Some have asked me why I, a libertarian, spend so much time defending leftists and leftism. “After all,” they say “aren’t they our enemies?” Well as a former leftist, I tend to only go after the people who consider them “evil.” Those who seem like they’d restrict left-wing speech if they got the chance. If you want a libertarian to go after the left, you’ve got a million choices these days. I just go after whatever column has the funniest headline.
With that said, can anyone figure out why I picked Dennis Prager to be the subject of today’s article? He’s always funny. Here’s his latest from Townhall
This is true, I fear for my life anytime I see Jimmy Carter. Noam Chomsky is one of the scariest men alive. And basically every Michael Moore documentary should be classified as a horror movie.
Virtually everyone who has written about solitary confinement, both on the right and the left, deems it torture. Manafort will therefore be tortured after being sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for fraud and, in the words of the Daily Wire, “a little-known law that requires lobbyists to report that they are working on behalf of a foreign government (in Manafort’s case, Ukraine).”
That does seem kind of important. Although, let’s see what Dennis thinks when Democrats work with foreign governments:
We are reliving 1938, the year that democratic Western nations assured a police state, the Nazi regime, that they would do nothing to prevent its expansion. That year, the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, went to Munich to negotiate with Adolf Hitler. He left believing Hitler’s promises of peace in exchange for Germany being allowed to annex large parts of Czechoslovakia. Upon returning to England, Chamberlain announced “Peace for our time.” The 2015 agreement between America, Europe, Russia, China and Iran mirrors 1938.
Although at least he’s against torture. Right?
Are all forms of painful pressure equally morally objectionable? In other words, are you willing to acknowledge that there are gradations of torture as, for example, there are gradations of burns, with a third-degree burn considerably more injurious and painful than a first-degree burn? Or is all painful treatment to be considered torture? Just as you, correctly, ask proponents of waterboarding where they draw their line, you, too, must explain where you draw your line.
In other words, the President’s (Obama’s) view seems to be that water-boarding the three terrorists did elicit vital, life-saving, information. However, he contends that we could have obtained all that information using means of interrogation that were both non-brutal and more effective.
Okay, so he’s just an idiot.
I will give him he never was specifically pro-torture. However, listen to how he talks about it in the columns I just linked. Seriously, go read them real quick.
Notice how he remained against Obama’s statement torture was unnecessary (a position he takes when done to one of Trump’s buddies) despite trying to call it an evil. If America is a moral nation, like he has always said, shouldn’t it not matter how effective it is?
What I’m saying is we’re simply using enhanced interrogation to get information out of Paul Manaford.