Why aren't real journalists analyzing Bush's BS like this?
Why is it up to a comedian to say this stuff on TV?
Here's the thing, though: even "yo mama" jokes are a kind of outrage on human dignity.
I guess I'm one of those Kreitzberg counts as "torture is never acceptable, but certain methods of torture don't count."
Bush has a point. "outrage on human dignity" isn't the same thing as torture.
Is it an outrage to human dignity to have an Al-Qaeda member interrogated by a female?
I am beginning to think that the problem is we no longer know how to fight wars according to Catholic, Christian just war principles. All we seem to know how to do is fight to win using any and all means necessary. In the past warriors knew that war meant sacrifice, honor etc. Today, these words are empty platitudes.
I do not know if what I am trying to say makes sense. It sounds vaguely Chestertonian, although I have only read one book by Chesterton. I would appreciate it if someone would comment.
"Outrage on human dignity" is not an objective standard. As our Islamic friends have shown us, harmless stuff we take for granted can be taken as an "outrage of human dignity". That phrase has all the usefulness of a motherhood statement. Something more specific please.
Funny stuff.
I think John Stewart just proved that liberals are aware of the natural law. Now if only they, and all politicians for that matter, would apply it consistently.
As a card-carrying member of the Coalition For Fog, I utterly condemn those timid, liberal and traitorous souls who are interested in defining outrages on human dignity, or indeed anything at all. What the hell do these people think they're doing? How will we ever succeed in blurring the line between good and evil if they keep asking "what does this mean?" What, pray tell, do these useless fools think might happen if someone offers them a sensible and convincing answer?
Rally round the flag, people! Fog demands subjective judgement, not argued analysis.
...so sarcasm aside, Mark, do you just not like your comboxers? One day you snipe at them for Fog(TM) and the next their sin is asking for definitions. Was your dog recently run over by a militant combox commenter?
(Disclaimer: torture is bad, prisoner abuse is also bad, human dignity is good. (That said, JonathanR and HokiePundit have a point. "Outrages against human dignity should be avoided" is like "people have rights" - very true, but you run into the problem of definition creep - people claiming rights they don't actually have or taking offence at "outrages" that aren't actually outrages, like having their religion or their momma insulted.))
"Geneva Article 3 says, 'There will be no outrages on human dignity'. What does that mean?" - George W. Bush"
Actually, I wonder how Mark would answer if the President did ask such a question. "Outrages on human dignity" is like "peace on earth". It sounds important, but doesn't say anything useful until properly defined. Especially in a military context. I think that question should be appended to the Goldberg question Mark answers quite well in a later post. While the answer to the question may be self-evident to the remnants of that glorious Western civilization that gave birth to such a concept, its utter foreign-ness to all others make it about as appealing as Bible study to an atheist. Personally, I don't think even Bush, while trying to be Godly in Mammon's West, has any clue as to its meaning and implications. I do not mean this as a slight on Bush. Even his so-called intellectually superior critics don't get it, possibly far less than he does.
Mark S.,
The last of the real journalists were bought up in the 1960's. They have been govt/corp controlled since then. It is just theatre. Fake squabbles, fake news, fake political parties to keep the minions hypnotized. Flouride in the water helped.
-"Geneva Article 3 says, 'There will be -no outrages on human dignity'. What -does that mean?" - George W. Bush"
-Actually, I wonder how Mark would -answer if the President did ask such a -question.
He would tell him to check the dictionary of course!
I actually think that clear and detailed regulations are a good thing. Detailed regulations make it harder to hide the true nature of our conduct. Take sleep deprivation. If someone objects to this tactic genreally, they are told, mockingly, that it isn't torture to keep someone up past their bedtime. Alrighty then, how long should we be able to keep a suspect awake? 48 hours? A week? A month? What if we only let him sleep for 2 hours a night indefinitely?
If that is the argument, I think we'll do a lot better than if we have to argue generally about whether sleep deprivation or stress positions are an outrage on human dignity, because it won't be as easy to rationalize what we are really doing.
I posted on what I think of the quest for detailed regulations here.
"No outrages on human dignity" does not spell anything out, no, but neither does "Honor your father and mother". When we dishonor our father and mother, it's plain to everybody that we have done so. This isn't rocket science.
Zippy,
I think you've misread Pruss, or, at any rate, misapplied what he says to the discussion at hand.
