psyclone and mendowood: I don't think mendowood, at least, is blase about torture -- s/he has a pretty well thought out position. I just disagree with it!

If the suspected bad guys break under waterboarding, how do we know that what they say is the truth? They'll just say anything to stop the pain or terror. That makes the technique useless. And, all the while, we become known as people who torture. For a country based on ideas, that's an idea that's pretty important!

Posted at April 29, 2008 6:00 PM in response to Dems to Push Again to Limit Interrogation Techniques

mendowood: First, we have the testimony of military professionals that torture is not effective. (I, too, think the utilitarian argument has merit -- but it works both ways.)

Second, I think the definition of torture hinges less on some sliding scale of outrageousness (as in "outrage upon personal dignity") than on a sliding scale of personal dignity. In other words, the danger when we're at war is that the importance of personal dignity in general will be diminished. I don't want my country to stand for diminished personal dignity, whether in war or peace.

Posted at April 29, 2008 5:06 PM in response to Dems to Push Again to Limit Interrogation Techniques

Thanks, Michael Mukasy, for creating a whole new branch of logic -- Mukasian logic:
"But on the face of it, it would make no more sense to apply the Constitution to the CIA than it would be to take the Constitution and apply it to my agency." (Paraphrasing slightly.)

Posted at February 6, 2008 12:06 PM in response to White House: Waterboarding Is A-OK