Kevin Drum relays without comment a letter from a conservative defending torture, an exercise in intellectual and moral contortionism that is revelatory, I think. Since Kevin didn't comment, I will: The move to endorse torture as stated policy of the country is one of the most heart-wrenching results of the past several years, and it goes against everything this nation stands for.
The idea that if we do it then it's okay, because we're doing it for "the right reasons" -- the explanation put forth by Kevin's correspondent -- is a recipe for rupturing the very foundation of the country. The very thing that makes us better, that allows us to have pride in our country and culture, is our restraint from the kind of barbarism that is torture. What happened to "Give me liberty or give me death"? When did the right become moral relativists? It's really astonishing.
On a more specific level, though, the letter closes by saying, in an attempt to justify our using torture by saying that the motivation is the key moral test, "Get back to me when some enemy tortures one of our soldiers in order to save innocent lives." Which raises the question: Does this writer believe that if a US soldier is captured, and he has knowledge of a planned airstrike that will cause collateral damage, the enemy would be right to torture him? After all, that would fit this twisted requirement, wouldn't it? Of course, many of our enemies need no excuse to torture . . . but the fact that they do and we don't is the very type of thing that makes them an enemy! Or, at least, it used to be.
The flag doesn't make the values, the values make the flag.
