Ignatieff letter pure lie

In a letter to The Star on Monday, Michael Ignatieff wrote that he had "never supported torture, torture 'lite' or coercive interrogation," and said anyone familiar with his writings would agree. Sadly, he is mistaken.

On May 2, 2004, in his New York Times Magazine piece titled "Lesser Evils," he wrote, "defeating terror requires violence ... indefinite detention of subjects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war." He defined "permissible forms of duress" as including "disinformation and disorientation, like keeping prisoners in hoods."

Mr Ignatieff has repeatedly said that torture is unacceptable. But his definition of torture is so narrow that he manages both to legitimate torture 'lite' and explicitly call for "coercive interrogation", though he now denies this. And it is in this context -- so-called human rights advocates whittling away at the prohibited -- that the torture of hooded prisoners in Abu Ghraib took place.

So far, the Star has only printed one reply, a brilliant letter that dredges up this rare gem, which Ignatieff spoke in an interview with ABC Radio:

But there may be ways of putting people through severe recursive, non-physical, harassing interrogating that stops short of torture, stops short of this kind of lasting psychological abuse ... I think it's a problem of finding a small category of coercive interrogation techniques that will get us intelligence results without dishonouring the United States, and shaming the operators.

This guy is splitting all the wrong hairs. I'd like him to give a seminar on "severe recursive, non-physical, harassing interrogating" to the thugs who generally put in practice such delicate distinctions.