- Joined
- Mar 27, 2014
- Messages
- 63,340
- Reaction score
- 33,260
- Location
- Tennessee
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
No, I'm not joking about anything. You can give us your personal musings about what's moral and what's icky all day long, and it will say absolutely nothing about the only question that counts in this matter--whether any of the enhanced interrogation techniques violated any laws. In any case, I could just as easily question the morality of risking the lives of hundreds or thousands of innocent people, just so we wouldn't have to get rough with a few mass-murdering rats to make them tell us what they knew. It's clear you would have been content to let them get killed, while we dawdled and kept asking these bastards nicely to answer our questions.
I think Professor Yoo's legal arguments are very persuasive. By implying he's an unethical liar, rather than presenting arguments to the contrary, you're inviting people to suspect you're just taking the cheap, easy way out because your game is weak. What's keeping you? Let's see what you've got. Using the knowledge of the law about torture you claim to have, please explain, in detail, citing specific cases and statutes, how any of the enhanced interrogation techniques violates any U.S. law against torture.
You can't, because they don't.
We're having a different conversation than you are, apparently. Whether it violates any law is the least of my concerns and is an appropriate discussion for the SCOTUS blog or something. As I said, and which is just obviously true, almost by definition a state sponsored act of evil or moral repugnance is often if not generally legal. I could cite a dozen examples from OUR history and so could you.