"I just can't answer the question honestly," he said. "I respect the decision taken by Mr. Chretien in 2003. He did it in the interests of all Canadians. He did it because he understands that every decision to commit troops overseas in our nation's history has been a national-unity question."
Support for Iraq war dogs Ignatieff
If Michael Ignatieff is saying here that Chretien kept Canadian troops out of the Iraq War because he was afraid it might exacerbate national unity issues, then Iggy does not understand the country he wishes to rule. There was never majority support for joining the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, either in Quebec or the ROC. Chretien kept the country out of the war because it was desperately obvious that the war was a bad idea.
This is not Iggy's first time making drop dead stupid statements. As others have noted, his recent Prospect Magazine article, still available at http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7374, makes the following claim:
While some abuse and outright torture can be attributed to individual sadism, poor supervision and so on, it must be the case that other acts of torture occur because interrogators believe, in good faith, that torture is the only way to extract information in a timely fashion. It must also be the case that if experienced interrogators come to this conclusion, they do so on the basis of experience. The argument that torture and coercion do not work is contradicted by the dire frequency with which both practices occur.
The argument here, in short: torture must work because torturers swear by it.
3 comments:
That is why I've always had my doubts and reservations about Ignatieff, even though the majority of bloggers here seem to like him and view him differently. (I just can't see him as the compassionate, intellectually-dazzling mental giant that he is purported to be.)
amd
"He did it because he understands that every decision to commit troops overseas in our nation's history has been a national-unity question."
This is true and Ignatieff should get some credit for stating the obvious. One very good reason for keeping Canada out of the war was that it would have stooked separtist fires in Quebec.
"'While some abuse and outright torture can be attributed to individual sadism, poor supervision and so on, it must be the case that other acts of torture occur because interrogators believe, in good faith, that torture is the only way to extract information in a timely fashion. It must also be the case that if experienced interrogators come to this conclusion, they do so on the basis of experience. The argument that torture and coercion do not work is contradicted by the dire frequency with which both practices occur.'
The argument here, in short: torture must work because torturers swear by it."
The argument is not torture must work because tortures swear by it. It really has two parts. First not all do so because they enjoy causing pain for pain sake. Some believe torture works. This is pretty safe conclusion to draw. Second, torturers should not be assumed to be stupid; not all would continue to use methods that they firmly believe do not work.
Now, does this Ignatieff go to far in saying that given the above set of premises torture must work? I would say yes. As the history of science shows people believe in false theories that they feel are well grounded by evidence. However, there is a pretty good chance that it does work.
Post a Comment