The line.
You know, the line. The line is is what you cross when in the defense of some perceived good, you do something not so good.
I have crossed the line occasionally here (alright, more than occasionally). Sometimes I have done it merely in an attempt to be funny. Actually, this is where I make the most mistakes. Also, I have occasionally erred when I let my passion over an issue obscure or overwhelm my charity.
As part of my efforts here I write a lot of stuff. Most of it, fairly judged, is nonsense. I think that one of the merits of CMR is that Matthew and I make no claim on think tank quality stuff. Quite the contrary. If we can find and excuse to work the Pope, Hugo Chavez, Richard McBrien, and the Chupacabra (Bigfoot or zombies in a pinch) into a post, we will do it just for yuks. When I go over the line in the name of comedy, retractions or apologies can be proffered quite easily. It is when I am deadly serious that perspective and those same retractions and apologies are typically less forthcoming.
For me, in those times, it is tough to take a step back and look at my words objectively lest I question the motives for writing them in the first place. But, as we all know, sometime motives can be good and judgment and execution poor.
I truly consider myself fortunate that in those moments where my where my judgment has been impaired (or absent) whether due to comedy or conviction, I have had good people to offer me correction.
Now don’t get me wrong, as a Catholic blogger I am frequently offered correction of all types, much of which is offered in the form of the ubiquitous anonymous comment. This I put no stock in. However, sometimes correction comes from otherwise supportive sources (my wife, my brother, and other bloggers whom I respect). When the otherwise amiable and erudite suggest that I missed the mark, I listen. Maybe I don’t listen right away, but I eventually listen. When I do, I am usually better off for it.
Why all the preamble? Because offering correction is tough and I know that I have a plank in my own eye. Even so, I feel compelled to say that I suspect that Mark Shea has crossed the line.
Mark, in his righteous fury over the support for torture demonstrated by this administration seeks to bolster his contention that the “bushies” are evil by relaying the following third hand anecdote.
You might be interested in an anecdote I haven’t published because it is just a rumor, though it is a rumor only once removed from me.
A pilot friend of mine knows another pilot who flies big cargo planes. This other pilot, not my friend, flew big freight airplanes in and out of Iraq as a civilian contractor for a while. Mostly his ‘cargo’ was prisoners. He would regularly take off (so he says) with, say, 65 prisoners, and land with only 25 or so. Supposedly prisoners were being interrogated and then pushed out the door ten thousand feet up if they didn’t please the interrogators. Our own intelligence agents (not military) were the interrogators, according to the pilot. They always made sure they were done throwing prisoners out the door before they got into NATO airspace.My pilot friend who told me this had never discussed the war or prisoner interrogation or anything like it with me. I first met him years ago, but I’ve only gotten to know him well in the last year or so. We were chatting up various pilot careers at the time, and discussing the ‘freight dogs’ who fly really big cargo planes. He just brought it up out of the blue when talking about this ‘freight dog’ friend of his.
Anyway, a few years back I would have dismissed such rumors as conspiracy theorists tunneling under our houses with black helicopters provided by aliens passing by in a comet. Now they strike me as eminently plausible. Maybe I was naive before, but if so I kind of wish I still was.
While I find the plausibility of this anecdote suspect, I will not debate it here because it is irrelevant to the point I wish to make. While the Bush administration can rightly be critiqued and perhaps even condemned for its support of torture, I do not think that it is remotely Christian to relay an admittedly third hand and unverified anecdote that accuses Americans of systematic large scale murder.
Mark refers to the above as ‘entirely believable’ on the basis that Bush has supported other bad things. But this third hand unverified anecdote accuses not just Bush (although that would be bad enough) but other U.S. citizens of systematic (large scale) murder with absolutely no proof.
I believe this crosses the line. I am not going to get into the specific areas of the catechism that address such horrific public accusations. I am quite confident that anyone who cares about it can find the relevant passages on their own. Long story short, this is plainly wrong and profoundly un-Christian.
I remember back in the day when President Clinton was outed as an admitted adulterer and perjurer. There were those on the right whose judgment was so clouded by disdain (and even hate) for the President that they used these obvious transgressions as cover for publicly entertaining any all scurrilous rumors about the President ranging from from rape to murder. It was wrong when they did it then and it is equally wrong today.
