But what Reynolds and Maguire and others support is the permanent routine use of torture, legally protected, and a cadre of professional CIA torturers trained to do it on a regular basis.
Where the heck does that come from?
I find this a bit confusing, because Sullivan doesn't even link to an offending post on Reynolds' part. I mean, if somebody accused me of supporting the eating of Irish babies, I would appreciate at least a link to where I endorsed such a proposal. However, I think I know what Sullivan is talking about. Sullivan does link to this longish post by Tom Maguire, and Instapundit had linked to it earlier, so I guess that Sullivan's argument is a) Maguire endorses torture, and b) Reynolds agrees with Maguire.
I read Tom Maguire's offending post, and truth be told, I'm not sure what to make of it -- either the post Sullivan finds so objectionable or this one. I'm pretty sure I disagree with him, but his position takes more untangling than I'm willing to give it at the moment. In any case, I think he deserves more than a point-and-sputter condemnation. So let's put aside the question of whether Sullivan is being fair to Maguire.
That leaves part b) of Sullivan's argument: the notion that Reynolds agrees with Maguire.
Here's what Glenn Reynolds said:
TOM MAGUIRE LOOKS AT JOHN MCCAIN and the truth about torture.
I have omitted the link to Maguire's post, which I provided earlier. But other than that, I have quoted Reynolds' entire post, in full.
Reynolds doesn't say "Tom Maguire posts a really kick-ass defense of torture, and I agree with every jot and tittle of it. Nor does he say "great post by Tom Maguire." He said Maguire looked at the issue. Glenn Reynolds links to a lot of people, and sometimes he expresses agreement or disagreement, but other times he simply passes the link on.
Here's a thought: maybe Reynolds agrees with some aspects of Maguire's argument but disagrees with other aspects. Or maybe he read what Maguire had to say but didn't have time to give Maguire's argument careful consideration. Maybe he doesn't even have an opinion on Maguire's post.
I had this really novel idea: instead of reading every link as an endorsement, I thought I might actually read what Glenn Reynolds has to say about torture. So I went to Instapundit, and I typed "torture" into the "Search Instadpundit" box. I found this post linking to an article about Japan's "not-very-pretty" justice system, which features forced confessions. and this one, about torture in Egypt. This post might be (ahem) tortured into being pro-torture, but in fact all it is is an explantion of why something Megan McCardle said was not pro-torture.
And then there is this post which linked to Radley Balko's renunciation of his past support for torture. Reynolds made his own position plain:
Glad to have him join me in the anti-torture camp, which needs some sensible and non-hysterical members.
Ironically, that post is updated with a prior link to Sullivan, again accusing Reynolds of being pro-torture based solely on something he linked to without comment. What I didn't find were any posts that led me to believe that Reynolds supported torture.
I just don't get it. What is Reynolds' sin? Being insufficiently emotional about the issue? Not taking every opportunity to cast out heretics? Just what is it with Sullivan?