Friday, October 20, 2006

Preventing Torture

I am amazed at the naivete of the people who argue against all "torture" or coercive interrogations. I am just fine with someone arguing against torture. I hate when they use stupid arguments. Here is the latest one:
Make no mistake — logically, that's where the ticking-bomb scenario takes you. [Hillary] Clinton insists that she wasn't really saying that torture should be legal — no, no, of course not. She still thinks that torture is immoral, ineffective and counterproductive. It's just that for an "improbable but possible eventuality" such as a true ticking-bomb scenario, she thinks that we should make "a very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances."

And this wouldn't undermine the Geneva Convention? You'd better believe that countries such as Syria, North Korea and Iran would also just love to carve out some "very, very narrow exceptions" to treaties banning torture.
This is a stupid argument because Syria, North Korea, and Iran ALREADY VIOLATE GENEVA CONVENTIONS. It is well known that these countries hold political prisoners and starve, torture, and kill them. North Korea's gulags and reeducation camps are infamous.

Our good behavior is not going to change their bad behavior. If you want to argue against coercive interrogations, fine. But don't pretend I am an idiot.

As a side note, I am surprised to (partially) agree with Hillary Clinton.

No comments: