Interesting posts. Mr. Lederman's view of torture is right on but his post failed to address the issue posed by Mr. Posner. And his failure was articulated in a juvenile and insulting way.

Mr. Posner was addressing the issue of whether the lawyers who wrote the memos could be tried for war crimes. That's it. He didn't defend or condone the memos. He discussed the international law implications for the authors and then drew some comparisons to previous American actions abroad. All in the name of the issue - war crimes and the culpability of lawyers who advised the administration on the use of torture in interrogations..

Mr. Lederman went off on a toot, seeming to equate Mr. Posner's observations with support for the memos. He then shared with us a lot of his judgments about his assumptions about Mr. Posner's beliefs. So much for civil discourse.

Mr. Lederman's mode of communication is rife in academe today. Colleges have become places where civil discourse on contentious issues is discouraged since it might make someone uncomfortable. Instead, those who might disagree with the prevailing campus orthodoxy are either silenced or driven out. He appears to be using campus silencing tactics in this conversation and I hope future bloggers will call a halt to the use of those tactics.

Torture is a heinous crime and those who engaged in it need to be called to account but we also need to talk about it honestly and without name calling.