Frankly I think that Mark Shea is a better person and a better blogger than this post would indicate. I believe that posting such a heinous rumor with absolutely no evidence simply on the basis that it fits with your view that the administration is corrupt is a serious error in judgment. Mark should retract that portion of the post as it is a disservice and a distraction to the good work that he typically performs on his blog.
Update: Joining the fray…
Erin Manning
Jay Anderson
December 2, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Do vets have expertise on what avenues the CIA have open to them in running black sites or black ops? I don’t see why they should be unless they are trained in such matters. Both my brothers are vets (so much for my hatred of the military) and neither of them would have the slightest idea how such things are run, nor what logistical possibilities are open to the resourceful CIA interrogator operating with the protection of the Administration. Nor does anyone here, I’ll wager.
Again, none of that is to say the story my correspondent related is true. It’s merely to say that his doubt and dismay are understandable and that people who scream at him or me “THAT’S NOT POSSIBLE!!!” do not persuade me of the truth of that proposition merely by force of volume. I highly doubt any of my readers has any expertise in the areas necessary to establish that it is logistically impossible for the story to be true.
That’s the problem. It still seems to me that logistically, the story is quite possible. All it requires is a plane, some detainees, some interrogators, a little open water or mountainous terrain, and a pilot with a guilty conscience or a case of braggadocio and terminal stupidity. If you think nobody’s that stupid, recall the photos from Abu Ghraib were likewise the result of criminals who liked to boast about their work. Similarly, the alleged impossibility of the feat is belied by the fact that it’s already been done by other regimes, just as the alleged impossibility of the geography presumes a thorough knowledge of where every CIA black site is. Do you know? I sure don’t.
What I’ve always assumed–till this Administration–was that what made the story truly impossible was that it was *morally* impossible for Americans to do such things. I no longer believe this. So my question is: given that we *know* this Administration has tortured, murdered and sheilded the perps in other cases, why should I trust that they have not said, “Where there’s a will, there’s a way” here? I don’t trust that, nor do I believe that they have. I. Don’t. Know. Nor does my correspondent. And it’s depressing not to know because it’s one of the things I should be able to know: that my government is trustworthy.
December 2, 2008 at 11:49 pm
You seem to take me (and yourself) as expert in the technical details of black ops and what is and is not logistically possible for the CIA to do.
Again, this turns everything into a matter of personal authority — “who do you trust” / “are you an expert” — while assuming that people can’t critically examine the details of the story you reproduced and you disseminated. It’s all blind faith, no general reason.
I said exactly one thing that presupposes knowledge of black-ops — which is that the people involved have the highest security clearances (not exactly news to anybody) and therefore it really isn’t plausible that they’d describe them in idle gossip. Is it possible that someone involved in black-ops would casually spill the beans? Sure. If some 80-year-old guy says “I’m really the Lindbergh baby,” that’s not technically impossible either, no. Just very very very very very very very very very very very very very very unlikely and shouldn’t be believed absent much better evidence than third-hand hearsay.
Everything else cited here and in your chatbox — some of whom clearly had military experience — requires only generally available nonclassified knowledge of geography, aircraft, atmospherics, military history and a little human psychology.
Especially puzzling to me is the strange juxtaposition of arguments that go “This could never happen!” with “This used to happen long ago in Argentina!”
The story that you recounted, detailed and disseminated could not have happened. Something that superficially sounds like it probably did happen 30 years ago (and thus might be a source for this fantasy).
The fact that OJ Simpson murdered his wife by slashing her throat would not make more plausible an account 30 years from now of some star athlete in Argentina cutting his wife’s head off with his pinky ring while juggling flaming numchucks while driving a Ford Bronco through the middle of Buenos Aires at noon and nobody noticing.
December 2, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Actually a fair number of military personel have knowledge of the CIA and what they do. Many military also have knowledge of the planes that would be used and the improbability of what you claim given what is available to the CIA and military.
Much more credibility that is that something told to someone who told it to you.
December 3, 2008 at 12:01 am
But perhaps you can ask your resident “military expert on all things military including interrogation, special forces etc.” and see what he has to say.
