Are you suggesting that in the academic setting nothing is off limits? I would concede that maybe as a test question, and for the purpose of developing a student's reasoning chops, arguing against these vile human acts might be acceptable. To engage in a polite and civil defense of them is highly problematic in many ways and I think GG's point.

Yes, I am precisely arguing that nothing should be off limits in an academic setting. I'm not sure if you misplaced some words in your following sentences, but your wording suggests that you would concede that it is okay to have students argue one way and not another. If so, then this is exactly what gives the conservatives fodder for their argument that liberals are suppressing intellectual freedom (though I expect they say similar things regarding abortion, evolution, etc.).

The problem is that people are unwilling to step back and look at the abstract fundamentals of an issue. So when you hear torture you immediately think Guantanamo. But if you've read Kant or Foucault, you can consider the abstract question of whether or not the infliction of pain as punishment for wrongdoing is just, and come up with reasons for your position other than "it just is". You list murder as one of the things that is supposedly beyond discussion. What about in self-defense? Retribution? Would it have been wrong to assassinate Hitler? These are the kinds of things that ethicists have to write entire books about. If you think that the very idea of torture is wrong a priori, that's fine, but it doesn't explain the popularity of revenge films.

Of course I realize the distinction between law and philosophy, and I suppose professors in the former field have more responsibility. Nevertheless there is no clear boundary between the two fields, which is why there are philosophy of law and political theory classes. All that Kerr seems to be guilty of is engaging in reasoning exercises by considering some hypothetical scenarios that would cause complications. At no point do I see him arguing that such and such a law absolutely must be passed to protect our freedoms, etc. His posts are utterly disinterested.

I suspect you might say something like that disinterest in the face of injustice is in itself evil. But requiring people to be outraged in a particular way seems dangerously close to the concept of a thought crime. This thread is full of anti-intellectualism, and we need more rational discussion on what constitutes the "moral", not people clamoring that moral positions must simply be taken on faith.

I'm going to have to civilly and respectfully (heh) disagree with you on some points you make at the end, Glenn. The main thing is that I think you neglect the issue of context. When someone like John Yoo, who is in a position of power and has a role in actually implementing the policies, pontificates about torture, then you truly have a right to be outraged. But to say that professors who have no bearing on policy should be abhorred for even daring to consider controversial positions rather than just declaring them off-limits because "that's just the way it is" is the worst kind of anti-intellectualism.

I found Volokh and Kleinman's discussion of torture to be illuminating and well-reasoned, far more so than the "omg, torture!" response. And given that your main argument for the opposition to torture is that of the Rule of Law, I think you are generally in agreement with Kleinman on that, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter. Also, looking through Kerr's posts, I still think it's a bit strong to characterize him as a Bush apologist. His Al-Marri post is a stretch in that direction, but on the other hand, the FISA post describes Bush's surveillance as "very likely unlawful". Generally, his posts do seem to be genuinely open questions rather than intentionally leading criticisms.

You have to realize that you are operating in slightly different discourses. Your writing is more about what should be done given the concrete given circumstances. That doesn't make you "shrill" or "ideological" like your critics claim, it's just what you do, and you do it well. But there should also be room for people who are not so personally invested to discuss the fundamental moral and philosophical principles underlying our laws, or to play out unlikely scenarios in which current laws and decisions may have unintended results. As a philosophy student, I wish more people would examine issues in this way.

Perhaps you will say that detached philosophical examination is a decadent and privileged position, and I might even agree. But I think that in the long run, society needs people who are able to take such a stance and consistently re-examine our basic moral assumptions, to remind us of exactly why we support certain things and oppose others. Otherwise politics just becomes a set of empty slogans, and law an arbitrary code.

That actually sounds like a pretty nice and thoughtful gesture. Could it be that Palin actually has some sort of humanity?

On the other hand, Bristol doesn't seem like she'd be a very responsible babysitter.

I didn't know there was such a stark divide between countries, but personally I've always had a vague feeling that using paper was kind of dirty. I didn't think about it much until I read this article, but I just realized that since I was young, I've been doing both. That is, assuming the sink is close enough to the toilet, I usually fold the toilet paper very thickly and then dab some warm water onto it. Probably still not as clean as a bidet, but perhaps a slight improvement?

P.S. I expect a royalty payment from any reader who decides to adopt this method.