Shall I give you my opinion on those issues:
Torture, I assume that you mean water boarding as distinct from drilling of knee caps, eyes etc. as practised by Al Queda. I accept that water boarding is torture. Now we have an issue in the legal sense of it, first of all the terrorists are not soldiers as per the Geneva convention, they are irregulars and as such have no protection under that fine treaty which is not observed by our enemies.
Now we get to the thorny issue of whether the human right of a person to not be tortured outwieghs the human rights of his potential victims to life, now if he is a known terrorist who has been up to something where does one draw the line. Its a difficult one, I would like to think that I would hold the line, but if it was a known evil man who was going to kill thousands I would have a very difficult choice to make and I would most probably use water boarding.
Internment, or even deportation, this is likely to get my comment censored. But anyway, internment of people who are out and out extremists may be necessary to protect the general population, the same can be said of deportation, but the problem gets moved elsewhere.
As people have said here internment is also a protection in certain circumstances. If the question is internment or a large number of sudden jihad actions resulting in thousands of dead in shopping malls, football stadiums etc., then followed up by a full scale civil war, or out break of revenge attacks killing innocents then my money would be on internment if the situation warrants it. Of course I have certain views on deportation, but as I am a European that is perhaps expected of me.
Murder, if you are talking about the removal of the block on state assassination of certain leaders then I might agree, though I have to say that making that judgement on who deserves life or death is a tough one, I am not big enough to be able to make that call in many areas, however, Bin Laden, Saddam and Mugabe would be on my list. Dinnerjacket would not, yet…, but once he carries out his new holocaust then why not.
If Ms Malkin had the same difficulty in talking/writing about it and even thinking about it as I just did and I am sure she did, then I could not call her evil in anyway. The question you have to ask yourself is simple, do you really think someone is evil for talking about such issues and expressing difficult views but does not in anyway gain from such activities apart from protection, really evil, I reject your notion that she is evil, I do not want to see torture, internment or even murder, but when we are in a war situation against people who have no moral restriction on their actions, perhaps even worse a moral imperative to carry out such actions, whre do you draw a line.
Of course well intentioned people can become evil, pride cometh before the fall, but from what I have read of this person who you define as evil she is anything but. Learn to discriminate, it might just save your life.
