999,999 vs 1

Why is the use of torture always framed in the "torture one person to get information that saves a city" scenario? Why not see if for what it is: torturing thousands of random people, gathering zero intelligence [not to mention the detainees that died because of said torture]. Same with wiretapping. It's not like they used it for limited use, they tapped everyone everywhere. Again, gathering zero intel. The lack of warrants was the middle finger to Americans.

David Waldman puts it:

"As tiresome as it can sometimes be to see people frame matters so that it all comes down to one issue and one issue only, I find myself returning to this one again and again. Whether or not torture is your issue. Or wiretapping. Or indefinite detention. Or signing statements. Or anything, really -- environment, global warming, abortion, health care, taxes, terrorism, the war. No matter what your issue is, at heart, you're dependent on a continuing and consistent respect for the law. Because without it, none of your work on politics and policy is worth anything the moment the White House falls to someone who's not you."

Alberto Gonzales and the Bush/Cheney Administration had no use for the law, always using a one-in-a-million scenario to justify just about anything. The fact that the other 999,999 cases justify using the Rule of Law never mattered to them. They are unapologetic and proud they were never correct.

Even worse, the cases they used to justify the million-to-one odds not only never happened, but will never happen. The fear alone is what they use. The fear they created and spread.

Source: DailyKos