December 3, 2008 at 12:15 am
just as the alleged impossibility of the geography presumes a thorough knowledge of where every CIA black site is.
Not at all. The account you disseminated specified that the guy flew out of Iraq and that flying over NATO members was a concern — they had to dump them before reaching Europe, remember? Which makes the account implausible and has nothing to do with where the eventual destination. (If it were in Africa, Latin America or East Asia, flying over NATO members’ airspace simply never is an issue.)
It still seems to me that logistically, the story is quite possible. All it requires is a plane, some detainees, some interrogators, a little open water or mountainous terrain
If people are being tossed over land or in an enclosed body of water, at least some bodies will have been found. (The Argentines understood that you make people disappear in the high seas.)
Also, the account clearly describes both an ongoing program and a policy of killing dozens of people at a time, not “a plane,” “a few prisoners” and “a little open water.”
It is simply impossible that the US is surreptitiously tossing hundreds of desaperecidos from “big cargo planes … 10,000 feet up” based on a supposed failure to please onboard interrogators.
December 3, 2008 at 12:19 am
But perhaps you can ask your resident “military expert on all things military including interrogation, special forces etc.” and see what he has to say.
I have no such resident expert. That’s kinda my point. I have a reader who, like you and me, doesn’t know much beyond the fact that we already know the Administration has tortured, murdered and lied about it before and therefore has no confidence that they might have done it again. Any other flippancies you’d like to offer?
I said exactly one thing that presupposes knowledge of black-ops
Which is another way of saying you don’t really know what you are talking about when you declare the story categorically impossible from a logistical standpoint.
Again, this turns everything into a matter of personal authority — “who do you trust” / “are you an expert”
Correctamundo. Because that’s the point of my post. Expertise can establish that this is really an impossible story. None of my readers have it. Nor do I. I can easily imagine any number of ways the story could be true if the CIA was of a mind to do such things and the arguments you have presented so far don’t go far in persuading me that the thing is logistically impossible. That doesn’t make the story true. It merely makes your vehement denials unconvincing.
So, given the logistical possibility of the thing, I’m then left with the question, “If they could do it, would they?”
And that takes us to the question of the trustworthiness of the moral agents involved: namely, an Administration which I already know from other evidence to be guilty of torture, facilitating murder and covering it up.
Again, contra the ridiculous OJ Simpson analogy, I do not say that they have done the thing my reader reported. But I do say I have no confidence they have not, let alone the granite certitude you guys seem to have. I’m more in the position of somebody who has just been told “O.J. Simpson tried to kidnap me” and having you guys all shouting “Simpson kidnap somebody? That could *never* happen! Think of the expense! And he’s already been through enough with the whole murder thing! Get off his back!”
Only, the thing is, it turned out that people who commit murder and get away with it sometimes do other bad things too. So you have to wonder when somebody tells you a story like that. Might be false. But I no longer have the luxury of immediately rejecting it.
So yeah. It’s all about trust. That was my point.
December 3, 2008 at 12:24 am
Very simple question … do you understand why it’s impossible to toss people from big cargo planes at 10,000 feet?
December 3, 2008 at 12:30 am
So, given the logistical possibility of the thing, I’m then left with the question, “If they could do it, would they?”
In a nutshell that is the mentality of Truther you have become. If something is not impossible, it’s fair game to speculate on what the nefarious They would do.
And yes, the OJ Simpson analogy was accurate. The story you recount is as technically and psychologically plausible as that one, whatever one might say about Simpson’s character.
December 3, 2008 at 12:30 am
The account you disseminated specified that the guy flew out of Iraq and that flying over NATO members was a concern — they had to dump them before reaching Europe, remember?
Assuming that my correspondent is giving legal testimony and not relating an anecdote with fuzzy details, you’d really have something there. Personally, I still don’t see what would be so hard about attaching something heavy to the victim and ditching him over water. So the whole “this is logistically possible thing” still eludes me.
Nonetheless, my point (which is still being steadfastly ignored) is not that I think this story true, but that, given what we know, it is no longer instantly impossible on the grounds that we know the American government would never give moral consent to the torture and murder of detainees. They have. And they have lied about it and shielded perps. That’s the real problem–and the thing this whole conversation is phobically avoiding.
