Would the ACLU and their British counterpart “Liberty” say that “torture was worth it?”
How did the United Kingdom come across the first bit of actionable intelligence that saved thousands of British and American Citizens?
“According to a Pakistani official who declined to be identified discussing the investigation, Rauf quickly broke under interrogation. The questioning was probably not gentle; Pakistani security is known for its severe methods.”
K Lo at The Corner, calls it “The Jack Bauer School of Counterterrorism.”
“Liberty,” the British counterpart to our own ACLU has the following to say about “torture:”
“Liberty believes that by involving ourselves torture – even if we are not actually torturing people ourselves – we make a mockery of our status as a civilised country and we lose any ability to press other countries to halt this practice.”
The ACLU has stated publicly that they are against any form of aggressive interogation for any reason:
“”Torture and abuse are never acceptable investigative tools, and last night, Congress affirmed that,” said Christopher E. Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel.”
I have a question to both the American Civil Liberties Union and their British counterpart “Liberty.”
Was it worth it?
I know their answer, do you?
Update: Tom Bevan at the RCP Blog reminds of Michael Kinsley’s “salami slicing” argument that was a partial rebutal to Charles Krauthammer:
You start with a seemingly solid principle, then start slicing: If you would torture to save a million lives, would you do it for half a million? A thousand? Two dozen? What if there’s only a two-out-of-three chance that person you’re torturing has the crucial information? A 50-50 chance? One chance in 10? At what point does your moral calculus change, and why? Slice the salami too far, and the formerly solid principle disappears.
Email This
Posted by Stop The ACLU Special Contributor on August 14, 2006 12:55 pm
» Filed Under ACLU, War On Terror
Trackback URL:
