Mike the Mad Biologist

David Broder Defines the Banality of Evil

Posted by Mike on April 26, 2009
(5)
More »

oldantitortureposter
(from here)

And I don’t mean that in a good way. Washington Post columnist and Compulsive Centrist Disorder sufferer, regarding prosecutions for torture, scribbles:

The memos on torture represented a deliberate, and internally well-debated, policy decision, made in the proper places — the White House, the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department — by the proper officials.

One administration later, a different group of individuals occupying the same offices has — thankfully — made the opposite decision. Do they now go back and investigate or indict their predecessors?

Let me answer that…Yes. Why? Because the previous administration tortured people. This isn’t about prosecuting people for eliminating the estate tax, but one of the more reprehensible crimes–crimes for which the U.S. has executed war criminals.

That torture was “a deliberate, and internally well-debated, policy decision, made in the proper places — the White House, the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department — by the proper officials” makes it all the more despicable. This wasn’t a momentary burst of anger, but a conscious decision to commit great evil. The existence of a policy apparatus to legitimize torture is a perfect example of the banality of evil.

So too is David Broder’s miserable attempt to defend torturers.

What Broder is incapable of understanding is that because policy of torture was “a deliberate, and internally well-debated, policy decision, made in the proper places”, we must prosecute. Not for “vengenance” as he claims (I’ll taunt them on the blog to satisify that need), but to repair the moral damage the legitimization of torture causes (but GAY MARRIAGE!!!!).

Broder is a despicable human being.

Update (Great minds think alike. Or something): Frank Rich makes a similar point.

(5)
More »

Comments

  1. #1 Tyler DiPietro
    April 26, 2009

    “But now Obama is being lobbied by politicians and voters who want something more — the humiliation and/or punishment of those responsible for the policies of the past. They are looking for individual scalps — or, at least, careers and reputations.”

    Oh for the love of Isis. Every time I hear some variant of this “vengeance” canard I want to throw up. The issuance of justice via prosecuting criminal behavior isn’t “vengeance”, it’s the entirely proper enforcement of the law. It’s not vengeance when I’m arrested and tried for shooting someone, but I guess that Broder thinks that government entities transcend the restrictions placed on us mere mortals.

    We’ve executed war-criminals in the past for doing the exact same things former administration officials have done. Broder is a monster for even suggesting that such crimes should simply be forgotten.

  2. #2 murison
    April 26, 2009

    “Broder is a despicable human being.” I have long thought that one can make a good argument that sociopaths are not human beings but some other form of creature with which we unfortunately must share the planet. “Broder is despicable” is certainly true, but that is the extent of the accuracy of the statement.

  3. #3 hayvanlarla sevişme
    April 26, 2009

    The last time I studied quantum mechanics my text book went “missing”. Maybe it was my girlfriend at the time but I doubt it. It was greylians.

  4. #4 sevişme görüntüleri
    April 26, 2009

    Great report, Dave. But I would really urge you to stop belittling yourself so much. You’re certainly one of the smartest persons that I know, one of the few with a clear long-term vision, one of the few that tries to solve the really hard questions, and I’m sure you realize this.

  5. #5 jigolo
    November 7, 2009

    “Broder is a despicable human being.” I have long thought that one can make a good argument that sociopaths are not human beings but some other form of creature with which we unfortunately must share the planet. “Broder is despicable” is certainly true, but that is the extent of the accuracy of the statement.

    Yeah