October 12, 2006
Hillary clarifies: torture sometimes ok
Andrew Sullivan, who thinks I'm crazy for being ok with torture in cases where an attack is imminent, was impressed with Hillary's position on torture (which, supposedly, was torture is always unacceptable). But really, what's a little torture between you and a friend:
But at yesterday's Daily News editorial board meeting, it emerged that she's [Hillary] not actually against torture in all instances, and that her dispute with McCain and Bush is largely procedural.
She was asked about the "ticking time bomb" scenario, in which you've captured the terrorist and don't have time for a normal interrogation, and said that there is a place for what she called "severity," in a conversation that included mentioning waterboarding, hypothermia, and other techniques commonly described as torture.
"I have said that those are very rare but if they occur there has to be some lawful authority for pursuing that," she responded. "Again, I think the President has to take responsibilty. There has to be some check and balance, some reporting. I don't mind if it’s reporting in a top secret context. But that shouldn’t be the tail that wags the dog, that should be the exception to the rule."
So I'm not sure what Andrew Sullivan is so excited about. Torture is OK as long as the president approves it, as long as it's an exception, and as long as it's secretly reported to Congress. That doesn't sound like a bright moral line to me.Posted by Karol at October 12, 2006 04:37 PM | TrackBack
Technorati Tags: Torture Hillary+Clinton