An act of self-defence
“Melanie Phillips” is back!
September 20, 2007 33 comments
The end of summer would be depressing were it not for the fact that a certain joy is kindled in all our hearts by the return to blogging of “Melanie Phillips”. In a post yesterday entitled “A monstrous hurt“, she quotes a Comment is Free post by Judea Pearl, father of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl, who takes issue with any comparison between that murder and what he terms delicately “the detention of suspects in Guantanamo”:
There can be no comparison between those who take pride in the killing of an unarmed journalist and those who vow to end such acts. Moral relativism died with Daniel Pearl, in Karachi, on January 31 2002.
Do you agree that “those who vow to end such acts”, ie the good officials of Guantanamo and their masters, are, by the mere fact of so vowing, thereby absolved of all guilt for holding people for years without trial and torturing them, then submitting them to illegal kangaroo courts in which they are not allowed to hear the evidence against them? Then you will agree, too, with the rousing peroration of “Melanie”:
The doctrine of moral equivalence, the default position of the secular west, is the core reason why the west is losing the battle to defend itself against the terrorist and cultural jihad. Equivalence is actually a misleading word in this context, since the notion that violence begets violence and both are equally culpable is not just noxious in itself by failing to acknowledge the moral difference between an act of aggression and an act of self-defence against that aggression; it immediately morphs into a justification of that original act of aggression. It is therefore not only amoral but suicidal. And yet it is the knee-jerk posture of so many western intellectuals and media darlings.
Moral relativism (Pearl) or moral equivalence (“Phillips”)? Who cares? Well, if I may quote myself:
The phrase “moral relativism” is usually reserved in public language to denounce anyone who dares to suggest that the death of an Iraqi human being is somehow comparable to the death of a British or American human being.
The same goes for “moral equivalence”, apparently always something to be despised (as Martin Amis, too, despises it). I’m glad to see that “Melanie”, along with Pearl, is conforming to this well-established usage. What I didn’t anticipate was “her” creativity in recasting the torture of people at Guantanamo as an act of self-defence against that aggression. Splendid work.
But hang on – which aggression? It can’t be the vicious murder of Daniel Pearl, since you can’t defend yourself against the murder of someone else when it has already happened. Is it instead the “terrorist and cultural jihad” in general, against which it is clearly just “self-defence” to round up a bunch of ragheads and torture them? Well, there is a lovelier possibility: that the satirist operating “Melanie”‘s pneumatic tubes is cunningly alluding to the characterisation last year of three suicides at Guantanamo as “an act of asymmetric warfare waged against us”. (Both are acts, after all.)
And so let us cherish yet another reductio ad absurdum of the arguments employed by real-life people who talk like “Melanie” (for they do, it pains me to say, exist). How to defend oneself against people killing themselves in one’s torture camp? Put people in the torture camp and torture them!
The doctrine of “preventive war” and the subsequent invasion of Iraq are both based on an inability to acknowledge the moral difference between an act of aggression and an act of self-defence (though I presume that this isn’t what “Melanie” is referring to).
The comment in the linked ‘Force’ Unspeak entry bears repeating – it goes, via dsquared and Lenin’s Tomb, to the Mutualist blog:
Mr. Pearl mentions “moral equivalence” in his post too. He finds it paradoxical and suggests that Russell would recognize the paradox there. Yeah, in a world of moral equivalence who’s gonna shave the barber?
Moral relativism died with Daniel Pearl, in Karachi, on January 31 2002
This has to be the most staggering piece of solipsism I’ve read all day. It’s understandable and all, but I can’t shake off the image of Judea saying this as he dons his black mask and tights, preparing for another night of lonely crimefighting.
“The doctrine of moral equivalence, the default position of the secular west, is the core reason why the west is losing the battle to defend itself against the terrorist and cultural jihad.”
Melanie Phillips, September 19th
“These men are looking beyond the grief of Iraq and telling a story which is simply unrecognisable from the defeatist counsel of despair which passes for commentary about Iraq in the British media.”
Melanie Phillips, September 17th
In summary, we are losing the war against jihad because of moral equivalence which is causing the West to commit suicide. But we’re also doing really well, unlike those despairing moral equivalentists who think we’re losing.
Melanie’s fantasy world is beginning to lose the internal coherence that once made her so formidable a reactionary.
That last quote came from a blog entry with the title ‘Having the Guts to Stay the Course’ which contains at least two offences against language, reason, huanity and taste all by itself. ‘Stay the course’ is, of course, a phrase publicly and deceitfully disowned by none other than George Bush himself.
