![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Rhetorical question
Dec. 7th, 2007 05:03 pmSo, torture mongers and apologists explain that torture (according to the sources they choose to believe) works.
They also say that because it works, and it saves lives, we need to use it.
We are also told that it is only used when the case is so strong that it justifies the moral quandaries of little things like breaking the law and violating the norms of the civilised world and the principles we used to hold countries like the USSR and PRC accountable for, because such things were evil.
It is further explained that because such careful decisions are made those who engage in torture can always depend on the courts to vindicate them. They will just explain that it was needful, they were certain the guy had the info, he gave it up, and lives were saved.
The, inevitable, result, so they say, is the jury will acquit.
Given all of those things; one wonders why the CIA felt it had to destroy the evidence, and committ a completely different crime, not one against people but against the rule of law.
They also say that because it works, and it saves lives, we need to use it.
We are also told that it is only used when the case is so strong that it justifies the moral quandaries of little things like breaking the law and violating the norms of the civilised world and the principles we used to hold countries like the USSR and PRC accountable for, because such things were evil.
It is further explained that because such careful decisions are made those who engage in torture can always depend on the courts to vindicate them. They will just explain that it was needful, they were certain the guy had the info, he gave it up, and lives were saved.
The, inevitable, result, so they say, is the jury will acquit.
Given all of those things; one wonders why the CIA felt it had to destroy the evidence, and committ a completely different crime, not one against people but against the rule of law.
