The Washington Post's story assessing waterboarding as effective drew
anti-torture criticism that was both expected and unexpected, but "enhance interrogation" advocates are making interesting insights as well.
- Morals Alone Ann Althouse wrote
that the story would "force the moralists to get by on moral ideals
alone." She elaborated, "Washington Post has said that the techniques —
whatever you want to
call them — were effective, and, if this is true, it means that people
who oppose their use are deprived of a pragmatic argument they normally
- The Honest Struggle Allahpundit, conceding that torture is "morally problematic," wrote
that anti-torture "absolutism" may no longer be so simple. Torture
critics, he wrote, should "join the rest of us in honestly struggling
with whether the ends of
possibly saving innocent lives is justified by the means of inflicting
suffering on someone in custody. And given how most Americans would
resolve that dilemma — and how Obama’s interrogation team will surely
resolve it if, god forbid, the situation ever presents itself — that’s
not something they have any incentive to do."
- National Security On Fox News Sunday, Dick Cheney reiterated
his long-held argument that a policy of waterboarding makes us safer.
"I think the evidence is overwhelming that the EITs were crucial in
getting them to cooperate, and that the information they provided did
in fact save thousands of lives and let us defeat all further attacks
against the United States," he said. "The thing I keep coming back to
time and time again, Chris, is the fact that we've gone for eight years
without another attack. Now, how do you explain that? The critics don't
have any solution for that. They can criticize our policies, our way of
doing business, but the results speak for themselves."
Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments
or send an email to the author at
mfisher at theatlantic dot com.
You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.