The most illuminating thing ever said about the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” to combat terrorists came in 2005, in response to a question posed by Notre Dame law professor Doug Cassel to John Yoo, who held a high post in George W. Bush’s Justice Department.
“If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?” asked Cassel. Yoo did not gasp, retch or wail in horror. No, he replied with perfect equanimity, “I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that.”
Yoo is not alone in finding ways to justify inflicting grotesque agony on the off chance it might yield helpful information. Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz wants to cloak it in legality by authorizing judges to approve torture warrants.
But relax – it won’t be that bad. “The warrant,” he explained in 2002, “would limit the torture to nonlethal means, such as sterile needles, being inserted beneath...
Read more