely? That low ball works apparently.
As a progressive myself i hope this comes back and bites them in the ass, big time…but it probably wont…sigh…"hi greens what you up to today"?

catherine

Yes, these particular quotes are pretty bad. In the second, the NDP seems to be trying to equate the term coercive force (which in the usual definition does not even require any physical force and which democratic governments use routinely) with torture. I don't think the NDP means to equate requiring a child to be home at 9pm to be equivalent to torture … or maybe they do!

kcm

It's the hazard of euphemisms…hate them myself.
Lord Kitchener's Own

Yeah, they're really stretching the definition of "coercive force" in this context aren't they. It's like they're saying that the fact that we allow the police to carry guns (as the sole authorized agents of "coercive force" in a democratic society) is somehow a form of torture.

kcm

I wonder if honest rational debate in this country is any lnger possible…at least some days. You should not have to start the beginning of almost every contentious debate by having to define the actual terms of that debate.

Mulletaur

I think that this NDP rubbish has been well and truly refuted. Now, on to more important things, like holding the Harper Conservative government accountable.

RayK

Even Dick Cheney claims he's against quote-unquote "torture". But of the twelve quotes in that Liberal press release, six are from after Ignatieff leaked that he was running for public office, one is from 1987 and the other five are from the same book in which Ignatieff writes:

"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."

Not too convincing.

Mulletaur

You're repeating yourself, RayK.

Anon Liberal

I shouldn't have had to link that PW. It should have been in your blog.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

You're slow, but you'll catch up.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

In all honesty, having read a fair bit of Ignatieff's stuff I don't think he condones torture. He views "torture" and "coercive force" as distinct, in that certain kinds of "coercive force" are not torture. He's right about that; clearly not all coercive force is torture or every time someone is forcibly taken into custody, we'd consider it torture. He also views certain forms of coercion while in custody/interrogation, such as mild sleep deprivation, loud music, etc. as not being torture.

So I'm inclined to think that second quote is taken out of context. It probably refers to "coercive interrogation" rather than torture per se. One might disagree with Ignatieff on whether that distinction exists, but in fairness the full quote or a link to the text of the lecture should be added so we can check for ourselves.

kcm

Anyone who's ever worked in our schools would know right away that coersive force is not torture…but i'm absolutely connvinced that a lot of techers out there could tell you exacty what torture constitutes.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"He views 'torture' and 'coercive force' as distinct, in that certain kinds of "coercive force" are not torture."

I keep hearing that. What is "mild sleep deprivation?" No sleep for 2 days? 5? Who decides what the line is between "coercive" and torture?

Didn't Cheney or someone in Bush's administration argue that waterboarding was not torture?

Orson Bean

Yeah, but they're evil. Ignatieff is good. Get with the program already.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Bartolomeo Bartolomeo

"I keep hearing that. What is "mild sleep deprivation?" No sleep for 2 days? 5? Who decides what the line is between "coercive" and torture?"

Many people disagree widely over where the line is between torture and coercive interrogation, but in arguing over the demarcation of the two, they are acknowledging that THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. Is sleep deprivation for 5 days torture? Maybe. Two days? Some would say yes.

What do you say? Is anything "not" torture? What about 24 hours? How about 18 hours? Wouldn't that be torture by your (non)definition? If not, why not?

Can you, or will you, answer that?

Mulletaur

Oh, and while we're at it, let us review what the NDP Socialist Caucus Socialist Caucus thinks we should be doing about Afghanistan, shall we ? Here is policy resolution number one for the convention held in Halifax in August 2009 :

"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." "

Loopy lefties at their best, wouldn't you say ?

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

Sure. Not at all like those mixed-up Americans …

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/24/c…

Anon Liberal

Ha! "National resistence forces.

Dear God,

I don't ask for much, but please let Jack Layton go to Afghanistan on a fact-finding photo opportunity and get kidnapped by the Taliban.

kcm

That, distasteful as it sounds, might actually bring the taliban to the negotiating table.

Orson Bean

Having to listen to Layton and see that sanctimonious face that he puts on when speaking in public — that would definitely constitute torturing the Taliban.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

Geez – What a wonderful world we live in. Doesn't Iggy know that you can't get away with thoughtcrime!
Big Brother is watching…..