As a Catholic conservative let me just beat Mark Shea to it–this is absolutely disgusting. It in no way represents conservative thinking. In fact, what it best represents is how muddled your thinking can become once one is untethered from faith.
The disgusting John Derbyshire takes delight in the burning of another human being.
I have no doubt Corner readers will be just as shocked and grieved as I was on reading this story from England:
A prisoner has been accused of throwing boiling oil over an al Qaeda terrorist who planned to murder thousands with dirty bombs.
The attacker is described as a 22-year-old from Sunderland, up there by the wall in the windswept northeast of England. But who was the victim of this dastardly attack?
[Dhiren] Barot was sentenced to life, with a minimum term of 30 years, for planning to plant radioactive, chemical or toxic gas bombs and pack limousines with nails and explosives in the UK and America … Barot was arrested in August 2004 and accused of conspiracy to murder. He admitted planning to bomb several targets including the New York Stock Exchange, the International Monetary Fund HQ, and the World Bank.
The attack, we are told, left Barot with “excruciating burns.” Poor fellow!
I am shocked and grieved. I am shocked and grieved for this poor fellow and I am shocked and grieved that NRO publishes anything so cruel.
I don’t think that Derb is representative of “that thing that used to be conservatism” as Mark would say (although I wouldn’t blame him in this case), but rather a representative of that thing that is atheism. With that said, I do not wish to be identified in any way with such thinking. To take joy in the purposeful burning of another, to take joy in excruciating pain of another human is most monstrous and may I say there is nothing conservative about it. To allow this post to stand is to allow conservatism to be identified with cruel vengeance and I want no part of that.
I have thought for some time that NRO should dump Derb. Now it is a must.
DUMP DERB!!
February 16, 2010 at 6:06 am
I'm not the biggest fan of Derbyshire he says stupid things often, but I think you are blowing this way out of proportion. His post does not advocate a horrible disgusting attitude which you claim it supports. No where does he express joy or approval for what happened to the convicted terrorist. Not expressing sadness and using sarcastic sympathy is not the same as joy.
For example, when Jack Ruby assassinated Lee Harvey Oswald, very few, if anyone, would have felt sadness or pity for Oswald. That does not mean that they were rejoicing in one evil deed being committed against another evil person.
Also, it might be useful to consider the statement in light of the whole debate over whether to try terrorists in civilian court and whether to move them from Guantanamo to domestic prisons. Derbyshire was probably also using this to demonstrate the dangers that await terrorists in domestic prisons.
Again, I rarely agree with Derbyshire, but I think he represents an important form of conservatism, an atheistic kind, which helps us better inform our own views. You could find a lot worse things he's written. You've blown this way out of proportion.
February 16, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Anthony
You are completely wrong. The entire point of publishing the story and his commentary is obviously to take delight in this man's suffering.
"The attack, we are told, left Barot with "excruciating burns." Poor fellow!"
It is obvious what he is saying. What is less obvious is what you are smoking? Derb is alerting us to the dangers that await terrorists in prison? Are you serious?
I think somebody may have spiked your tea or your bangers and mash has gone bad. Either way you are either delusional or defending Derb for reason not immediately obvious. What is obvious is that you lack the conviction to attribute it to your real full name.
February 16, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Patrick,
Again I don't see how you can draw you conclusions through a charitable reading of the post.
If you're arch-enemy is seriously hurt and you sarcastically say "too bad" does that really mean you condone or advocate for the injury? I don't think so. Of course, its not the most Christian response but I don't think it is as monstrous and cold-hearted as you make it out to be. I don't see how it would be dissimilar to my Lee Harvey Oswald example?
Don't get me wrong I am opposed to torture and torture veiled as "enhanced interrogation." I'm also open to civilian trials for terrorists and the closing of Guantanamo. I agree that callousness towards prisoners, no matter how guilty they are, makes conservatives look bad and is unChristian. But I think you're overreacting here.
February 16, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Furthermore Patrick,
You seem very passionate about this and I can understand why. I'm sure you were waiting for someone to reply in support of Derbyshire so you could engage that person on these important issues. I'm not that guy. I think I agree with you on the underlying issues, I only believe that you were incorrect in drawing a particular conclusion from a particular statement.
