- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Do you understand why your position makes no sense?
"If someone kidnapped my family and intended to kill them, if I caught someone else who knew where they were but wouldn't say, would I torture the captured person if that was the only way to get the information? I would."
If this scenario was real, rather than a scene from a Charles Bronson movie, then you would certainly have the agency to do whatever you thought necessary. Then you would have your conscious to live with, and, of course, the distinct probability that your actions would probably cost the lives of your loved ones. But most importantly, you would have to make that decision to torture with the full knowledge that you were violating the law. I'm sure it would be a small price to pay for any narrative actor real or imagined, but pay for it you would.
Likewise. If a democratically elected leader leading an agency tortures using the same logic, then they would also would be held accountable under US law. The fact that their judgement led them to believe that torture was the only way is something that they must wrestle with their own conscience about; but it makes no difference to the law. The law is quite clear, you can choose to break it as any person can, but when caught, brother you must also do the time.
