Listened to David Brooks trying to strike a balance on the issue of torture, tonight on The News Hour. On the one hand he felt it was wrong, but on the other hand he doesn't support the prosecution of those who wrote the legal memos and passed down the orders to commit torture. Brooks is willing to look the other way if the torture ended up with solid intelligence.
I buy into David Shield's argument that we've previously prosecuted people from other wars, for the same torture techniques, and that alone means that those who wrote these memos which allowed torture, should have known better.
As I hear it, Brooks finds it appropriate to suggest that the ends (solid intelligence) justifies the means (outlawed torture). Repeatedly he reminded Jim Lehrer and viewers that in fact the torture may have provided good intelligence. It's always easier to post-rationalize your actions if you know the end result, but you end up selling out your own morals in order to do so.
That stinks.
No comments:
Post a Comment