February 16, 2010 at 1:39 pm
It takes a pretty big leap of faith to think that Derbyshire is in fact not taking delight in what happened. I cringed when I initially read this, and I'm glad you took Derb to task. This is yet another reason I tend to skip most of Derb's posts – too bad I didn't miss this one.
February 16, 2010 at 2:16 pm
I have no love for Derb but I'm not going to feel sad for a man who would've cheerfully done the same thing to me. I'm not sorry that Nidal is paralyzed and presumably miserable either.
February 16, 2010 at 2:36 pm
(Like most people, I'm sure) I start reading Corner posts from the bottom up; and in doing so, I usually don't check to see who's written any particular post.
However, it is not unusual that after I've read a post I disagree with, I check out who wrote it. Derbyshire, more often than not, is the culprit.
And, when he gets on about his Chinese experiences, I skip it altogether.
Nicholas Jagneaux
February 16, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Just a question: Why is it surprising that someone would post an uncharitable comment? Derbyshire is a conservative, but I've heard and read uncharitable comments from lots of conservatives and even Catholics, including someone you mentioned above. Not shocking, just makes me glad I can ask forgiveness for stupid stuff I do.
February 16, 2010 at 6:30 pm
As I recall, National Review sacked Ann Coulter a few days past 9/11 for writing a column in which she said that the US should kill all every terrorist and Muslim leader and forcibly convert the populations to Christianity.
Is this a firing offense? I don't think so. Not that Coulter set the bar at a minimum threshold or anything – that's certainly not her style – but what Derb said is milder. I recoil from it, but it's more of a civilian reaction to the grittier side of esprit de corps, rather than a religious recoil from depravity.
I recall going to the Intrepid on Memorial Day 2001; one of the soldiers in the crowd there had a "Viet Cong Hunting Club" patch on his denim jacket. Horrible, but a side effect of what it takes to fight a war. Not everyone would exhibit such effects. But I think that if you asked, even the man with the patch would not say that he enjoyed killing other people and taking husbands and sons and fathers from their loved ones. I think there's survival value in such things. It's war itself that is the insanity; what follows may be unhealthy while not necessarily being an expression of evil, any more than the soldier himself is in sin merely by being a soldier and fighting wars. That patch had more to do with solidarity with his unit and his country, not hatred of the Veitnamese.
Derb, of course, is not a soldier. He is a naturalized US Citizen, however. Much like converted Catholics, the zeal of naturalized citizens often outstrips the natural-born. Charitably, you could say it was an expression of solidarity with civilization against barbarity.
I note that it was a barbarous act, which makes this expression self-contradictory at worst, ironic at best; it doesn't by definition make Derb an evil man. He's a lapsed Anglican, which I jocularly note may have moved him rather closer to the believing camp. 😉
February 16, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Reading the MailOnLine newspiece, and setting aside Derbeyshire's comment, I note that there remains the unanswered question of what offence the oil-burned terrorist was punished for. Was it his terrorist plotting for which he was originally convicted, or did he steal too many cigarettes from the comissary, or did he talk back to the wrong fellow, or did he try to convert a skinhead to Islam?
I wonder:
Does a convict have the right to expect that time served in prison should be the sole form of punishment for his crime? Or, are the added privations, injuries, and greatly icreased potentials for serious harm and even death while imprisoned also part of the meted punishment?
I have also wondered long and hard about the differing sense of the Just exercised by prisoners and by judge and jury.
Jeffrey Dahmer got off with life in prison when he was the guilty, deserving poster child for capital punishment. The prison population refused to apply the finer points of the question of criminal culpability for the insane and rendered captial punishment themselves. Our system (and sense) of justice frowns on that sort of thing, but the prison poluation does appear to be consistent.
So, though I do not join the Derby chap in his glee, I do wonder if this sort of thing is to be expected. If it is to be expected, then as for the oil burned terrorist's recent travails: so what?
February 16, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Anthony wrote:
If you're arch-enemy is seriously hurt and you sarcastically say "too bad" does that really mean you condone or advocate for the injury? I don't think so.
