I honestly don’t know what kind of world the conspiracy theorists
want us to have.
The conspiracy theorists are working overtime these days whether, as I’ve mentioned
before, it’s Nobel prize winners who believe that the U. S. created AIDS in
a deliberate attempt to kill black Africans, people who believe that the Clintons ordered
the murder of Vince Foster or ran drugs down in Arkansas, those who believe that the torture of Iraqi
prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison was ordered at the highest levels of the U. S. government,
or, as Jeff pointed out this morning, it’s a man who runs one of the most
influential news organizations in the world who claims that American soldiers are deliberately
targeting journalists.
Here’s an example of the arguments we’re seeing these days:
- Black Africans are dying from a terrible disease.
- Americans have chemical and bacteriological war programs.
- Americans hate black people.
- Therefore Americans deliberately created the disease.
Check it out. I’m trying my hardest not to employ a strawman argument. For analysts of logical
fallacies this is an embarrassment of riches. The fallacies in this short statement
include the ad hominem fallacy, hasty generalization, the genetic fallacy, and outright lies.
But the key point to note is that means and motive are enough to convict. There’s
no actual evidence presented.
The form that these conspiracy theories take that I find the most troubling is when
the theorists say that well, no, the torture wasn’t actually ordered or the targeting of
journalists wasn’t actually ordered but the higher-ups created an environment in which
terrible things were done. When creating an environment without directly ordering a crime
or being involved in a crime is itself a crime, you’re undermining freedom of speech and
freedom of the press. If that’s the standard none of us will have any basic freedoms. The
restrictions on creating environments won’t be limited to presidents and generals. It will be
extended to heads of news organizations, Nobel prize winners, judges, lawyers, journalists,
and you and me.
Now don’t get me wrong. I believe that if anybody has any actual evidence that the U. S.
government deliberately created AIDS in a laboratory and unleashed it on Africa to kill black
people, or that President Bush or Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld ordered the torture of prisoners
in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo or that they ordered the targeting of journalists in Iraq (or
anywhere else) by American soldiers they would be doing a great public service if they produced
their evidence. But if they have no evidence they should keep their suspicions and ill-feeling
to themselves.
After all, they’re creating an environment of suspicion and doubt that encourages sedition
and law-breaking. And, in the world that the conspiracy theorists seem to envision, that
would be enough to convict them of a crime.
UPDATE: Submitted to the Beltway Traffic Jam.
I guess some people just can’t believe, ultimately, that sh*t happens.
Or, as engineers know, that it’s mostly what happens.
‘the ad hominem fallacy, hasty generalization, the genetic fallacy, and outright lies’
I’ll give you 2 of 4. Ad hominem is against an individual. I can only take you refer to Pt 3. While this is a generalization, it’s not w/o historical merit. Either way, even if wrong it’s not ad hominem. The lies I assume refer to Pt 2. This is currently unprovable, so not a provable lie, but a stretch based on past truths. We have had those programs in the past. This cd be used for Pt 4, though, yet that’s the conclusion, so prob not. The fallacy of the undistributed middle is more likely one that is better to apply than ad hominem and outright lies. DAN
On Abu Grhaib:
I think there was at least a legitimate concern there about authorizations, etc., from higher up in the chain of command. For my part, I was curious about why the guards not merely abused the prisoners, but also took photos, which I didn’t think they would do if they thought their actions were unauthorized.
Which, naturally, made me wonder why they thoughty their actions were sanctioned.
–|PW|–
pennywit, I think that concern was appropriate. I think that the goings-on at Abu Ghraib were reprehensible, inconsistent with the ideals of our country, inconsistent with the standards of behavior we expect from our military, and damaging to U. S. interests.
But I think that Occam’s Razor should prevail here. There have been several trials and several convictions in connection with the incidents at Abu Ghraib. If there had been any actual evidence (other than the extremely vague men-in-black kinds of allegations), doesn’t it stand to reason it would have come out already? That it hasn’t suggests there isn’t any and in order to be convinced at this point that everything was done under the order of higher-ups requires belief in so many things that aren’t in evidence that simple reasonableness demands skepticism. Or at least that’s how I see it.
I’m sorry to turn this into yet another tiresome Abu Grhaib/torture thread, but I’m going to disagree with you slightly on this point.
I’m not going to allege that Rumsfeld or somebody at the White House said, “Beat up on prisoners B8 through B16 at Abu Grhaib, and, while you’re at it, stack ’em in a pyramid.”
Nevertheless, we’re seeing, in dribs and drabs, evidence that abuse was widespread beyond Abu Grhaib. It’s coming out slowly because it’s being released via FOIA requests.
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, but I see a disturbing picture emerging when I take into account the memos that are slowly emerging.
–|PW|–