Now I get why Greenwald wants the debate to be about the inherent immorality of torture. The trouble with debating torture’s efficacy is that if it turns out that information extracted from torture can be tactically useful, then advocates will be able to make their case more effectively in public discourse. On the other hand, if the debate takes place strictly on the moral and ethical plane, anti-torture advocates will feel on firmer ground.
I wholeheartedly agree with Greenwald et al that torture is inherently wrong. I’m embarrassed and ashamed as an American by the CIA actions documented in the Senate report. But I also want to partially defend debating its efficacy. Because I don’t think the development of taboos is as simple as Greenwald wants it to be...