| The Ghost of RubangB said: It is possible to argue that it is ineffective and morally wrong. Argument #1: Whether it works or not, it is un-American and morally wrong. Argument #2: Whether it's morally acceptable or not, it doesn't work. |
You can also argue that it is effective and morally right.
The needs of the many (the lives saved by averting a terrorist attack) out way the needs of the few (the terrorist being tortured). You could also further argue that sacrficing the rights of the unjust terrorists saves the lives of completely innocent people that were in no way involved with the torture.
Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
— Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire
