- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
since the enemy is so dastardly, I then have the right to do whatever it takes to protect myself, including torture.
So many politicians, who normally evade answering questions by stating that they don’t do hypotheticals, have done so by stating that, just like Jack Bauer in “24”, if there is a ‘terrorist’ who has information about an imminent attack, in order to protect the lives and property of their people, they would have no qualms about using torture, er, ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ to get that information.
Since they are dwelling in a hypothetical, let me pose one question and request an answer:
Say, (hypothetically), that we are Bomb! Bomb! Bomb! Bombing Iran. One of our pilots have been shot down and captured. Do the Iranian officials then have the right and obligation, as set forth so clearly by so many of our elected officials, to then torture, er, use ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ against our airmen?
For me the answer is clear. I’m against it no matter what the instance. If someone is for it, then they are for everyone being able to torture anyone else, or, more likely, they must take the hypocritical tact of stating that our war is such a battle between Good and Evil that we can torture (since we are Good), but they cannot (since they are Evil).
