Defining deviancy down

In Krauthammer's defense of torture -- well, he doesn't so much defend torture as demand it -- he goes from a nuclear device hidden somewhere in New York City and about to blow, to finding a single soldier, kidnapped by terrorists. Whether it's millions or an individual in danger, Krauthammer's formulation "morally" requires that torture be applied if it is believed that applying torture will elicit intelligence pointing to the bomb/kidnappers. Then it is logical that torture should be used to foil the conspiricy before the bomb is planted or the soldier taken. Then it is necessary to break up the conspiricy before the plan to plant the bomb or take the soldier is developed. Which is pretty much where we're at in Iraq and our various Quickie-stop torture centers around the world, in the absence of a clear condemnation from the Cheney administration. Not to mention the practices of our "allies" who we are "assured" do not inflict torture on those we render to them.

Not only does that define "moral requirements" down, the evidence that such practices are effective is scant. Krauthammer cites one example in the long history of the Palestine/Israelie conflict (and Israel's high court has long since ruled torture illegal).

Torture has been effective at one thing though, our intelligence agents are getting suspects to tell them what they want to hear.