tosser-001

I'll admit, you've got me.

I don't know where I would draw the line, but in the case of Qeada/ISIS, they are well across my personal fuzzy gray line.

I would also like to turn the question around though:

If torture could prevent the mass killing of innocent civilians, do you see any justification in it?

Again, that to me is the crux also. If it is not effective than there is no justification. If it is, which the CIA claims it was, then I have no ethical problem with it in this limited situation

> What is different about the 9/11 attacks that legitimizes the use of torture, when you would not support it against soldiers or other criminals?

They had demonstrated the practice of mass killings of innocent civilians and expressed the desire to continue to do so.

> If you would endorse torture to prevent another 9/11, why wouldn't you also endorse torture to prevent, say, another Hiroshima?

Well, setting aside the moral equivalency of 9/11 to Hiroshima, I suppose if there was reason to believe there was a nuclear threat and there was access to someone for whom it was legitimately believed could provide details which would prevent it, employing torture would be morally and ethically justified.

* I would never support the use of these techniques against soldiers of a legitimate state or other criminal actors.

* The perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks to me represent a completely different sort of threat than has ever been encountered - which legitimized the use of torture (though to be honest, the sorts of techniques outlined in the report don't really sound like what I would classify as "torture"; i.e., the infliction of unbearable pain with no expectation of actionable information being extracted.)

* If the techniques were in fact of no value (which the CIA disputes) then I would of course not support their continued use. I don't support the infliction of 'needless' pain or suffering. If they were providing useful information then I have no ethical or moral problem with them.