[lbo-talk] Americans kinda like torture

[Gar Lipow]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:15 PM, James Heartfield
<Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Gar thinks that torture is wrong. Would that apply to all violence?
>
> 'National liberation, national renaissance, the restoration of nationhood to the people, commonwealth: whatever may be the headings used or the new formulas introduced, decolonization is always a violent phenomenon.' Frantz Fanon
>
> 'They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will on the other part, by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon - authoritarian means if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries.' Engels
> ___________________________________

So you equate opposition to torture to opposition to violence in all
circumstances. So is it all line drawing you oppose or just drawing
the line at torture. How about rape? Rape is often an effective form
of torture. How about the rape and torture of children? Certainly
effective against parents, and is in fact  has been used by people
claiming to be engaged in national liberation struggles.  Is it too
absolute and line drawing to simply say one is opposed to torture,
rape both of adults and of children - whether committed by states, by
revolutionaries, by national liberation movements or even by
apolitical groups and individuals?  Is opposing rape and torture
really on a slippery slope to opposing self-defense or revolutionary
struggle?