>Not sure who said, maybe it was Slavoj Zizek, about how if we are even debating "is torture right or what advantages it might have" we have already lost.< Lik

>Not sure who said, maybe it was Slavoj Zizek, about how if we are even debating "is torture right or what advantages it might have" we have already lost.< Like most of what Zizek says, this doesn't survive even the slightest scrutiny. Not that I want to be seen as "pro-torture", but to dismiss it categorically, as Zizek does, is to fail to grapple with the more general ethical conundrum of collateral damage. Harris discusses this quite effectively[0]. Basically boiling it down to (paraphrasing) "If you're against torture then you should be against any action that results in collateral damage." [0]http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-id-rather-not-speak-about-torture1 http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-id-rather-not-speak-a...