Most people who make this [anti-torture] argument do not, in fact, care whether torture works. They would still be every bit as much against it if waterboarding worked perfectly. Yet when they argue about whether torture works, they're conceding that torture's effectiveness is relevant to the question of whether or not we should engage in it. That implicitly means that if torture becomes nearly perfectly effective, they should change their minds--otherwise, it's not a relevant criteria. So if we get that lie detector, they have to explain why we still shouldn't use this very valuable interrogation method--or confess that they're basically opportunists who will say anything that might advance the case. This will make it somewhat harder to convince people to listen to their other, better arguments.
This seems basically correct. Rachel Maddow has been heavily beating the drum on the "torture doesn't even work" chant for a few weeks now. But as McArdle says, this is really of no relevance, and only serves to undermine the arguments of those (i.e., humans with morals) who believe that we shouldn't torture. McArdle packs on the exclamation point:
Bingo.
Thus I think it is much safer to keep arguments about torture on solid moral ground: we shouldn't torture because it's wrong.
If you're anti-torture because you think we shouldn't be torturing, then say that. Don't drift and grasp at whatever you can in order to drum up some sort of tangential winning argument.
It would be like (well, it wouldn't be like, as this is an argument that is actually made) if NORMLers and 4/20 soldiers started making the pot legalization debate focus on "dude, marijuana has so many subtle health benefits and it like, helps your eyesight and stuff." That's not the point. Even if pot were proven to be as unhealthy as cigarettes, you (and I) would still seek its legalization. So keep a level head and throw your money and words where the heart of the debate lies.
Same reasoning flies in this case.
