« The Curious Case Of Forrest Gump |
Main
| Dimming Executive Power »
21 Jan 2009 06:55 pm
A Sincere Debate
By Patrick Appel
Ross has a good idea:
One would hardly expect Dick Cheney to endorse his own prosecution. But I think there's a reasonable case that given what I take to be his own premises about the torture debate - that the acts of interrogative violence the administration employed were justified by the stakes involved and the intelligence they produced - the outgoing Vice President should support an investigative commission charged with assessing the consequences of the Bush Administration's detainee policy.
Time and again, Cheney has insisted that any gains the U.S. has made in
its efforts against Al Qaeda have depended on information from
"high-value" detainees like Khalid Sheikh Muhammad or Abu Zubaydah that
could only be extracted through extreme measures. But so far, the
evidence marshaled to support his contention has been distinctly
limited - and most of the insider-ish testimony on the subject, usually
filtered through the work of the administration's critics, has tended
to support the argument that torture is both morally wrong and largely
ineffective. This is a high-stakes debate, to put it mildly. And if
Cheney (or any of the many conservatives who share his perspective)
believes what says he believes - if he thinks the future security of
the United States depends on a willingness to take a consequentialist
approach to, say, the waterboarding of leading terrorists - then he
ought to be willing to advance a public and detailed case, before an
independent commission, that the consequences were and are worth the
moral costs.
Share This
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c45669e2010536eb3ae6970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'A Sincere Debate'