The Arguments FOR Torture Continue To Be Made.

The justifications of the Cheney/Bush torture regime continue, with Marc Thiessen arguing that it would be prudent to torture Abdulmutallab:

It likely would not be necessary to use the waterboard to get Abdulmutallab to talk — only three terrorists underwent it and only 30 had any enhanced techniques used at all. But the vast majority of Americans have it right: You don’t put an enemy combatant who just committed an act of war into the criminal-justice system — and you certainly don’t give him a lawyer and tell him, “You have the right to remain silent.” You make him tell you what he knows so you can prevent new attacks.

Let's leave aside the fact that the Bush regime put Richard Reid "into the criminal justice system" and achieved a successful prosecution, and let's question whether or not torturing a suspect would result in him telling you "what he knows so you can prevent new attacks".

The chances are that anyone tortured will tell you what he thinks you want to hear to make the torture stop. There is no guarantee that he will tell you the truth.

And, indeed, you can "make him tell you" almost anything. Which I would argue renders the entire practice worse than useless from an intelligence perspective.

And that's before one gets into the obvious immorality of arguing for torture.

But, as I touched upon here, this rewriting of the legacy of the Bush years is now becoming almost a cottage industry.

I find it simply appalling that there are certain right wingers who are unashamedly arguing for war crimes to be committed. And yet, in order to defend that actions of the Bush administration, that is what they are left doing.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Marc Thiessen, Torture, Bush, Cheney, war crimes