Last week Conor Friedersdorf wanted specifics about acceptable methods of interrogation and torture from Bill O’Reilly (who had made some vague statements about it). The comments that followed were interesting; a few of them were mine. If you’re interested in the subject, it’s worth seeing what was said on both sides.
Samual Goldman, in another C11 post, also brought it up - and comments again ensued.
In general, I believe there are circumstances under which both war and “enhanced” interrogations are necessary - and that both can be conducted ethically. And three waterboardings out of thousands of individuals captured in the war on terror does not send me reeling.
As for those who suggest it would be better to suffer American citizens to die than to pour a bucket of water down someones’s throat so they’ll cough up an answer?
Imagine one of the dead will be your child, your parent, your brother, or your friend - and then ask yourself whether you really mean it.
2009 January 28
I imagine that most conservatives would (rightly) object to a similarly crude utilitarian calculus in the context of abortion or free speech restrictions. So I’m left wondering why this horrifying “ends justifies the means” argument suddenly becomes appropriate when we’re dealing with torture.