I wish all sides could address three issues separately:
1. Was this really “torture?” Obviously interrogation methods are on a spectrum from politeness to hot irons. Somewhere on that spectrum it crosses into being torture. Yet most discussion seems to take the location of that line for granted.
2. Does it work? That should be able to be determined by actual results.
3. Is it right? Are there any circumstances under which it should be done even though we agree it isn’t right?
The conflation of these three quite separate issues makes reasonable discussion impossible.
If making a terrorist mewl like a baby so he spills his plans, does that constitute torture?
This is one case where you do not have to dance around a patently false ethical dilemma.
With a bad guy, no dilemma exists about coercing him in order to save Americans.
If liberals have a problem with that, they’re already beyond help.