R.J. Eskow and Larisa Alexandrovna seem to have difficulty understanding my usage of the word normative when I say that I am normatively opposed to torture. It simply means that I am opposed to it on grounds of principle or morality. But empirically I know it is being used and would be used by any president in any situation. My position is quite clear and consistent to anyone who wants to understand it rather than distort it. For those who claim you can't be against a practice and still favor accountability when it is done, recall the Vietnam War. I and many on the left opposed the war while at the same time demanding that, if there is to be a war, Congress must officially declare it. Or consider the death penalty. I oppose it, but since it is being carried out, I want accountability and legal procedures including an execution warrant.
I accept Alexandrovna's challenge to be interviewed by her, so long as there is agreement that every word of my answers will be published. I do not trust her to edit, censor, or distort my views.
The Huffington Post claims that the column they tried to censor contained defamatory material, but they deny that the column by Alexandrovna contained any defamation. Here is the link to the article that Huffington Post tried to censor, as it appeared verbatim on the Jerusalem Post blog, and here is the link to the Alexandrovna article as it appeared on The Huffington Post. I challenge readers to read the two side by side and decide whether the first is defamatory and the second is not, as The Huffington Post claims.
"It simply means that I am opposed to it on grounds of principle or morality. But empirically I know it is being used and would be used by any president in any situation...I oppose it, but since it is being carried out, I want accountability and legal procedures including an execution warrant."
What do you mean by this: "I accept Alexandrovna's challenge to be interviewed by her, so long as there is agreement that every word of my answers will be published. I do not trust her to edit, censor, or distort my views?"
You do not know me to make such an accusation. I have yet to censor anyone whom I have interviewed, including people I strongly disagree with on any number of issues. Such was the case with Dr. Michael Ledeen, with whom I had a very lively and informative three part discussion. He and I did not agree and in fact still do not agree on many issues, but the conversations we had are important and we both represented our positions well.
Now, I don't know what has happened with your postings here on Huffington Post for you to accuse them of censorship. But I cannot imagine why you think it appropriate to extend the same allegation to me personally.
I am more than happy to interview you/have discussion/debate with you provided that you, sir, stop with these preemptive attacks on my character and work ethic. Feel free to email me so that we may setup our discussion.
Larisa
I can now only report that it is indeed defamatory, and in fact, is not much more than a long list of defamations.
Defamation one. After a long and uniformly nasty introduction to the Oxford union you state "But the Oxford Union has become a Potemkin village where a façade of fairness serves as a cover for the reality of bias."
Apparently they are hosting a debate described as"The proposition before the house is as follows: “This house believes that One State is the Only Solution to the Israel-Palestine Conflict”.
Defamation two. You then go on to systematically, and at great length, slime all 3 of the debaters. You attack Norman Finkelstein repeatedly, as you have been doing for years. Putting aside who one thinks is right in your ongoing feud with him, you mounted a campaign to pressure De Paul to deny him tenure, in which you were successful, in spite of the fact that he Mr. Finkelstein had been accepted by the tenure committee. The fact that he is still a respected author who speaks for justice for the Palestinian people seems to drive you to new frenzies of totally vile defamations, stacked one upon the other.
If you are unhappy as to not being invited to this debate, I can understand that, but I don't think it is fair to continually try to erase your opponents from the world of discourse with defamatory articles.
I am looking forward to seeing the debate you have accepted with Larisa Alexandrovna.
I read her all of her columns, as I do yours, and I do not recall her defaming you or anyone in any way. She had a cool, rational side, and also deep feeling as a member of a family who suffered great losses in the Holocaust, her style used facts in order to advance her arguments. It is, in fact, a style you would do well to emulate.
Waterboarding techniques used against American captives would be perfectly acceptable then.
You cannot argue in favor of using physically painful or life threatening interrogation methods against "foreigners" then on the other hand complain if "foreigners" use the same treatments against American military members and government agents. Or American civilians.
Once it was normative to consider women chattel. Once it was normative to seize men and torture them until they died. Centuries ago habeas corpus was not normative.
Normative in the United States was burning crosses and lynchings. Normative was the poor dieing like flies working twelve hours a day in a factory while the owner lived in luxury. Normative is pollution of the common ground - water, air and food. Normative is the Israeli abuse of the Palestinians. Normative is what I have spent my life opposing. I am in favor of progressive since when you accept normative then you can easily slip back to the bad old days. Mr. Dershowitz was not quoted out of context. He rationalizes the irrational.
There are several possible meanings to Normative (from wikipedia)
"In law, as an academic discipline, the term "normative" is used to describe the way something ought to be done according to a value position. For example, from one normative value position the purpose of the criminal process may be to repress crime whilst from another position, it could be to protect individuals from the moral harm of wrongful conviction. It simply refers to different value positions."
A persona who is morally opposed to torture, would die before they would torture someone.
A person who is normatively opposed to torture would only torture someone if the implements and the process of torture were approved.
As for your article in the Jerusalem post. I find no comparison in tone between it and Ms. Alexandrova's piece. Yours is a collection name-calling insults. Whether they are true or not, I have no idea since I know little or nothing about the people you attack. Ms. Alexandrova's article centers on the content of what you have said, not on insulting you. I see no invective against you in her piece. I see no invective against anyone, simply an opinion about your "defense" (for want of a better word) of legitimizing torture. I just went back and looked through the responses. I'd say another sign that you were not the heart of the article is reflected by the fact that your name came up in only three of the 71 reponses, one negative and two positive. The rest of the posts were mostly about the morality/immorality of torture, which is what the article was focussed on. I think you're being a bit thin-skinned, myself. Though I can understand why you might not like the article's title, you DID in fact use the Nazis to back up a claim that torture works, so while you may not like the title it does not seem to me to be an unfair question.
Isn't the best defense for slander and libel simply the truth?
On the other hand, that column is an utterly different animal than Ms. Alexandrovna's first essay: she uses Mr. Dershowitz's own words against him. Mr. Dershowitz can say she is being distortive, despite her quoting him in big blocks with plenty of surrounding context, but "ad hominem" as Mr. Dershowitz protests?
Pee-shaw.
You say "I am normatively opposed to torture. It simply means that I am opposed to it on grounds of principle or morality. But empirically I know it is being used and would be used by any president in any situation."
Well, the Nazis were normatively opposed to the Jews. According to records, they even tried to get all the other foreign countries to accept the German Jews before WW2...but empirically when that failed...it was easier to work then to death followed by a quick processing at high temperatures.
Torture is torture. To say that "it is being used and would be used by any president in any situation." is not only utter BS...but it shows just how far the cheese has slipped off your cracker. Torture is what weak-minded sycophants such as yourself resort to when the truth of the situation doesn't fit your warped sense of reality.
Torture gives the answer that it is looking for 100% of the time, pull enough fingernails, use an electric drill to bore holes through the victim and you know what buddy...they'll confess to kidnapping the Lindbergh baby, being the gunman in the grassy knoll, or having a secret base on the moon.
Your a disgrace not only the millions that died in the Holocaust, but to humanity and morality itself.
I'd not bother with the middle school minds that have challenged you. They are both suffering from romantically inclined political correctness and are more concerned with their own success as bloggers than they are with the well-being of the U.S. public.