I wonder if ‘having the guts’ is supposed to be a humerous and ironic reference to way that IEDs split their victims open?
Melanie’s guts are safe in London.
Nice spot on the “defeatist counsel of despair” frothing from the jaws of “Melanie” herself, Alex.
In a way it seems to me that this kind of stuff boils down to an insistence on according unreasonable weight to intentions when making moral evaluations of acts, trying to forestall any discussion of – indeed, perhaps Unspeaking – those acts’ effects. If A kills B with good intentions, and C kills D with bad intentions, the “Melanie”-ist says: “Look over here! Look at the massive difference of intention! These acts are just not commensurable!”
If one dares to say in reply: Well, they are commensurable at least to the degree that in both cases, someone got killed, and that is ceteris paribus in itself a bad outcome, then one is a moral relativist/equivalentist, and probably irrational, mad, defeatist and suicidal to boot. So it goes.
Steven
I want to make sure I understand exactly what your point is.
For the record I find the conduct of the camp at Guantanamo appalling. I take the accusations of torture at the camp very seriously. Even with all this, I think that if the camp guards beheaded the remaining inmates, and posted videos of the beheadings on the internet, this would be worse. What do you think?
It seems that people such as Daniel Pearl’s murderers believe that posting snuff videos on the internet will increase their popularity. Only the video of Fabrizio Quattrocchi’s murder is felt to have backfired, because of his all-too-evident defiance. Yet when photographs of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib are revealed, this is perceived as a PR disaster for the Americans. Why do you think this is?
Once again, I am appalled by US behaviour at Abu Ghraib, but think it would be even worse if they beheaded the prisoners there.
I’m not Steven, but perhaps I’ll do for now.
“I think that if the camp guards beheaded the remaining inmates, and posted videos of the beheadings on the internet, this would be worse. What do you think?”
Yes, it would be worse, but what’s your point?
“It seems that people such as Daniel Pearl’s murderers believe that posting snuff videos on the internet will increase their popularity… Yet when photographs of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib are revealed, this is perceived as a PR disaster for the Americans. Why do you think this is?”
Because the aim of the people who post those videos is to cause terror, not to win popularity contests. Meanwhile the aim of the American government is to win hearts and minds, but “extraordinary rendition”, illegal detentions and torture are never going to be the best way to do that.
I agree with you, Steven, that most of this stuff boils down to giving too much weight to intentions when making moral evaluations of acts. “Melanie” is (I guess) saying that the people water-boarding the presumed killer of Pearl are acting with the intention of making us safer (though I would argue that it is immoral and provides a great deal of unreliable information, so we’re not at all safer). The main problem with making moral judgements on the basis of intentions is that we have to assume a great deal about people’s intentions, and prejudices often come into play when making those assumptions. The assumption is often made that people who are on our side (or look like us or that we identify with in some way) have good intentions and that someone who is perceived as being “on the other side” have bad intentions. Those who don’t go along with these assumptions (and therefore draw attention to the acts of their own side) are therefore often labelled as “self-hating” or “mad” or “suicidal”.
As I pointed out in the first comment on this thread, I’m struck by the irony of “Melanie” talking about the “inability to acknowledge the moral difference between an act of aggression and an act of self-defence”. She is one of the group of people who cannot get their head around the idea that invading Iraq was an act of aggression. I think that “Melanie” spent too long reading her own articles about Saddam looking like Hitler, and so assumed that there was some modern-day equivalent of Sudetenland.
Georges,
a few points to add to Merkur’s –
1) US forces have tortured people to death, and murdered them straight-off, in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere
2) The Bush administration and US Army are in a different situation to fugitive insurgent groups – as lawless as they often are, they can get into serious trouble if they cannot persuade Congress and the judiciary that their behaviour is lawful. They work hard at undermining and ignoring the law, often successfully, but it is an obstacle for them.
The photographs from Abu Ghraib were a disaster from their perspective because they consititute undeniable legal evidence, and because they shattered the image they try to project.
3) I’m not aware of any evidence that Islamist groups have made themselves more popular through their beheading videos, among Muslims or anyone else. The value of these videos is to demonstrate a capacity to hit back at, and humiliate the Coalition powers, which is their primary selling point.
A backlash from such actions has resulted in many cases – including those of Margaret Hassan, Ken Bigley and Alan Johnston, saving the life of the latter.
