Robert: I think I'm out of here before there's a cordiality shift.
In other words, you have a closed mind on the issue and will become angry rather than try to dispassionately discuss your objections. Why not break with lit-ideas tradition?
Robert, I respect you and hope all of us remain cordial. The people on this list are a great bunch.
You wrote that, "I see various claims and assertions made by men given official license to work out their closet sadism. "
I assume that includes Obama's national intelligence director. Do you assume he's a closet sadist?
_____ To repeat the citation: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/WASHINGTON - President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.
_____The question I had hoped to provoke was, assuming mild torture like waterboarding worked in a significant percentage of cases, would it be justified, as the CIA claimed, in cases of impending threat. Would it matter how slim that percentage was? If it worked in 80 percent of the cases would it be justified? Ten percent? Does the moral objection trump all concerns for national security? I have no fixed opinion. The recent press coverage opened an old unresolved question. That's it.
With fond regards, Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
