Reply #27: He couldn't be more wrong.

[YankmeCrankme]

Here's the deal. All these rationales for the use of torture rely on one premise. You know there is a bomb and that the guy you have knows about the bomb. The problem is if you actually know about the bomb you know where it is, otherwise you only, kinda, sorta, think that the probability is high that there is a bomb. You aren't really sure, you just have information that there MIGHT be a bomb.

To know for sure means that you know where it is already. Then there isn't a need for torture.

To think it's okay to torture someone when you have information, whether reliable or not reliable, means you can basically torture anyone who you think might give you information that you want, that you're predisposed beforehand to expect. Another thing, if the person doesn't give you your predisposed information you would conclude they are lying and continue to torture them, correct?

Where Bill Clinton is wrong is to presuppose that torture would only be used for that one situation. That is either naive or disingenuous. Condoning torture under any circumstance is both immoral and an evil act.

To add to his tortured (pun intended) logic, he says that if you decide to torture and hold the person(s) accountable the President can always pardon them after the fact. That amounts to no accountability.