Posted by
Always To The Right on Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:34:03 PM
He means it, too: Matthews, incredulous, offers him a menu of
horribles and Smerc orders everything on it. I can’t remember ever
watching a torture debate like this, pitting an absolute opponent like
Hitch against an absolute endorser on the other side. And not just an
absolute endorser, but one willing to extend the principle beyond
unlawful combatants to pretty much anyone who threatens violence
against America (or at least any jihadi, uniformed or not). If, like
me, you’ve never had much patience for slippery-slope alarmism, good
luck watching this without feeling a tinge of strange new respect. Is
there any limitation on what he’s suggesting here? It sounds like he’s
at least demanding probable cause to believe the prisoner has
actionable intelligence, but I can’t tell if he’s restricting this to
ticking-bomb scenarios or is willing to drop that requirement, too.
Matthews’s preference is clear but he does, to his credit, press
Hitchens a bit more than expected, especially on the dopey point about
American POWs being treated worse because of the policy. I can’t think
of a single country we’re remotely likely to be at war with that’s
known for treating its prisoners humanely now, let alone American
prisoners during a state of conflict, but let me know in the comments
if I’ve forgotten anyone. Exit question: Hardball’s going to make for
riveting viewing after the first report of enhanced interrogation by the Obama CIA
trickles out, huh?