(??) You'll really need to explain your reasoning to me, on this one. Sarcasm (unless your part of the world has a very different variety) is used to express contempt for an idea/person/etc.; right? Consider four scenarios:
1) You're drowning, and I sadly watch you drown (since I'm too cowardly to risk my own skin to try to save you).
2) You're drowning, and I watch your death with complete emotional detachment.
3) You're drowning, and I laugh and mock you as you suffer and die.
4) You're drowning, and I speed the process by throwing rocks at you.
I'd say that Derby's reaction fits into category (3), don't you? You seem to be trying to give Derby "points" for failing to rejoice explicitly in the raw ontological fact of the terrorist's torture; and I really wonder why that impresses you so much. Do you really think that someone who scorns and mocks someone's agony is far more morally upright than someone who flatly says, "I find his torture to be a moral good"? Frankly, I find the former to be more cruel, base and wretched; at least the latter might have been acting on principle (flawed though it was), rather than an animalistic glee at watching someone/something else suffer.
Of course, its not the most Christian response
(*sigh*) Equivocation and understatement strike again…
but I don't think it is as monstrous and cold-hearted as you make it out to be.
If anything, it's worse.
I don't see how it would be dissimilar to my Lee Harvey Oswald example?
Well… let's look at it. You wrote:
For example, when Jack Ruby assassinated Lee Harvey Oswald, very few, if anyone, would have felt sadness or pity for Oswald.
Perhaps. But to make the examples more equal: do you think anyone might've pitied Oswald (or been disgusted at his assailant) if Oswald were slowly dissolved in a vat of acid, feet-first? There's a certain horror to the infliction of severe agony that you don't seem to recognize, here.
That does not mean that they were rejoicing in one evil deed being committed against another evil person.
You're missing a key distinction, here; to say, "I'm relieved that he can no longer do any harm" is fundamentally different from "I'm glad the S.O.B. is dead, and I laugh at his sufferings!". The first is free of mental cooperation in the evil; the second relishes the evil. Surely you see the difference?
February 16, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Are we so short up for targets for our sympathy that we need to find some terrorist who got a bit of what he justly had coming to him, and bestow it on him? Aren't there any *innocent* victims around anywhere? (Read that deeply moving Baby Gianna story that's running elsewhere on this blog, if you don't know how to answer that last question.)
Yeah, I know, the person who did it to him didn't have the authority to do it. And I wouldn't do it myself. But I'm just saying: isn't there anything better to be spending our energies on?
I don't understand the mentality that dumps vast amounts of sympathy on malefactors who have not been adequately punished in the first place.
Have we forgotten about justice, in our obsession with mercy?
February 16, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Paul,
Are you seriously suggesting that:
1) we have a finite amount of "sympathy to spread around"?
2) those who grieve the wrong done to the terrorist are in any way denying the evil that the terrorist had done?
3) those who grieve the wrong done to the terrorist are somehow unmoved (or not sufficiently moved) by the Baby Gianna story?
Have some sense, friend. No one's requiring you to like the terrorist, or to hope that the terrorist is let out of prison. But do you really think that we can't decry evil whenever it comes, without diluting our other good efforts? The ends never justify evil means, and we need to keep that quite clear.
February 16, 2010 at 10:33 pm
One of the things that bothers me about modern Catholics is precisely this squeamishness when it comes to the suffering of the *guilty*. It's not integral to the Catholic faith; previous generations of Catholics did not generally suffer from this peculiar affliction.
Yes, we do have a finite amount of sympathy to spread around, indeed. A finite amount of time; a finite amount of attention. And yes, it does seem to me that those who grieve when a terrorist is hurt, are indeed denying, or at best minimizing, the evil that he has done or willed to do.
Inflicting punishment on a guilty party who wished to inflict punishment on very many innocent parties does not fit the traditional definition of "evil." It is in fact rather closer to "good."
Again, I don't understand where this sudden squeamishness and inability to collude in self-defense comes from, and I don't sympathize with it. To repeat: it's not integral to the faith. It's a recent phenomenon, for the most part.
I wish I could continue the discussion, but I'm getting ready to leave for the rest of the week, and I'm mired in (yet another) Winter Storm, so will have to leave it at this: it isn't evil to punish malefactors. The only evil here was the fact that the person doing the punishment didn't have proper authority to do it, so he shouldn't have.
