The Great Torture Debate

From the WallStreet Journal's OpinionJournal on the Great Torture Debate,

Part of the problem with interpreting those words is that they depend on the context. All things being equal, we can't think of a worse human rights abuse than blowing someone to bits with a Hellfire missile. Yet no one objected when that happened to al Qaeda leader Hamza Rabia in Pakistan two weeks ago. If certain individuals can be ethically targeted for death in a war, then wouldn't the same hold true for rough interrogation methods? A strange code of morality would allow the killing of Rabia but not his stressful questioning to prevent further murders he might plan against innocent civilians.

Now, just because the WSJ says so, doesn't make it so, Joe. But I am glad that my voice is not the only voice in the wilderness. I have been arguing the same exact point both with competent critics, at the Port, and with psuedo-intellectual boobs at inthesetimes.com who see nothing incongruous with employing brutish debate tactics to object to brutish behavior.