An author and former JAG officer says:
Then again, the Admin relies on illogical arguments. Another example is that they don't torture but will veto a bill that bans torture. The best response I've heard about the "ticking bomb" justification for torture is to deal with that rare instance after the fact. A reasonable court would forgive any authority who, attempting to save many lives, "broke the law" by torturing a terrorist for the location of an imminent attack. There is absolutely no reason to allow torture (or an exemption for the CIA) as a matter of course.
Such a veto -- confirming that the Admin is as vile as we know it is -- will play a large part in the undoing of the Bush/Cheney gang. How many reasonable people -- including Republicans -- would go along with torture? John McCain made the point very clearly when interrogated in North Vietnam and tortured to give the names of his fellow pilots recited names of the players on a pro football team.
And even if the Admin could find some acceptable justification for torture it is such a stomach turner that, like the standard for conflict of interest, it is the mere perception of wrongdoing that is reason enough for sanctions.
Wrap...
No comments:
Post a Comment