[logn]

He said the CIA saved lives and that Feinstein should listen to her experience vs political staff. That's not a defense of torture. Even assuming you're opposed to any torture in all cases, you can still criticize the torture report and defend organizations involved.

Anyhow, I'd like to think that our goodness as people is not necessarily determined by our political tweets.

[olavk]

There is a lot of discussion in this thread if torture theoretically could be morally justified - ticking time bomb scenarios and so on. But his support is not for some theoretical scenario. It is for the actual CIA actions where people were tortured, where it didn't result in reliable intelligence, and where the CIA lied about the effectiveness of the torture.

Of course, even if the torture didn't lead to intelligence of any value, it still might have been effective. The purpose of torture when used around the world is not primarily to produce intelligence. The primary purpose is to punish, to instill fear into the enemy, and to provide satisfaction. You can still support torture even if you know it does't provided intelligence of value, if you believe the other purposes justifies it.

Bu can you really be called a "good person" if you support torture for the sake of the fear and the pain and the satisfaction? I guess you can - if you are rich and influential enough.

[logn]

I just don't see where he made any of these arguments. My take is that he generally supports the CIA and does not like Feinstein. That's a perfectly reasonable stance. I take issue with the idea that torture is ok or produces anything of value. But in this case, the most disturbing part for me is that it was government policy.

He linked to http://www.ciasavedlives.com which includes these lines:

The SSCI Majority would have the American people believe that the program was initiated by a rogue CIA that consistently lied to the President, the National Security Council, the Attorney General, and the Congress. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing.

... Congress was in the loop. The so-called "Gang of Eight” of top Congressional leaders were briefed in detail on the program. The briefings were detailed and drew reactions that ranged from approval to no objection to encouragement to be even more aggressive. Again, none of this context appears in the Majority's report.

I think those are fair points. If I had only 140 character to make this comment, maybe I'd be perceived as a bad guy too?