Ends vs. Means

The old political debate about whether the ends justify the means apparently depends on what the ends, in fact, are. This dichotomy has now been in the news because of Dianne Feinstein's recent polemic against the U.S.'s enhanced interrogation techniques (aka torture) following the 9/11 attacks. Here the liberal argument is that these methods applied to despicable individuals yielded no actionable intelligence ... thus cleverly attempting to deny the CIA any justification for their actions ... see Dick Cheney's comments: Real Clear Politics.

On the other hand, the Democrats have incessantly rationalized their chicanery, bribery, and mendacity surrounding the passage of Obamacare because the result was so important that these base means were of no import ... see Jonathan Gruber's justifications of these Democrats actions: LA Times Article

Now I ask you ... are a few million more people with health insurance (don't forget, they already have healthcare ... such care cannot be denied) more important than possibly one or more new 9/11-type attacks where thousands, if not millions of Americans might be killed?

I know where I come down.

Torture

I generally have liked Senator Dianne Feinstein of California … certainly when juxtaposed next to her state’s chamber mate, Senator Barbara Boxer, the essence of liberal claptrapedness. But when you let your hurt feelings dictate your lashing out at our intelligence community at the cost of what little prestige the United States might still have abroad and the possible jeopardizing of intelligence assets around the world … you have taken a step onto the dark side ... and are now on my feces list. Senator Feinstein took to the Senate floor yesterday to excoriate the C.I.A. for its role in the “torture” of captured Al Qaeda prisoners who had orchestrated the murder of 3,000 Americans … see: New York Times Article for some slightly biased reportage.

Obviously the definition of torture is generally proscribed by the beliefs of the beholder and I don’t intend to debate it here except to say that too many liberals endorsed these coercive practices right after 9/11 … only to perform a elaborate pirouette years later when the politics permitted. And when you incur the wrath of former Senator Bob Kerrey, another unrepentant liberal, Senator Feinstein, you clearly have let your ego trump your patriotism … see: USA Today OpEd.

This California senator certainly has the institutional memory to understand what Senator Church’s Intelligence Committee’s attack on the C.I.A. did back in the 1970s. Its resulting restrictions on our intelligence community probably had a lot to do with the failures that led to 9/11. Yet she has let a few misguided C.I.A. operative’s actions color her indictment of this agency which, in turn, may result in similar terrorist atrocities on our soil in the future. But alas, Senator Feinstein, like Senator Church, will likely by then be long gone and not suffer any of these consequences … and the merry-go-round will return our intelligence community to a position of “whatever it takes.”

As far as I am concerned, the real torture is watching these misguided bubbleheads give away the farm due to a case of overweening moral superiority.

Afterward: I think I may have come up with an interesting definition of torture -- when you are interrogating a prisoner, if you do less to him than what he would do to you if the roles were reversed, then it is not torture. (Therefore equal or greater abuse compared to what he would do to you would be torture.)