Here is a New York Times story about United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She says she would not allow torture even if it were necessary to save innocent human lives—even if, presumably, it were necessary to save 10,000 or more innocent human lives. I don't understand this. Why would she prefer the deaths of innocent people to the infliction of pain on a suspected terrorist? Would she stick to her absolutist principle if she and her entire family were among the innocents? If she, her entire family, and her colleagues on the Supreme Court were among the innocents? If she, her entire family, and all the residents of Washington, D.C., were among the innocents? It's frightening to think that this woman sits on our highest court.
Torture
–––––––