But I can't find much sympathy for the "victim" in my heart, and I don't think I'm evil for not doing so.
Nor do I think I'm lacking sense. On the contrary, I think those who are unable to defend themselves and the innocent are lacking in…well, if not sense, then *something* that is critical to survival.
Best wishes.
February 16, 2010 at 10:45 pm
Sorry Paladin, you need to dial it down and crack out a Webster's while you write:
a) Your 4 scenarios don't fit the bill. The guy was not killed, nor is it all evident that murder was intended. No one is rejoicing, sneering, assisting at a death here.
b) Your use of the word torture is entirely inapropriate and out of context. The oil burning was not used or intended as torture. Torture. Look it up.
c) there were no vats around and no gradual descents into the burning oil. Your coloration helps this dicussion not one bit.
Convicts are murdered in prisons by other convicts with great regularity. That is evil and it is no suprise. Convicts mame each other in prisons with even greater regularity. That is evil and it is no suprise. The terrorist has been returned to prison to continue his life term. No solitary (now that's torture and it's probably what the oil thrower got).
So he's a terrorist with a burned face. Which one of those facts is worse? I pick terrorist. Look it up.
February 17, 2010 at 12:23 am
Paul,
I'm sorry, but it is integral to the faith. This is not a matter of the punishment of the guilty. Jail-time was his punishment. The person throwing the oil was not punishing .. precisely because he had no authority to do so. It was an assault. It was a crime. It was a sin. And as such, our faith cries out against it.
Just because the world cannot even muster sufficient compassion for the innocent does not mean that we as Christians are not called to have compassion even for the guilty. Our savior teaches us to love our enemies, and if we have no compassion for them, we have no love. This does not mean that the guilty should evade just punishment, but we must recognize that a sin against the guilty is just as much a sin as a sin against the innocent (though the sinner's culpability might be different).
It may not be as obvious as the relativism that keeps abortion legal, but the idea that the guilty somehow deserve to be victims is relativism just the same.
February 18, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Paul,
Forgive me, but your comment is bizarre! It can only be your personal tastes that motivate it–not the teachings of our Faith. At any rate, you're using extremely broad and vague language to cover up "enjoyment at someone else's suffering"–which is a good working definition of "sadism". That, friend, is certainly sinful (and has no place in the heart of any Christian). Not only is there a world of difference (which your comments blur, inexcusably) between "lack of squeamishness at just punishment" and "happiness that someone else suffered", but you seem to be under the mistaken idea that the boiling oil was somehow "just punishment"… and that's plain nonsense. Wine in the Water addressed that idea quite well, above.
Do you seriously think that it's "good and right" to delight in the suffering of others, or to inflict gratuitous pain simply to satisfy our personal feelings of outrage, etc.? God doesn't (cf. Ezekiel 33:10-11), nor does the Church He founded:
"Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity." (CCC 2297, emphasis added)
Yes, we do have a finite amount of sympathy to spread around, indeed.
Then either you're using a sentimental, feelings-based notion of "sympathy", or you are speaking as a non-Catholic! Do you also have a finite amount of love to give (e.g. if you have another child, do you need to divide your love up into smaller pieces for each)?
And yes, it does seem to me that those who grieve when a terrorist is hurt, are indeed denying, or at best minimizing, the evil that he has done or willed to do.
I must ask you to consider this reasonably! You equivocate (with wild abandon, in fact) all types of "hurt", while the Church is particularly concerned with whether the "hurt" is accidental or intentional, proportionate or disproportionate, administered by rightful authority or not, and so on. These distinctions don't seem to matter to you, "so long as the bad guy suffers"…
Inflicting punishment on a guilty party who wished to inflict punishment on very many innocent parties does not fit the traditional definition of "evil." It is in fact rather closer to "good."
See above. You neglect to care whether the punishment was truly just (and not simply indulging a fit of rage, given by a vigilante, for example); and that's rather important. We're not free to make up our own definitions of "good" and "evil"; the words do have objective meanings.
Again, I don't understand where this sudden squeamishness and inability to collude in self-defense comes from, and I don't sympathize with it.
