Irrelevant Outcomes

And still the torture debate goes on. It will go until there is consensus that we did it, that it was bad, and that we will never do it again. The subject will then be put to rest until we do it again because somebody scared us.
Here we have a man adamantly insisting that “there are only two questions that matter; was it illegal, and did it obtain information which saved lives.” Even those who are intent on pursuing investigation and prosecution, as this man claims he is, continue to ask that meaningless second question. We do not need to know the answer to that question. It is irrelevant to the investigation of whether our government sanctioned a program of torture.

You can watch the segment if you want, but it was something of a waste of time. Just two pontifical blockheads mutually proving to themselves that the torture program obtained no useful information which is proof only inside their own heads, we knew anyway, and is irrelevant to the discussion.

The laws and international treaties do not say that torture is illegal only when it fails to elicit information, they do not say that it is illegal only for lack of results. The act itself is illegal regardless of its outcome.

Is bank robbery illegal only if the teller refuses to hand over the money?

An illegal act is illegal because of the act itself; the result of that act is irrelevant to the illegality of the act. Intent and outcome may be used to mitigate punishment once the person is found guilty of the act, but they are not used in determining whether or not the act was committed. It is the commission of the act which is the crime.

And then, of course, Republicans are braying like a herd of jackasses about how Nancy Pelosi knew that the torture was being committed and she is, gasp, a Democrat. Sigh.

That someone else knew you were doing it does not make it legal.