Remember my many posts on torture? There is a new absolutism among progressives regarding torture. They argue that it must be categorically prohibited. No conceivable circumstance, including that in which the person being tortured is guilty of a heinous crime such as planting a bomb in a crowded area, could justify torture. What's odd is that many of these same people reject an absolute prohibition on killing the innocent. Sometimes it's permissible to kill the innocent, they say; but it's never permissible to torture anyone, including the guilty.
Let's apply these principles to Osama bin Laden. Despite being guilty of heinous crimes, Osama may not be tortured. (Suppose he had been captured rather than killed.) No amount of good could possibly justify it. But some of the same progressives who say this are defending the killing of Osama. It's permissible to kill him, but impermissible to torture him. Can you imagine a more warped view? There's something about torture that prevents progressives from seeing or thinking straight. I believe part of it is that they associate torture with George W. Bush. That he endorsed torture makes it an unforgivable abomination.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 