TO KILL AN INNOCENT IS TO STAB AT ALL HUMANITY
When someone offers a justification like, "you do what you have to do", rather than, "you do what is right", you know the likelihood that you are being led (by the nose?) over the moral cliff is high. You can be certain of it, when they dress up the proposition in the thickest make-up possible, to look like, not just wise governance, but the sine qua non of "prudent" governance.
When someone offers a justification like, "you do what you have to do", rather than, "you do what is right", you know the likelihood that you are being led (by the nose?) over the moral cliff is high.
The idea that there can be no absolute injunction against "torture" is contestable, not just on practical grounds. It turns on the epistemological problems (that don't look anything like pacifism justifications - so much is just a throwaway line from CK).I'm worried, but not concerned, that Andrew and Glenn are digging into the weeds.
What is just as important is the high-level view of how we legally structure what interrogation can be done, if there is a re-think of that, given what we now know occurred. That is forward looking and non-trivial. It might involve additional legislation. Otherwise, we'll soon have the next G.O.P. President, who can rescind Obama's far-sighted changes.
Also, a prosecution has added benefits that are being cast aside in the tall grass, like possibly putting a ring around evidence that might be destroyed and compelling people to be accountable, in a structured way. Sure, we might not prove intent, but that is no reason not to try, when the obvious breach is sitting in front of us, is it? Is it true that sometimes you "go to court", even if your case is thin, because it might be the right thing to do (if not the required thing to do, under law/treaty)?
Anyway, I have to go into the weeds myself, to pick up on one of AS's readers, in Krauthammer's slippery slope:
First they tortured in ticking time bomb cases but I didn't mind because it was a clear and imminent danger.
Stop right there.
The CIA, to my knowledge, have not yet alleged - yes, alleged - that they ever obtained information related to a ticking bomb.
I know AS's reader is just illustrative, but it's seriously misleading in the same way as that trumped-up Iraq to al-qa'ida link, yes?
