In a debate, if you find yourself in the inconvenient position of being factually incorrect, a simple diversionary strategy is always possible: redefine the terms used.
Was waterboarding torture? Well yes, if you consider drowning someone to be a painful and distressing experience.
So how to get round it? Easy: redefine torture, preferably in a suitably wooly and vague way, then suggest that waterboarding doesn’t meet the strict definition of torture that you’ve just in effect destroyed.
That sort of nonsense unfortunately characterised much of the discussion I participated in last week. A debate on the value of life sentencing was distorted into a bizarre, confused and contradictory argument about not letting politicians have any say in the criminal justice system. You may have also seen my moaning on Twitter about a debate on Israel in which the proponents, apart from invoking the argumentum ad Hitlerum, decided that they would justify their argument by trying to challenge the legal definition of “occupation”. Dreary, annoying and deeply stupid.
Nonetheless my weekend was considerably brightened by the Onion’s satirical take on such tactics:
Is Using A Minotaur To Gore Detainees A Form Of Torture?
Hat-tip: Andrew Sullivan
Follow on Facebook
