Dick Cheney and his merry band of fellow sociopaths are very busy these days proclaiming from the rooftops or rather Fox News how the torture that was used on suspected terrorists was not torture and even if it was, it helped keep America safe since 9/11 by yielding intelligence that could not have been gotten by any other means. Their argument is both specious and spurious. And of course one cannot prove a negative. But to put it in its simplest form it is the "end justifies the means" argument which has been shunned and condemned by theologians, philosophers, moralists, and any rational member of the human race for centuries.
What Cheney and his fellow criminals are really doing is establishing the line of defense that they will eventually have to use when they finally face prosecution for their actions, be it in an American court of justice or an international one. The most serious challenge to the "torture works" defense is that there are legions of both military and civilian professional interrogators who will totally contradict that argument. Even John McCain who was tortured during his captivity in Viet Nam says that the only thing his interrogators got was what they wanted to hear. McCain lied to them. And they were happy as clams.
But let's give Dick the benefit of the doubt and say that torture does work. But what kind of torture? Are there limits to the types and intensity of the torture? How does one determine when the line is crossed? Is there even a line to be crossed? So let's take Dick's premise to its farthest point.
The CIA has learned of a plot to release dirty bombs and chemical weapons in New York, Washington, Chicago, and Los Angeles. The death toll from these will reach into the tens of thousands and lead to a near collapse of the American economy. But they have captured a key member of the terrorist group and now must extract everything he knows to stop these attacks.
How far can the interrogators go in finding the truth? Waterboard him? Electric shocks to his genitals? Mutilation? Burning his flesh? Acid? Gouging out his eyes? No? Then how about this.
Let's say that along with the suspect they captured his wife and his four children. The interrogators have failed to extract what they need from the terrorist. Time is running out. They bring him into a room in which his wife and four children are tied to chairs in a semi-circle. And behind each of them is a person with a gun. The terrorist is told that unless he tells them what he knows they will begin to kill each one of his family. BANG! His wife goes first. BANG! His youngest child is next. STOP! STOP!, he shouts. I'll tell you...I'll tell you.
The plot is foiled and thousands of Americans are saved. Are there no limits to torture? Did the end justify the means? You tell me.