I DON'T THINK THAT ANECDOTE MEANS WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS.

Over at LGM, D handles this jaw-dropper of a column, in which Alan Dershowitz defends the utility of torture by arguing that it worked for the Nazis. Seriously.

Dersh:

"There are some who claim that torture is a nonissue because it never works--it only produces false information. This is simply not true, as evidenced by the many decent members of the French Resistance who, under Nazi torture, disclosed the locations of their closest friends and relatives."

D:

"I'm not even sure there's an appropriate response to this, except to congratulate Dershowitz for finding virtue in a program of torture that -- while it may have helped extract information (useful or not) from some of its victims -- failed to accomplish the objectives of those who administered it."

Let's see, Monday we had Max Boot defending torture because it was used in Vietnam, yesterday it was Dershowitz defending torture because it was used by the Nazis, now all we need is for someone to defend torture because the Soviets used it in Afghanistan and we'll have hit the self-contradictory trifecta. But who could that someone be? Clearly, this sounds like a job for Charles Krauthammer.

--Matthew Duss

You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)

Connect
, after login or registration your account will be connected.
Advertisement