Comments on: In This Case, It Really Is A False Choice

By: Justin

Justin — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:33:51 +0000

I, too, would not invest too much importance right now in Obama’s comments about liberty and security. I think his optimism wants him to believe we are a nation that will not torture people we capture and spy on our own citizens without warrants. However, Obama clearly thinks one of those things is still okay, based on his vote on the FISA bill. So I wouldn’t automatically think he will do away with torture or the possibility of it. In fact, I wonder if after hearing many respected people, those in the military especially, say torture doesn’t work in getting reliable information, Obama has been more vocal about that topic simply because it’s something that doesn’t “work.” After all, if he thought torture was illegal and morally wrong then he wouldn’t want people tried based on statements made after being tortured. Instead, he has said he is seeking some kind of “process” to try people still held at Guantanamo Bay.

By: kitstolz

kitstolz — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 04:25:06 +0000

Mostly encouraging and sensible words for our new Prez, except maybe for the last sentence, which eludes my understanding.

Agree that it’s important to distinguish between what’s pragmatic {what “works”) and what is principle, but if Obama has taken a principled stand against torture, then who are these “cynics” whose “stale political arguments” he has endorsed? More, please.

By: tedschan

tedschan — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:58:57 +0000

rawshark: I think you misunderstood his explanation.

By: rawshark

rawshark — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:40:50 +0000

‘That being said, the one place in the speech where Obama specifically attacked false choices by name was in connection with the conventional assumption that there has to be a trade-off between security and liberty and that this exchange is sometimes worth making. This is a false choice. It is false not because one can have both complete security and liberty, ‘

‘Complete security’? Who said that? Take the word complete off there and we can have both. No such thing as complete security and you hurt your argument by adding words to make your point.

By: locutas

locutas — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:33:03 +0000

It is the same false choice that defenders of the torture regime offer, because they promise something (i.e., reliable intelligence that provides greater security from attack) that the methods they defend do not and cannot deliver.

I would go much further than this: I object to the “defenders of torture” primarily because they demand my freedom in exchange for safety. If the government can engage in the most extreme acts of violence against anyone, guilty or innocent, then the powers of government have in practice no limits, and the subjects of an unlimited government cannot call themselves free men and women. While true, the argument that torturers cannot deliver the security they promise distracts us from the more important point: that those who trade freedom for security have made a bad (in every sense) bargain.