Craig, I'm not saying that enhanced interrogation is or is not torture. That is a conversation and determination that should be made. I'm just saying that enhanced interrogation was effective. Anyone who denies this is missing the point. It is effective. That is not to say it is moral, or where we draw the line between unpleasant interrogation and torture.
Craig, although I appreciate your argument, I disagree with you.
Hypothetical
The US government discovers that Hizbullah has acquired a bio weapon of a hybrid of a particular vicious small pox variety crossed with the Spanish Flu. There are 20 canisters hidden in US cities. Release date is 10 days. Best estimates are that if released in all 20 sites, the US will suffer 100 million deaths in the first 144 hours after release. Things will get worse after that.
You Craig, are chief National Security Adviser to the President of the USA. You are informed by your Director of CIA that they have the mastermind in custody, the guy who knows the location of each of the canisters. Traditional methods of persuasion have resulted in peals of laughter and prayer. No actionable information.
Do you tell the President of the USA that you are morally bound not to use torture. The President asks you whether water boarding is torture.
Craig P., tells the President: ____________________________
The President asks you whether he should authorize the use of water boarding.
Craig P. tells the President: ____________________________
President asks Craig what if water boarding is ineffective, can we morally justify destructive torture in order to save the lives of 100 million Americans and probably 4 billion people worldwide.
Craig P. says, ___________________________________.
