Moral Relativism Revisited

This is as venal and craven a comment as I have seen from a government (ex in this case) official. The reason we have laws is so that when things are difficult we have a measuring stick to reign in that behavior. Every heinous act ever committed is always justifiable by at least one party.

Efficacy is not a defense. The 24-esque scenarios that are conjured up to justify this sort of behavior are so improbable as to render the very arguments inert.

On the other hand kudos to Eugene Robinson (umm....Pulitzer Prize Award winning) for at least the sensible push back. Also I am not sure why it is you would turn to the daughter of the Vice President as a credible and objective sources.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The very arguments that are being put forth, we did not accept from the Japanese or the Germans at Nuremberg.

Simply because we do something does not make it good nor right. Andrew Sullivan sums up my feelings on this here.
The most salient point being:

One key thing to understand about torture is that it almost never occurs when the torturers know nothing and need to find out something. That's why seeing it as an interrogation tool, properly understood, is actually oxymoronic. What torture is about is forcing a victim to tell you something you already think you know but want confirmed - either to prevent an attack or use as propaganda or deploy against another suspect.

Just wanted to add this post by Digby.

I highly recommend reading it. This sort of rationalization is dangerous, as Digby notes:

We are in big trouble when torture becomes just another political football. It's the kind of thing that turns powerful empires into pariah nations. Why anyone thinks it's good for America for the world to perceive us as violent, pants wetting, panic artists who could start WWIII at the least sign of threat is beyond me. I certainly don't feel safer.

It is not right. It was not right during the Spanish Inquisition. It was not right for Pol Pot. It was not right when Japanese servicemen used it. It was not right when our CIA used it. Arguing efficacy does not change that. It is enshrined in our laws, to protect us, our values, and out liberty from those base motivations. This whole discussion has become disingenuous. Those that argue the efficacy of torture or for the 'one percent' doctrine, do not even have the honesty to do that. Because the question is more accurately, as Steve Chapman put it:

And if effectiveness is the only gauge, why even debate whether these techniques fit the definition of torture? The problem with using "it worked" as an argument is that it justifies too much. By that rationale, we can justify subjecting enemy captives to every form of torture ever devised. We can even justify torturing and killing their spouses, siblings, parents, and children, right in front of them.

If a plurality believes this. Then we are far more dire straits then I thought. Even if they are "suspected terrorist" we are better then that.
-Cheers
--edit