Religion & Law

I agree with Rob that the good results achieved through immoral interrogation practices -- and, I am inclined we should not kid ourselves by thinking that these practices did not yield any good results -- should not be seen as justifying those practices.  But, like Rob says, the consequentialist premises of Mr. Cheney's calls for more disclosure are, it seems to me, more than "disturbingly common"; they are nearly universal.  From the perspective of the Administration, or from the critics of the previous one more generally, what is the argument, really, against disclosing the results of these practices?  I suspect the reluctance to disclose reflects the an uneasy realization that many of the Bush Administration's critics never really minded the detention-and-interrogation practices.

I have been thinking about this, as I read the passionate, non-consequentialist denunciations of some of these practices in the papers, etc.  If only -- I guess this has been Mark Sargent's "seamless garment party" point for years -- we could actually get the non-consquentialists on the same page, across the board.