Torture: It's O.K. If It Works?

Those Republicans defending the former Bush Administration contend that Torture was O.K. because it worked; revealing terrorist plans and personnel. There is a helatious slippery slope here for it could then be said that rubber hoses worked in eliciting confessions from dangerous criminals, that the rack worked, thumb screws worked, red hot pincers worked.

They also contend that waterboarding was legal and not torture, yet Japanese soldiers were convicted of using waterboarding, that waterboarding was considered then to be torture. The Spanish Inquisition also used waterboarding to elicit confessions of heresy and sins. We don't hold them up to be model citizens.

They also contend that torture is merited in cases where large numbers of Americans are in danger of attack. How is that determined and by whom. How many Americans need to be in danger before torture is employed? Does that mean we will have professional torturers in the wings to be employed in cases of imminent attack?

When something is accepted it is easy to justify other actions; the proverbial slippery slope becomes something commonly used.