December 3, 2008 at 12:35 am
Assuming that my correspondent is giving legal testimony and not relating an anecdote with fuzzy details, you’d really have something there.
Except that the two details cited — flying out of Iraq and the need to have bodies dumped before entering NATO airspace — are central operational facts repeated every time, not fuzzy anecdotal details, like whether a flight occurred on a Thursday or a Wednesday, or whether 27 or 23 prisoners were tossed during a given flight.
December 3, 2008 at 12:41 am
Very simple question … do you understand why it’s impossible to toss people from big cargo planes at 10,000 feet?
Because you say it is and only a fool could question you.
In a nutshell that is the mentality of Truther you have become.
A Truther has a pre-ordained conclusion. He knows that Bush orchestrated 9/11 and is now simply concerned with buttressing his fore-ordained conclusion, facts be damned.
I make no claim that the story my reader relates is true. I simply note that given what we do know about the Administration’s facilitation of other–documented–acts of torture, murder, and shielding of perps it is no longer morally unthinkable that they might do something like what my reader related.
In contrast, you have a fore-ordained conclusion: it is absolutely impossible for the Administration to do what my reader related, and now you are buttressing your conclusion with whatever bits of evidence you can find. Anything that might suggest otherwise is simply ignored, much like a Truther ignores common sense.
In short, I have no conclusion whatever about this story. You are bound and determined to ignore it, despite the fact that the Administration is already documentably implicated in torture and murder elsewhere.
And you think I’m the crazy one simply for saying, “You know, I don’t trust those guys.”
This whole conversation is sort of the last gasp of the Alice In Wonderland moral topsy turveydom of the End to Evil types I have come to know so well in the past four years. Bizarre!
December 3, 2008 at 12:47 am
Very simple question … do you understand why it’s impossible to toss people from big cargo planes at 10,000 feet?
Because you say it is and only a fool could question you.
Are you serious? You don’t why this is? Have you ever flown a commercial aircraft? Have you ever seen a “big cargo plane” load and unload?
No wonder you think everything is a matter of “who do you trust?”
December 3, 2008 at 12:49 am
The Bush regime is so evil it now evidently can defy the laws of physics.
December 3, 2008 at 12:49 am
In contrast, you have a fore-ordained conclusion: it is absolutely impossible for the Administration to do what my reader related
The story your reader related is impossible for reasons of geography, psychology and science having nothing to do with any opinion of the Bush administration.
You really need to get over your habit of assuming that vehement disagreement with you makes one a Bushie shill.
December 3, 2008 at 12:52 am
Bizarre!
Yes, Mark. You gullibly relate a third-hand story that is at best implausible, pass it off as being being not unlikely because of what we know about the administration, and we’re the ones who are leaping outside the bounds of reality. Very 1984.
December 3, 2008 at 12:53 am
Mark:
It was stated over in the combox at your blog and bears repeating here – your tactic is very much like Andrew Sullivan’s tactic in dishing up “possibilities” of the parentageof Trig Palin. “Hey, I’m just saying some stuff. Draw your own conclusions. Could be true, might not. Eh.”
Really sad.
December 3, 2008 at 1:02 am
And you think I’m the crazy one simply for saying, “You know, I don’t trust those guys.”
You’re welcome to that distrust.
You’re not thereby entitled to repeat and disseminate claims that are not substantiated and that slight intellectual due-diligence should tell you are exceedingly implausible at best.
“Distrust” does not carve out an exception to the Church teaching on calumny and detraction.
December 3, 2008 at 1:05 am
Laws of physics?
You mean you can’t parachute from 10,000 feet? All those people on Google, lying again, just to make you look bad.
Nope. Sorry. This is not tantamount to Trig Trutherism, much as you try to make it so. It’s the common sense observation that people who have lied and murdered lose their trustworthiness.
December 3, 2008 at 1:17 am
I have to apologize to Mark. Just now I stepped outside and it started raining corpses. I forgot how routine such an occurrence was. No wonder the people living underneath the flight path were so non-plussed.
December 3, 2008 at 1:52 am
Sure am glad that Patrick’s readers have learned that all-important lesson about scorn he set out to teach.
Later, dudes!