Many atrocities by Bin Ladenists and their ilk have in fact been PR disasters for them, notably their bombings in Casablanca, Amman and the US embassies in East Africa.
It’s not surprising that many of their apologists prefer not to defend such actions but instead claim that they were really the work of the CIA/Mossad/Jews etc.
4) One last thing about the deeply patronising term ‘hearts and minds’. I don’t think that many of the politicians and military figures who use it seriously imagine that they can win much support from Iraqis. It is usually better to think of the ‘hearts and minds’ they’re after as our own – those of the public at home. The aim is to persuade us of the essentially moral, humanitarian and democratic nature of state policy which is frequently antagonistic to morality, humanitarianism and democracy.
I think that if the camp guards beheaded the remaining inmates, and posted videos of the beheadings on the internet, this would be worse. What do you think?
Hmm, given a choice of beheading or being driven to suicide by “enhanced interrogation techniques” – I’m not sure I’d have chosen the latter.
if the camp guards beheaded the remaining inmates, and posted videos of the beheadings on the internet, this would be worse
Is imprisoning someone indefinitely and torturing them somehow better than hacking their head off? I cannot see how to answer such a question, other than by pointing out the obvious: both are hideous and vicious acts.
Indeed, I think this style of argument is part of the problem: pleading “At least we’re not doing X!” rather than holding ourselves and our leaders to the same moral and legal standards that we demand of everyone else. I suppose that if you said to a torture victim at Guantanamo: “Buck up, it could be worse: at least we’re not beheading you and posting a video on the internet!”, he wouldn’t be much comforted. Indeed, as abb1 points out, some of them were so little comforted that they killed themselves.
The main problem with making moral judgements on the basis of intentions is that we have to assume a great deal about people’s intentions, and prejudices often come into play when making those assumptions. The assumption is often made that people who are on our side (or look like us or that we identify with in some way) have good intentions and that someone who is perceived as being “on the other side” have bad intentions. Those who don’t go along with these assumptions (and therefore draw attention to the acts of their own side) are therefore often labelled as “self-hating” or “mad” or “suicidal”.
Well said. Another point worth making, perhaps, is that the “Melanie”ist has constructed a straw man, an equivalentist/relativist who accords intentions no weight at all in moral judgment. Of course we do all judge acts by intention as well as effect, which is why, for example, everyone agrees that self-defence is justified (if it is actually self-defence). But the “Melanie”-ist wants to focus exclusively on intention, eclipsing any inconvenient discussion of consequences. Either because he cannot see that the consequences are bad, in which case he is some kind of moral cretin, or because he knows that the consequences are bad but doesn’t want to admit it, in which case he is a cynic.
Another little fallacy in the Judea Pearl piece: he suggests that to equate the torture in Guantanamo with the murder of Daniel Pearl is to equate all acts of violence. But of course, these horrific acts share many characteristics beyond simply being violent, and there’s room for a different appraisal of other kinds of violence, primarily the defensive.
Emphasis on intent is usually very selective. As you say, as long as the (stated) intentions are good, it is rarely considered an atrocity for powerful states to do things that they know will kill many civilians. On the other hand, non-state actors such as Hizbullah often have less accurate weaponery, and cannot attack military targets without a significant likelihood of killing civilians, yet that they aim for military targets is usually considered irrelevant. I guess it’s because “they” are so “irrational” as to render their motives irrelevant.
I don’t think intention absolves of responsibility, in either case. To shrug off the dead as collateral damage is irresponsible and incredibly callous; if an objective is worth killing for, it’s certainly worth troubling one’s conscience for. I think the intention is less relevant than the (perceived) alternatives. Arguably, in last summer’s war Hizbollah and the IDF each knowingly killed civilians in the aim of impairing the other’s ability to fight; the difference was that Israel could have called the fighting off at any moment, while Hizbullah could not and was forced to defend itself.
Just out of interest, why is “Melanie”‘s name always in inverted commas? Although even without understanding where it comes from, I have to say I find it hilarious.
“Is imprisoning someone indefinitely and torturing them somehow better than hacking their head off? I cannot see how to answer such a question, other than by pointing out the obvious: both are hideous and vicious acts.”
In the context of the question, American guards beheading and broadcasting would be worse that the treatment that they currently dish out. Torturing somebody can be worse than killing them, but in this instance (AFAIK) that hasn’t been the case.
At least the detained have the hope of release and – hopefully – some redress, and their families and friends may eventually see them again. However I hope that nobody interprets that to mean that I condone their treatment.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!!!!!
