is with people (like the entire legal arm of the Obama admin) who have managed to wrap their heads a morality that says
(a) it's outrageous, immoral and totally unacceptable to apply the same enhanced interrogation techniques to known terrorists that we use to train our own special forces, but
(b) it's totally cool to vaporize that same dude in a barrage of hellfire missiles and, as often as not, kill the goatherd's family in the adjacent mudhut and, occasionally, kill the goatherd's family without even touching the target.
I can see three consistent positions here:
1. Oppose both on ethical grounds
2. Approve of both out of the need to pursue a vigorous counter-terrorism policy
3. To approve of EITs of known terrorists while opposing drone attacks on the grounds that (a) EITs don't vaporize the targets or kill people generally and (b) EITs don't kill the goatherds family.
But how in the hell do you arrive at the position that it's morally outrageous to dunk a guy's head underwater but it's totally fine explode his head into a fine mist?
(a) it's outrageous, immoral and totally unacceptable to apply the same enhanced interrogation techniques to known terrorists that we use to train our own special forces, but
(b) it's totally cool to vaporize that same dude in a barrage of hellfire missiles and, as often as not, kill the goatherd's family in the adjacent mudhut and, occasionally, kill the goatherd's family without even touching the target.
I can see three consistent positions here:
1. Oppose both on ethical grounds
2. Approve of both out of the need to pursue a vigorous counter-terrorism policy
3. To approve of EITs of known terrorists while opposing drone attacks on the grounds that (a) EITs don't vaporize the targets or kill people generally and (b) EITs don't kill the goatherds family.
But how in the hell do you arrive at the position that it's morally outrageous to dunk a guy's head underwater but it's totally fine explode his head into a fine mist?
Comment