Pruss says that there are two kinds of deliberation, one that asks whether a type of action is intrinsically permissible or impermissible, and one that weighs the pros and cons of a particular action. Pruss says that if one is dealing with an intrinsically impermissible kind of action, it is impermissible even to engage in the "weighing" kind of deliberation, since this tacitly assumes that the action in question isn't intrinsically impermissible.
That's all well and good, except that the question "how far can we go before we engage in torture" is, pretty clearly, an example of the first type of deliberation. It's not an example of the second type.
Further, even if it were deliberation of the "weighing" type (and assuming Pruss is correct), the prohibition on this kind of weighing wouldn't apply to asking the question in a combox discussion, since we aren't actually deliberating about a particular course of action we should be taking. If that weren't the case, then it would be immoral to consider the question of whether torture is effective, even if you are doing so as part of an attempt to dissuade a person from supporting torture.
That's all well and good, except that the question "how far can we go before we engage in torture" is, pretty clearly, an example of the first type of deliberation.
I don't think so. (That is to say, I don't represent my own take on this as reflecting Pruss' take, just as inspired by it and as true in fact).
The whole point is that an intrinsically evil act is a different kind of act: a different sort of deontological object from the sort which can be licitly "weighed". It isn't the sort of thing you can "sneak up" on without actually committing. Asking "what would be an act which approaches illicit torture but is not illicit torture" presumes a continuity that isn't there between licit acts and illicit; between apples and oranges. If you are asking what you can licitly do that falls just short of torture, you are already guilty. "Torture lite" is like "a little bit pregnant" or "not quite adultery" or "not quite an abortion".
I do not know if what I am trying to say makes sense. It sounds vaguely Chestertonian, although I have only read one book by Chesterton. I would appreciate it if someone would comment.
"The only justifiable war is a war of defense." --G.K. Chesterton 
I would recommend you read Chesterton's A Short History of England and The Everlasting Man. Also, since Saturday is the anniversary of the Battle of Lepanto, read his great poem, "Lepanto."
Sean Dailey:
Thanks. I have been meaning to read more Chesterton. So far all I have read is Orthodoxy.
By the way, would your quote mean that the American Revolutionary War was not a just war?
My children think homework, spankings, and not being allowed to pick out the mushrooms are outrages on human dignity.
And, Mark, the comments like this that you post convince me that you are arguing based on emotions and not logic. Obviously, even among faithful Catholics there are differing opinions on what is considered an outrage on human dignity. It is ridiculous to slam the president for attempting to clarify the term.
"When we dishonor our father and mother, it's plain to everybody that we have done so."
Probably because there is a cultural consensus about what "honor" is...a cultural consensus that transcends local peculiarities.
"Human dignity" on the other hand does not enjoy the same benefit.
Ask an Arab and and American what acts would constitute honoring parents, and you will get roughly the same answers. (affection/love, obedience, deference, care in old age, etc.)
Ask the two people what constitutes an "outrage against human dignity". Religious coercion? Torture? Honor killings? Danish cartoons?
Good luck getting common answers. Not "rocket science" indeed. Not self-evident either.
there is a cultural consensus about what "honor" is...a cultural consensus that transcends local peculiarities.
"Human dignity" on the other hand does not enjoy the same benefit.
Ask an Arab and and American what acts would constitute honoring parents, and you will get roughly the same answers. (affection/love, obedience, deference, care in old age, etc.)
Ask the two people what constitutes an "outrage against human dignity". Religious coercion? Torture? Honor killings? Danish cartoons?
Only a just man understands virtue (a principle which I think we may extend to cultures as well) and thus our society is farther and farther from being able to understand human dignity on any level, in any way. But that does not mean that a proper consensus could not exist. Otherwise, you would have to take our current cultural confusion about sex to mean that there was no true virtue in reproduction.
Perhaps other cultures who did not make a practice of killing their own children and using their sisters' bodies for product promotion might have a better idea of what does and does not comprise "human dignity". Alas for us.
You will also find, I think, that most Americans do not honor their parents in any way that Arabs would recognize as honor worthy of the name.
But in the end I think it's perfectly appropriate for President Bush or his administration to propose some particular way of interrogating prisoners and then invite comment from wise and honorable people whom one can trust on moral issues as long as the administration is able to recognize their own incapacity and actually follow the wisdom they would get. I seem to recall a couple of recent religious leaders known for their piety, virtue, and wide learning who would perhaps be useful witnesses as to what constitutes human dignity.
But if he and his administration are truly incapable of making these kinds of moral judgments then it seems to me somewhat foolish to trust them with the governance of 300 millions.
Commenting by HaloScan
