Michael Goldfarb writes:
It’s not clear the United States government can prosecute a lawyer for holding a minority view, let alone convict an American hero for dunking a terrorist responsible for the murder of thousands.
Note how this defense of torture relies on a rhetorical trick — namely the implication that Americans were torturing only men responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks. That is wildly inaccurate. It is telling that even a staunch torture defender is forced to resort to misleading locutions to make his case, and is apparently unable to defend at least some of the torture that went on.
The same post contains an unrelated passage that leaves me speechless:
I wonder why the same people squealing about the alleged moral indignity to which these monsters were subjected are the same people who want the government to keep morality out of their bedrooms and doctors’ offices. Why should the government be forbidden from making a moral judgment about gay marriage or abortion but compelled to make a moral judgment about the treatment of terrorists plotting to murder Americans citizens?
I just haven’t the energy to dissect this right now, but if no one else does it I’ll dutifully return later on.
UPDATE: Though it still seems to me that Goldfarb’s post is a defense of American interrogation practices generally, a commenter below has caused me to see that it is possible he is referring only to KSM — if that is the case, my particular criticism here is incorrect, and I apologize for my misreading.