Carl Remick wrote:
>
> >
> Sorry. Just trying to get some specificity here. The US Joint Chiefs of
> Staff urgently await our recommendations ;-)
>
That's exactly what Doug always claims. It's the basic form, not the particular topic, that I find objectionable. By their very nature, no matter who asks them or from what political/philosophical/etc position they are written, this kind of question can never be answered to the satisfaction of the asker, and that is clear from the beginning. I agree with you pretty completely on the substance here; I just don't think posing such fake questions is the way to get at the substance.
I noticed that Doug has responded with a post labelling it a "Have you stopped beating your wife" sort of question. He's correct. I've had that cliche in mind for 3 or 4 years in respect to his rhetorical technique. Perhaps this exchange can help communicate the rhetorical/logical point I've been trying to make.
It's a way of illegitimately shifting the burden of proof -- and in this case it was even unnecessary. The case for the affirmative -- all possible u.s. action is criminal action -- has been made, and it neither needs further repetition or rhetorical underlining through this particular objectionable technique.
Carrol