I saw many tweets describing Chris Selley’s column on torture as the most sensible take we’ve seen recently. I must agree:
Never mind, for now, the implausibility of such a scenario and the unreliability of torture-derived information. What’s really interesting is that Mr. Toews is using the classic pro-torture argument while declaring himself utterly opposed to torture: “Our government does not condone torture and certainly does not engage in torture,” he said.
But why not? What if everyone else stopped torturing? If our security officials risk lives by ignoring torture-derived information, then logically they would also risk lives by not torturing if they, and only they, had the chance.
On the other side, you have people like Ms. Turmel, who confidently declare they would consign every piece of intelligence that might have been derived from torture, unread, to the incinerator — even in the ticking time bomb scenario. I don’t buy it from Ms. Turmel. I’m not sure I’d buy it from anyone. I certainly wouldn’t buy it from anyone involved in the Liberals’ shameful post-9/11 performance.
