Bernie Goldberg claims use of torture in some cases is "the moral position"

Problem is, torture does not guarantee results.  Did you see that NYT editorial from one of the interrogators who questioned Abu Zubaydah?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html

Torture doesn't work and sometimes has very negative results (both quotes are from the article):

"There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process."

"One of the worst consequences of the use of these harsh techniques was that it reintroduced the so-called Chinese wall between the C.I.A. and F.B.I., similar to the communications obstacles that prevented us from working together to stop the 9/11 attacks. Because the bureau would not employ these problematic techniques, our agents who knew the most about the terrorists could have no part in the investigation. An F.B.I. colleague of mine who knew more about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed than anyone in the government was not allowed to speak to him."

Still think this is a good idea?  Torturing prisoners leads them to telling you what you want to hear.  That doesn't help anyone.

No, the point that he was making is that most Americans would agree with the methods if they believed that they would save American lives.

Prove it.

No, the point he tried to make was that torture becomes a moral obligation and he based that on an assumed consensus amongst the majority of Americans. He's wrong for two reasons.

First, it assumes that popularity is the measure of morality. He's wrong. That's a terrible way to determine morality in an age of instant gratification and conspicuous consumption.

Secondly, if you counter a greater sin with a lesser sin, you've still sinned. If America's position in a war with heavy overtones of morality is that America does not torture, and then it tortures, America cannot effectively win the moral part of the war because it has violated its own moral code.

Finally, as to whether or not I would torture to save lives; professional interrogators have come forward several times to say that there are better and more effective methods at getting (accurate) information. So my answer is no.

FL,

You mention that most Americans would torture if they thought that the information gathered would save American lives.  I bet if you gave Americans the letter from the Pentagon's top attorney who said that the intelligence gathered through torture is suspect at best, the editorial I linked which shows that these tactics sometimes backfire, the evidence that we convicted the Japanese of war crimes for waterboarding, and have them listen to John McCain as well.  I bet, with all the information on the table from experts, most Americans wouldn't even DREAM of torturing anyone because of the negative consequences, their own morality, and the fact that it doesn't work.