I am a would be DREAM Act beneficiary. Senate Republicans will block and obstruct the DREAM Act next week. WE NEED ACTIVISTS!!!!
I am reaching out to everybody to help us in the passage of the DREAM ACT.
The DREAM ACT is not an amnesty. It will be an adjustment of status for students that have lived their entire lives in the US, to attend college and join the military.
THE NEXT WEEK THE DREAM ACT WILL BE VOTED IN THE SENATE. PLEASE HELP US!!! JOIN THE DREAM ACT SUPPORT PORTAL:
http://www.dreamact.info/forum/
join the passage of the DREAM ACT CAUSE IN FACE BOOK:
http://apps.facebook.com/cause.....id=4393330
and call your senators in support of the dream act!!! THANKS!
Seems like a good cause.
Torturing somebody can be worse than killing them, but in this instance (AFAIK) that hasn’t been the case.
And yet three of the Guantanamo prisoners killed themselves.
“and call your senators in support of the dream act!!! THANKS!”
Not really an option here in England, is it?
I wonder what it is we do, actually, do influence the upper chamber? Do we go to our local Lord’s castle and offer to fight in their service if they vote for a key piece of legislation? Or can they still have us hanged for asking?
Incidentally, if the Dream Act really was about making it possible for young people to have nice dreams, I bet the Republicans would filibuster it, and Bush would threaten with his veto, leaving the indigent youth with nightmares.
“Melanie” is in scare quotes because
– she is very scary
– she is so scary that most people here don’t believe that she can be a real person.
Not really an option here in England, is it?
Well, you might be in England, Sir, but the unspeak.net readership as a whole is delightfully cosmopolitan. (In fact, there are more US readers than UK ones.)
Incidentally, if the Dream Act really was about making it possible for young people to have nice dreams, I bet the Republicans would filibuster it, and Bush would threaten with his veto, leaving the indigent youth with nightmares.
Nice.
“In fact, there are more US readers than UK ones.”
Interesting. Glad to hear it.
Incidentally, is the name ‘United Kingdom’ itself unspeak? I guess a new constitutional arrangement in Northern Ireland (also a bit unspeaky) might mean we no longer have a situation where the UK government claimed jurisdiction over areas it plainly had no control over. (I mean, in what sense was the rest of the Kingdom united with South Armagh?)
I don’t like to use it. Frankly, I don’t like saying I live in a Kingdom.
Anyway, these arguments have been run over many times before so I’ll stop now.
It’s a bit unfair on the Queen, as though she’s only keeping the seat warm until a proper King can take over his dom. But it’s an interesting point. “United” can look a little wishful in all sorts of contexts. (Manchester United?)
Is imprisoning someone indefinitely and torturing them somehow better than hacking their head off? I cannot see how to answer such a question, other than by pointing out the obvious: both are hideous and vicious acts.
This comment comes with the precautionary condemnation (which has become customary here) of the US’s detention of Muslims who were, by and large, in the wrong place at the wrong time.
To say ‘both’ is a mistake, I think, because you speak of three acts: imprisoning indefinately, torturing and hacking heads off. All are indeed hideous acts in the context, and two are, indeed, vicious acts. But hacking heads off is surely worse than indefinate imprisonment. If not, the case against the death penalty in America would be weakened significantly. The (mainstream) case holds that it’s immoral for the state to kill people when it can protect society as effectively simply by imprisoning them indefinately. But if indefinate imprisonment is as bad, the argument falls apart, does it not?
Torturing them indefinately, though, is without doubt worse than killing them. On rereading your comment, I suspect this is probably what you meant. It’s a fate not unworthy of Dante that comes without a customary pause to let God decide, as the Christian Right should in theory have no problem with.
Perhaps if no-one believes in her, she will go away.
I agree, there’s so much wrong with that name, but I don’t think it’s any worse than various so-called Democratic Republics – or indeed, the Soviet Union, named after the lively democratic bodies that it had liquidated while still in its infancy.
Has anyone noticed, though, that apart from anything else, saying “UK” or “US”, carries the pretension of unicity. What of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands (often lazily referred to by the name of its largest and most powerful province, does this sound familiar Wales and Scotland?) or the United States of Mexico? Although I guess referring to the USA simply as “America” is even worse, given that that excludes the lion’s share of two continents.
“United” can look a little wishful in all sorts of contexts
it is usually traceable to a historic act of wishful thinking; people unite two or more football clubs, principalities, etc and call them “United” in order to indicate that they are definitely unquestionably united.
