The next time a “prolife” Torture Defender says…

The next time a “prolife” Torture Defender says… December 16, 2014

“Liberal pantywaists care more about a few terrorists than they do about the unborn” bear in mind that he is defending the sodomization of children at Abu Ghraib that somebody thought would be a great thing to get on tape.

Attention: “prolife” “Faithful” Catholic torture defenders.  It is hard for you to kick against the goads.  And there is no point in doing so.  Nothing is achieved by continuing to pretend to be confused about the definition of torture, or by faking puzzlement about what grave intrinsic evil is.  You no longer have to waste your time feigning bafflement about whether waterboarding is really torture.  There is now copious evidence that lots of other tortures were used that even the most morally obtuse have to confess to be torture.

And despite the lies of men like Dick Cheney, who lied for years that the extent of our crimes was just a “dunking” of three high value detainees, and who now nakedly declares that the ends justify the means, and who expects us to believe that “it worked” based on his worthless word, there is no evidence that torture stopped a single plot and plenty of evidence that it made intel-gathering vastly more difficult.

Meanwhile, what has the “prolife” Catholic torture defender gained from supporting this filth?  Less than nothing.  Not only did torture make our intel gathering worse, it has now completed the terms of the Faustian deal with the devil in classic fashion: by taking his soul and giving him *nothing* in return.  The “prolife faithful” Catholic torture defender now finds that he is going to the mat to defend… THE SODOMIZATION OF CHILDREN.

You don’t have to do this anymore, O Torture Defender.  You don’t have to get played like this anymore. You don’t need to defend this filth anymore.  You can walk away anytime,  say, “I repent.  I was wrong to defend this.  God forgive me.  Never again!” and God will most certainly and eagerly forgive you.  Why die on this hill?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Peggy

    I’m not here to defend any actions, but my recollection is that the awful stuff at Abu Graib was not endorsed policy in any least not outside of that facility. That mess was separate from what the CIA and DoJ sought to do “legally” at Gitmo and the rendition centers.

    • kenofken

      It’s not that separate. The crimes at every level were not just driven by policy and explicit orders but by a culture communicated by every level of leadership which said “do whatever needs to be done” wink wink..

    • antigon

      The people who sent you that recollection were lying about it we may be confident, since they lie about everything related to these crimes; or perhaps just simpler to say that in deference to the father they serve, about everything.

      • Peggy

        No one “sent” me that recollection. The liberal media reported it

        • antigon

          Dear Peggy:
          Yes, those are the shills that sent it.

    • Rob B.

      Was anyone actually held accountable at Abu Ghraib? No snark here; I just can’t remember…

  • I suspect that one day soon,we will hear the argument “suppose you have a terrorist who knows the location of a nuclear bomb, wouldn’t you sodomize a child to find out where the bomb is located?”

    • kenofken

      One day? You’ll probably hear it by someone around here by noon tomorrow.

  • Ken

    Isn’t this just a form of relativism? Saying that an act of evil isn’t so bad when compared to something worse is just creating a relative comparison. When we look at sin we should just call it what it is rather than ranking it among all the other horrible and evil things that people are capable of.

  • How big a sin is “supporting” torture, anyway? It’s not as though the CIA’s actions were dependent on the approval of anyone who reads this blog.

    I can say I “support” bank robbery (by approving of it in my thoughts) but if I don’t actually rob any banks, am I doing anything that requires repentance?

    • chezami

      How big a sin is supporting abortion if you don’t actually perform one yourself?

      • I suppose that depends on what your “support” consists of. For the most part, the “support” of ordinary people like you and me for one public policy or another means little or nothing in real world terms. Neither the CIA nor Planned Parenthood are likely to adjust their practices based on my “support” or lack thereof. Our collective opinions don’t even really influence legislation by putting pressure on elected representatives. If they did, the fact that 90% of Americans oppose NSA spying would already have put an end to it.

        On the other hand, as Jarrod points out above, the effect on my soul (of making room in my heart for sin) is real. To the extent that torture “supporters” have done that, I suppose they do need to repent.

  • entonces_99

    What is the evidence of that sodomization of children? The fact that Seymour Hersh said it happened, and that the Pentagon has a tape of it? Did he see those tapes? Unless someone produces them, I’m going to regard that story with all the scepticism that is properly directed to stories like the UVa gang rape, Saddam Hussein’s industrial shredders and rape rooms, or Kim Jung-il’s feeding his uncle to ravenous dogs.

    • antigon

      Well, if it didn’t happen someone needs a little hummus discipline, since it certainly should have because the only thing that matters is if it works!

  • entonces_99

    And look at this: Literally seconds after my last post, I discover that Stephen Carter (usually known for his scholarship on church-state jurisprudence) has drawn an analogy between the UVA story and the torture report:

  • Mark Neal

    Did I miss something?

    I clicked on the first link, at it goes to a article (seriously?!) that doesn’t even contain the quoted passage about “liberal pantywaists.” In fact, it doesn’t even quote anybody defending child rape. Hersh is obviously careful with his words, but he is certainly not defending blatant crimes.

    And then, expecting to find evidence of a Dick Cheney lie, I clicked on the second link and was taken to an article which concludes that Cheney was telling the truth.

    Did I just step into the Twilight Zone?

    • Fesantplucker

      Yes, but we have Seymour Hersh’s and now Mark Shea’s word on it. Who need’s independent verification if we have these guys’ assertions, coupled with Shea’s vituperations. Nevertheless, even though this post adds precisely no new data to the discussion, the author’s conclusions (about the Faustian bargain for Catholics who are serious in their moral theology) are right on.

    • Marthe Lépine

      Even if Cheney might have been telling the truth about only 3 detainees having been waterboarded, even 3 instances of the intrinsic evil that is torture are too many.

  • cmfe

    Most frequent pro-choice argument: we only care about babies until they are born. It’s hard to convince people that this isn’t true as so few voices are condemning the outrage.

  • RobW

    Strawman strawman what you gonna do when they come for you…