by rednblacklumberjack » Tue May 03, 2011 4:37 pm
To Mr Perfect and others -
I think its worthwhile pointing out that as wrong as torture is, we used it and it may have helped us win those bin laden fortunes, both his demise and his HDDs. Is it absurd or am I utterly evil to see this pragmatically? If I had to set a standard, is it so wrong to restrict the utmost controversial coercion to leadership like KSM? I'm disturbed by the idea that anyone in the rank-and file of AQ would be subject to the same cruelty - and I'm more thinking that the moral sacrifice to actionable intel ratio may sometimes be compelling.
But the above euphemisms forget one of the most unflinching and powerful messages of the war. As unanimously as one can expect, anyone with a professional military background, the people who've actually had their lives placed in immediate danger by close proximity to the actual subjects of homefront propaganda, each of them condemned torture and were careful to point out there was no practical advantage and this wasn't an issue of differing methodology. It was wrong, they never relied upon it, even as they watched in gruesome detail the deaths of friends, of innocents and more. That's a powerful position.
It reminds me of a restated liberty vs security problem, endorsed by Jesse Ventura and our own Demon of Undoing: It's better to face the terrorists everyday, face to face, wrestling the suicide bombers out of the line, grappling for the trigger, than it is to accept the restriction of liberty. It's not an easy message to receive, let alone stick to in the face of innovations in horror.
with a hat to match