Yeah, yeah, yeah… The debate rages about Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT). And as with all too many debates (no matter how stupid), the answer can be found via “reductio ad absurdum” – the debating technique that destroys a particular opinion by looking at the necessary ramifications of that position.
So let’s say that we catch Bin Laden. Obviously, he’s going to be a treasure trove of info about terrorist activity. I think it’s safe to say that no one will debate that. And once again, it’s obvious that immediate national and global security issues are hanging in the balance. So what do we do to get info out of him? (All you liberals out there… What would you do?) Should we play nice? Keep him warm safe, fed, and well-cared for? Or should we scrape the intel out of the piece of excrement come discomfort or high water (pun intended) and in doing so perhaps save tens of thousands of innocent lives?
Look… If you say that we don’t use future EIT (like waterboarding which we use on our own United States Navy Seals by the way) on folks like Bin Laden, so be it. I think that you’re nuts… But so be it.
On the other hand, if you do condone EIT’s future use on UBL, but condemn its past use on slime like Khalid Sheik Mohammed (mastermind of 9/11 and braggart who boasts of cutting off reporter Danial Pearl’s head)… Well… Your debate has been reduced to the absurd.