Dave S: I once heard a version of that rant about Yankee arrogance in claiming “America” from an Ecuadorean, which was a bit rich.
It seems that people such as Daniel Pearl’s murderers believe that posting snuff videos on the internet will increase their popularity.
Similarly the American government believed that their “shock and awe” Baghdad bombing videos would make a good PR campaign. Same idea, making an example of someone.
the “Melanie”ist has constructed a straw man, an equivalentist/relativist who accords intentions no weight at all in moral judgment.
That would be me, I think, or very nearly so. I’m far enough down that road that I think there are actual questions to ask about the right to self defense. Also, I think, Kant (although IANAKS).
The (mainstream) case holds that it’s immoral for the state to kill people when it can protect society as effectively simply by imprisoning them indefinitely. But if indefinite imprisonment is as bad, the argument falls apart, does it not?
To quote Emo Philips: “Capital punishment makes the state into a murderer, but life in prison makes it into a gay dungeon-master.” I understand there were efforts at Abu Ghraib to specifically prey on the distress the latter case is supposed to have caused its Muslim detainees.
As a Cornishman living in the US, I’m not sure where I fit. Whenever I see the UK question come up, however, I’m reminded of the late, great Kenny Everett’s “when we were a Kingdom we had a King, and when we were an Empire we had an Empress; now we’re a Country we have Margaret Thatcher.” I like Disunited Queendom, or Not-quite-republic. If we’re a constitutional monarchy, where’s our constitution?
Sorry, I’m done.
IANAKS either, but AIUI it’s more the other way round, ie Kant doesn’t care a fig in his moral evaluation for a specific act’s consequences in the world (expected or otherwise), as against Mill et al, who do in a way come close to the ignoring-intentions position I probably hastily described as a “straw man” (though I’m not sure how many “pure” utilitarians there are around these days).
there are actual questions to ask about the right to self defense
No doubt. Which ones did you have in mind? In the case of one individual attacking another, it seems pretty clear-cut to me, but in some ways it’s already problematic to extend it to nations.
Thanks for the wonderful Emo Philips quote.
Self defense tends to be, I think, an a priori assumption – a point where theorizing about morals breaks down in the face of the instinct for self-preservation – but I think it deserves some thought. AIUI, Jesus did not advocate it (turn the other cheek?), which gives him an extremely unusual position in debates on violence: one that Christians routinely ignore. IANAC, but I still think it’s interesting. Self defense becomes clearly problematic when one’s interests, members of one’s family or one’s property are under attack, rather than one’s body. Even in the ‘simplest’ case of the body, however, without getting into the question of how one’s own rights trump those of the attacker, there are questions about the appropriate level of force to use, which get us into social interpretation of intention.
Nations, of course, are imaginary entities; who knows what to think of them as actors of any kind?
I think you’re right on the Kant/Mill thing: I just remembered my handy Kant mnemonic, “evil acts are evil regardless of the perpetrator’s goals” and foolishly interpolated my own “violence is evil,” without knowing if Kant agreed with that. Sorry; sloppy of me. I’m clearly not a pure utilitarian, either.
AIUI, Jesus did not advocate it (turn the other cheek?), which gives him an extremely unusual position in debates on violence: one that Christians routinely ignore.
Too true, they do. I believe there is a political interpretation of that maxim that holds it to be an attempt to break endless loops of retaliation and counter-retaliation in blood-feuds etc, rather than necessarily about whether you should let someone beat you to death; but it still has the capacity to shock and challenge.
Self defense becomes clearly problematic when one’s interests, members of one’s family or one’s property are under attack, rather than one’s body.
Yes, then it becomes partly a question of what constitutes the “self”. (Or in some situations whether women are “property” etc.)
Even in the ’simplest’ case of the body, however, without getting into the question of how one’s own rights trump those of the attacker, there are questions about the appropriate level of force to use, which get us into social interpretation of intention.
Arguably the person who creates a situation of physical violence is hardly in a position to complain about subsequent force escalation by the aggressee. (I am aware that this is not always the law’s view.) But of course it is more complex than that since intimidation or threat without any violent contact can legally warrant a violent response, as long as it was “reasonable” for the second party to believe he was under physical threat, etc. So as you say, a lot of it is bound up with social interpretation of intention.
It was instructive to see Al Haig trundled out at about 1 pm or so on 9/11 to pontificate to the masses his hopes that “we” would not allow any thought of moral equivalence blunt the edge of our response to “the attackers'” heinous acts.