Straight Up Scary

If you're sufficiently prepared to be absolutely terrified, read this. In the post, Kevin Drum prints a note he received from a "torture supporter". Read some of this: The terrorists who torture and kill our prisoners (never something as benign as waterboarding) don't do it because they need information to save innocent people. They do it because they like it, because they want to hurt or kill someone. At some point you have to decide if a known terrorist having a very bad day (after which he goes back to a hot meal and a cot) is more of a moral problem than allowing a terrorist to blow up a building full of people. Yes, it's good if we do it, when it's for the right reasons. So far, it's been for the right reasons. And no, it isn't good when it's done to us, for the reasons it has been done to us. Holy crap, is this guy serious? First, notice the incomplete citations (he cites John Kiriakou, but only the part where John thinks that it saved "dozens of attacks", and not where Kiriakou says he now believes that the US shouldn't use torture, because "we are not like that."). Also, the establishment of moral relativism is interesting from someone who would be expected to be "conservative". This is all before we get to the obvious flaw in all pro-torture analogies: Behind the argument for torture is pretty straight up utilitarianism. If somehow magically, you could know for ABSOLUTELY certain that torture of one person would save millions of lives, then you would do it. I know I would do it. I assume anyone that doesn't follow an infantile version of Kant would do it... also: I understand his argument, and it scares me. Simply: we are good, therefore we can kill and torture. They are evil, therefore their torturing and killing are evil. Of course, it's so simple...