"Collude in self-defense"? Okay, explain this one to me: how does pouring boiling oil on a captive's face contribute to "self-defense"?
it isn't evil to punish malefactors. The only evil here was the fact that the person doing the punishment didn't have proper authority to do it, so he shouldn't have.
Ah. So (ignoring your flat self-contradiction, above) you think it was merely a slight bending of a technicality to burn someone's face gratuitously with boiling oil… and that it would have been perfectly acceptable if the attacker had possessed a note from the authorities, giving him permission to do so?
But I can't find much sympathy for the "victim" in my heart, and I don't think I'm evil for not doing so.
That's almost a textbook example of why we cannot allow ourselves to let our "hearts" decide principles of morality; "hearts" (in the sense of feelings/passions) are irrational, and they change with the wind… and they can be calibrated to things which are not true, right and good.
February 18, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Hilltop wrote:
Sorry Paladin, you need to dial it down and crack out a Webster's while you write:
I'll leave it to you to specify what you mean by "dial it down"… but I'm afraid your "Webster's" isn't a standard one. See below:
a) Your 4 scenarios don't fit the bill. The guy was not killed, nor is it all evident that murder was intended. No one is rejoicing, sneering, assisting at a death here.
(*sigh*) Where do I begin…?
First: none of the four examples mentioned "murder" (and only the fourth involves any efforts to bring about death, at all); they only mentioned "suffering and death" (and "death" was an optional extra–my point stands perfectly well without it, or if some sort of agony were substituted). But surely you see that "rejoicing and sneering" at someone being maimed, disfigured, or brought to a condition of enduring agony, would be equally cruel (and morally wrong)? Are you trying to escape the main point on a mere technicality?
b) Your use of the word torture is entirely inapropriate and out of context. The oil burning was not used or intended as torture. Torture. Look it up.
🙂 Your wish is my command. From Webster's (since you prefer it) online dictionary:
Torture (n):
1a: anguish of body or mind : agony
b: something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or
wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
But seriously: what esoteric definition of "torture" do you use, that doesn't include "the deliberate infliction of pain, for the express purpose of making someone else suffer"? Or are you suggesting that the oil-pouring person was, perhaps, trying to apply it for positive medicinal purposes?
c) there were no vats around and no gradual descents into the burning oil. Your coloration helps this dicussion not one bit.
Not so, friend. First, your idea that "pouring boiling oil on someone is okay, so long as they're not immersed in it" is bizarre and utterly removed from all sane morality. Second, my illustration (which you paraphrased) was made strong so as to present the moral issues clearly. Rather, your fixation on details, to the exclusion of the obvious point, is impairing the discussion.
Convicts are murdered in prisons by other convicts with great regularity. That is evil and it is no suprise. Convicts mame each other in prisons with even greater regularity. That is evil and it is no suprise.
I'm glad we agree that such things are evil and can never be approved. (Right?)
The terrorist has been returned to prison to continue his life term. No solitary (now that's torture and it's probably what the oil thrower got).
Um… do you serioulsy not see that you're stretching the word "torture" to mean whatever you wish it to mean? You don't regard the pouring of burning oil on someone's face "torture", but you regard solitary confinement to be torture! Can you explain your reasoning, here?
So he's a terrorist with a burned face. Which one of those facts is worse? I pick terrorist. Look it up.
My dear fellow, there's nothing to "look up", since your points are your raw opinions, and little else (and I can hardly "look those up"). And the fact that something "might be worse" is utterly irrelevant to the fact that the original thing is still evil (and worthy of condemnation). Scalding someone is hardly "irrelevant" because greater evils exist!
February 18, 2010 at 4:08 pm
In the interests of preventing at least one other technicality-based red herring in replies (since some replies have paid special attention to my metaphorical details), let me be pedantic and clarify one point. I wrote, to Paul:
At any rate, you're using extremely broad and vague language to cover up "enjoyment at someone else's suffering"–which is a good working definition of "sadism". That, friend, is certainly sinful (and has no place in the heart of any Christian).
Please change to:
That, friend, is certainly evil (and sinful, if employed with free will and sufficient knowledge, etc.) (and has no place in the heart of any Christian).
No, I didn't mean to imply that the true mental illness known as "sadism" was sinful, per se; free will is required for sin, yes. But the point of that paragraph stands quite securely, in either case.