|
|
|
|
|
by olavk
4161 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
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?