4 ms·

> “As to waterboarding, you know, our country’s most experienced and bravest military leaders will tell you that torture is not effective. It does put our own s

> “As to waterboarding, you know, our country’s most experienced and bravest military leaders will tell you that torture is not effective. It does put our own soldiers and increasingly our own civilians at risk,” Clinton said. Rather, she said, “We do have to give law enforcement and intelligence professionals all the tools they need to do the job to keep America safe and they don’t need to resort to torture, but they are going to need more help.” This is not a moral or even a principled stand against torture. It's a practical and tactical stand. So no, judging from that quote, all it would take is for someone "experienced and brave" to tell her it would be effective an a tool they need, and she's on board (as far as principles and morals go, at least). http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clinton-brussels-response http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clinton-brussels-respo...

dragonwriter 10y ago
> This is not a moral or even a principled stand against torture. It's a practical and tactical stand. There's a question here of whether the position was articulated because it is the main reason she opposes torture, or whether it is because it rebuts the main reason supporters of torture advocate that, morality aside, it must be accepted. Politically, there is utility to highlighting arguments which demonstrate that, even accepting your opponent's decision criteria, your policy is the correct one. So even if you believe it is always morally wrong to torture regardless of utility, it is useful (if you can defend it) to argue that torture is known to not be useful if the main reason your opponents argue for it is its utility.
- mseebach 10y ago
  Her opponent at the time of that quote was Bernie Sanders (I haven't checked, but I would assume that he does not mince his words in moral condemnation of torture), so that doesn't really hold up.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Her opponent at the time of that quote was Bernie Sanders The opposition on that issue was not. Candidates in a primary campaign making statements designed to counter positions of potential (or known) general election opponents (or positions associated with the opposing major party, even if not actually embraced by any particular candidate of that party for the particular office in question) isn't an uncommon thing. Politicians may, all too often, be shortsighted, but ones with even modest amounts of proficiency at campaigning aren't so much so that they can't think in terms of the broader campaign for an office (and even setting the ground for success in that office) when competing in a primary campaign.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> This is not a moral or even a principled stand against torture. It's a practical and tactical stand. There's a question here of whether the position was articulated because it is the main reason she opposes torture, or whether it is because it rebuts the main reason supporters of torture advocate that, morality aside, it must be accepted. Politically, there is utility to highlighting arguments which demonstrate that, even accepting your opponent's decision criteria, your policy is the correct one. So even if you believe it is always morally wrong to torture regardless of utility, it is useful (if you can defend it) to argue that torture is known to not be useful if the main reason your opponents argue for it is its utility.

mseebach 10y ago
Her opponent at the time of that quote was Bernie Sanders (I haven't checked, but I would assume that he does not mince his words in moral condemnation of torture), so that doesn't really hold up.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Her opponent at the time of that quote was Bernie Sanders The opposition on that issue was not. Candidates in a primary campaign making statements designed to counter positions of potential (or known) general election opponents (or positions associated with the opposing major party, even if not actually embraced by any particular candidate of that party for the particular office in question) isn't an uncommon thing. Politicians may, all too often, be shortsighted, but ones with even modest amounts of proficiency at campaigning aren't so much so that they can't think in terms of the broader campaign for an office (and even setting the ground for success in that office) when competing in a primary campaign.