The thick and thin red lines
Friday, February 12, 2010
When the next bomb goes off in London, blame the judges – Telegraph Blogs.
Con Coughlin should be ashamed of himself. The linked article would be unworthy of the Daily Mail, let alone the Daily Telegraph. However much Binyam Mohammed's claim to have been an innocent back-packer in Afghanistan may stink, the fact remains: decent people from decent countries don't torture. Just as it's easy to uphold the free speech of those who agree with you, so it's easy not to torture your friends. Self-restraint is only needed when it comes to those you consider (rightly or wrongly) your enemies. That restraint is a litmus test for civilisation. It seems on this occasion that Britain's security services have failed it, shaming us all.
But this commentary on Coughlin's sick article is disgusting too. Not the part about Britain as "...one of the world's most influential powers...", which is just ridiculous (and a let-out for future torture by the less "influential" powers Britain's leftists support). No, the part that's offensive is this;
If you think that the rule of law should be ditched when the government decides it’s terror-time just come out and say it, Con. And if you think that being “unsympathetic” is enough to merit “at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” have the guts to spell it out. Come on! Your pals in the services would be dead impressed [my emphasis]
For readers of Liberal Conspiracy, our soldiers, sailors and airmen are thugs who would be "impressed" by support for torture. Nothing I know justifies such an assumption and, while there are always sad exceptions, I doubt most of them - well-disciplined though they are - would accept even a direct order to do it. Modern British leftists, however, are not cut from the same cloth as Labour man George Orwell. He wrote that;
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
His political descendants (and goodness, how far they have descended) have no such respect for our warriors. Warriors who risk themselves regardless of the follies of the politicians who lead them. The daily idiocies at Liberal Conspiracy are such a reliable antidote to low blood pressure that they should be available on prescription. This kind of cant however is just too darkly revealing.
I fear we may diverge at this point, Tom.
Posted by: He's Spartacus | Saturday, February 27, 2010 at 09:36 AM
Thanks for your frank answers. Do stick around and comment on other posts. It's nice to have a bit of ideological diversity (and while you are here you are doing no harm elsewhere). B^)
Posted by: Tom | Tuesday, February 16, 2010 at 10:27 PM
"I remain interested in why you consider torture by an "influential power" to be worse (and logically, therefore, torture by a less influential power to be better)."
I didn't mean to suggest that it was more immoral, rather that its exposure would be of greater significance. If a waiter and an MP/Banker had been found guilty of theft, people would naturally be more interested in the latter - not because he/she was the greater criminal, but because the actions of that criminal have greater relevance to their lives. On reflection, though, the paragraphs should have been revealed whoever the perpetrator, so I shouldn't have included "influential". *Slaps self on the wrist.*
"As a matter of curiosity, what would your advice be to your son or daughter contemplating a career in the armed (or intelligence) services?"
If I had children, I'd be stridently promoting the notion (knowing teens, nothing would be more effective in dissuading them). More seriously, I'd advise against it - if they ignored that advice, however, I'm sure I'd feel no less affection.
"If you were a school governor, what would your attitude be to visits by the Army, Navy or Air Force careers teams?"
Not sure, I'm afraid - I know very little about the visits (only that my own was unutterably tedious). If there was a careers programme, I suppose they'd be included; when somebody's old enough to get a job, they're old enough to decide on what career they want to pursue.
Posted by: BenSix | Tuesday, February 16, 2010 at 08:25 PM
Thanks for the clarifications (and the inadvertent healthcare). While marginally less disgusted, I remain interested in why you consider torture by an "influential power" to be worse (and logically, therefore, torture by a less influential power to be better).
As a matter of curiosity, what would your advice be to your son or daughter contemplating a career in the armed (or intelligence) services? If you were a school governor, what would your attitude be to visits by the Army, Navy or Air Force careers teams?
Posted by: Tom | Tuesday, February 16, 2010 at 11:11 AM
Hi Tom,
You've misunderstood me on two points. Firstly, "one of the world's most influential powers" didn't refer to Britain, but the US. Secondly, "pals in the services" was a nod towards Coughlin's thoroughly disreputable sources within the secret services, whose claims, as I wrote earlier in the piece, he's famed for regurgitating. That should, perhaps, have been made clearer.
Nonetheless (if the price is right, o'course) I remain willing to hire myself out as an antidote to low blood pressure.
Best,
Disgusting of Liberal Conspiracy
Posted by: BenSix | Friday, February 12, 2010 at 08:04 PM
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Yes, Tom. It is the patriarchal concept, the concept of protection, as against the matriarchal PC love-all and tolerate the intolerable or the State infantilization of people.
Posted by: jameshigham | Friday, February 12, 2010 at 07:59 AM
The claims are, as far as I can find:
Morocco: "November 2002, Mohamed was being subject to intense, regular beatings and sessions in which his chief Moroccan torturer, a man he knew as Marwan, slashed his chest and genitals with a scalpel."
Pakistan: "with methods that included days of sleep deprivation, a mock execution and being beaten while being hung by his wrists for hours on end."
Afghanistan: "'There were loudspeakers in the cell, pumping out what felt like about 160 watts, a deafening volume, non-stop, 24 hours a day.
'They played the same CD for a month, The Eminem Show.
'It's got about 20 songs on it and when it was finished it went back to the beginning and started again.
'While that was happening, a lot of the time, for hour after hour, they had me shackled.
'Sometimes it was in a standing position, with my wrists chained to the top of the door frame.
'Sometimes they were chained in the middle, at waist level, and sometimes they were chained at the bottom, on the floor.
'The longest was when they chained me for eight days on end, in a position that meant I couldn't stand straight nor sit.
'I couldn't sleep. I had no idea whether it was day or night."
Posted by: Surreptitious Evil | Friday, February 12, 2010 at 07:48 AM
I know they say the guy was tortured. But I didn't hear what they did that was torture. Before I go all sympathetic for this holidaymaker.
How do they define it? Is it like "Child Poverty" or some of these other goalpoast movery cuddly fluffy definition type things... or was he genuinely tortured?
Did he complain to ABTA?
Posted by: Moggsy | Friday, February 12, 2010 at 07:22 AM