[T]he discussion about torture that we need to be having, as opposed to the one we’d be in a position to have if not for all the things that happened on our government’s watch – is a discussion about whether, given the circumstances that actually obtained, the things that agents of our government did to prisoners and detainees were warranted.The ticking time bomb scenario is, of course, the most sympathetic way of presenting the notion of torture, though it is also the least realistic. In this reality, torture was viewed as just another tool for gathering intelligence--more specifically, the intelligence that the administration wanted. Let's talk about a ticking time bomb when it happens--right now, let's talk about what actually happened. In mathematics, merely showing examples of theory working isn't enough to suffice as proof--one must systematically show that the answer is correct. Torture defenders, in all honesty, seem to be trying to distract the public from the real issues at stake in this debate by telling lurid stories of ticking time bombs. Unsurprising, but sad nonetheless. Would a moment of self-reflection kill them?
Another thing I've come to realize is a sort of complacency about this topic--a lot of people seem not to care about whether the government acts morally or ethically, so long as it keeps us safe. I think this is a great cause for concern--aside from showing a lack of civic engagement and an inability to realize that, in a democracy, what elected officials do in our names make us equally as culpable, there's a fundamental lack of concern about justice, a certain hazy relativism with respect to fundamental moral questions, and the end result of decades of conservative diatribes on the absolute and unconditional evil of government.
