It actually sounds oxymoronic. Is there anything which is not permanently disfuguring that you would not endure for 35 seconds? Yeah, I can think of some dental or spinal pain that I would not volunteer for. Then again I'm a civilian. If I were a soldier, maybe I'd think differently. To save my family from harm, I'd probably endure a lot of suffering.
Anyway. Patterico comes up with some boring details. Like it worked.
ABC reported yesterday that John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent who interrogated al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah, claims that subjecting Zubaydah to 35 seconds of waterboarding produced valuable information that thwarted terrorist attacks … and it was necessary torture:
A lot of conjecture over the questions surrounding torture and waterboarding have been over theoreticals. Now that some Critters are fussing over the possibility that there may be interrogation tapes available, some of this may come to light. It's awful second-guessing, and probably an abuse of politics, but I don't suppose it can be stopped. If the political opposition can minimize this real story and come up with an egregious counter-example (and they will if they can), what sense does it make to open up the actual can of worms?
I have pretty much always assumed that you could call what we do torture, but I don't because I think aim makes the difference, as does the short leash. If we get cases, we'll have to evaluate them individually and inn aggregate. How many seconds of torture are worth how many lives? More statistical morality. It's exactly why the Harry Reid contingent thinks it's more reasonable to negotiate with terrorists - in other words appease them and buy them off. Because at least it's not killing or torture.
You know the bumper sticker. "Why to we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?"
Recent Comments