Kathleen Parker cluelessly asks:
When did we start punishing lawyers for producing opinions with which we disagree? And where does that road lead?
The answer: Nuremberg.
And that's not the dumbest part of her argument. This inexplicably moronic assertion (seen by now all over the place, e.g., here) shows up as well:
Moreover, the same technique is used to train our own military personnel, who do not suffer severe physical pain or prolonged mental harm.
The logic of this claim is completely baffling. If we use the technique known as waterboarding in order to prepare our military personnel for the kinds of torture that the enemy might use against them, then on that account it's not torture if we use it against the enemy. But if it's not torture, then we are either tormenting our soldiers for no good reason or we are giving the enemy a pass in virtue of our using it as training.
One thought on “Judgement at Nuremberg”
I posted something a couple of months ago about how “acting in good faith” has become the new Nuremburg defense, i.e. “just following orders.”
Comments are closed.