Is Torture Immoral? CIA Director Nominee Haspel is wrongly criticized for having declined to answer ‘yes or no’

President Trump’s appointee for CIA Director, Gina Haspel, is suffering the indignity (and, dare I say, anxiety) of a Senate Media Spectacle in which Democrats grandstand for the most media-perfect aphorism and semantic trap with which to gain political leverage over the Trump Administration.  Sen. Kamala Harris asked, “Do you believe that the previous interrogation techniques were immoral?”

Haspel replied, “Senator, I believe that CIA officers to whom you refer…”

Harris interrupted, “It’s a yes or no answer…”, repeated the question, and embellished the question, “I’m not asking you if you believe they were illegal.  Do you believe they were immoral?”

“Senator, I believe the CIA did extraordinary work to prevent another attack on this country given the legal tools that we were authorized to use,” Haspel continued, fighting off another attempted interruption.

Harris then badgered her to, “…please answer ‘yes or no’.  Do you believe, in hindsight, that those (torture) techniques were immoral?”

To which Haspel provided her stance to “support the higher moral standard we have decided to hold ourselves to.” (a masterful choice of answer to what the question should have requested, had it been more appropriately posed)

I will explain why this answer demonstrates wisdom far greater than that posed in the question.

Let me explain why this ostensibly simple question is a Democratic signature semantic trap.  Note:  I always want to ensure accuracy when I make a claim, so I find it prudent to consult a dictionary.  (I include the definitions to illustrate the claim of semantic ambiguity, so please understand I don’t have any intention of insulting anyone’s intelligence in doing so.) 

Point #1:  Ambiguous Reasoning:  The question presents a tenuous assumption of morality that is undercut by subjective ambiguity; it requires discussion.

The semantics of the words do not lend themselves to a simple “yes or no” answer.

Point #2:  On the surface, torture is viewed as an immoral act by accepted modern ethics, but let’s look at the specific semantics of the key words used in Harris’s question:

Immoral:  Adj.

Not conforming to accepted standards of morality

(hmmm… quite often Democrats dismiss the notion of morality as a qualification of decisions.. but, let’s go on…)

Morality:  N.

Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong, good and bad behavior

Ok… so far, even the definitions of the words themselves evoke more discussion.  So, a dichotomous yes/no answer to that question is not appropriate.

Let’s try a synonym for morality to clarify:  ethics

Ethics:  Moral principles that govern a person’s behavior or the conducting of an activity

Ok… more ambiguity contingent on the subjective determination of principles that distinguish right and wrong

Let me ensure my argument using “subjective” supports my claim accurately…

Subjective:  adj

1.  Based on OR influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions
2.  Dependent on the mind or on an individual’s perception for its existence

I could go on, but the picture is completely nebulous regarding what a Democratic Senator’s subjective idea of what “immoral” is.

Point #3:  Democrats’ fluid subjectivity regarding the concept of “immoral”…

• Hillary’s lies… and all the lies of her cronies to cover her lies… etc.
• Hillary’s corruption… Uranium One, DNC rigging of her nomination, etc.
• Bill’s sexual improprieties… too many to list
• John Kerry’s constant equivocation… “Notwithstanding the violence in the Middle East, we have never lived in a safer time.” (Yeah, NOTWITHSTANDING Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito, the 1940’s were pretty safe, too.  He insults my intelligence every time speaks, assuming that the public is too stupid to see through his Ivy League snobbery.)
• …the list goes on…  Democrats refuse to condemn the acts of the members of their own party as immoral, (thereby condoning that which is, by any reasonable decorum, undeniably immoral).  (hehehe… “notwithstanding” the Al Franken impropriety… and a few other recent incidents, which make this a ‘rarely’ rather than a ‘never’…).

Point #4:  That brings us to the semantics of the word “torture”:

The Senators used it as a noun in the syntax of their questions (Harris implied it in the video clip, referring back to actual use of the words and substituting the word “techniques”…)

Torture:  n.

1.  The action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as punishment or to force them to say something

…Or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain

(neither of which apply to “waterboarding”, which does not have the effect of inflicting pain… nor is it intended to do so.)

2.  Great physical or mental suffering or anxiety

3.  A cause of suffering or anxiety

Well… there you have it… more subjectivity-dependent semantic interpretation

Point #5:  Kudos to CIA Director Appointee Gina Haspel for refusing to capitulate to the “anxiety provoking” demand for a yes or no answer to that subjectively ambiguous question.

If she had answered NO, she would besmirch herself as an immoral person who condones torture and, therefore, her confirmation would have been denied.

If she had answered YES, (which was the expected, ostensibly correct answer) the dichotomous reasoning would open a Pandora’s box of subjective interpretation with which Democrats would endlessly bedevil her tenure as CIA Director, and, more reflective of their true motive, harass President Trump for having appointed her.

The “Torture Police” would continually scrutinize the practices of the CIA and broaden their fluidly-semantic interpretation of “torture” to use as political leverage.

Point #6:  Democrats certainly do overuse “Virtue Signaling”…

vir·tue sig·nal·ing

So, to each virtue signaling Democratic Haruspex with the motive of investing future political capital in forcing, under mental duress, CIA Appointee Gina Haspel in a severely anxiety-provoking hearing, to answer a question better discussed with lengthy clarification due to the potential subjectivity in the semantics of  the terms in question, using badgering and verbal assault to coerce an unqualified answer…

I say to you

1. clarify your question by eliminating the ambiguity of subjectivity-fluid terms
2. refrain from demanding yes or no answers to questions that require discussion
3. Stop using anxiety-provoking torture* to force answers from CIA Appointee Gina Haspel regarding her stance on torture.  (*by definition #2 and #3)

To Conservatives:  Refuse to allow your opponents to control the narrative!  Plan your defense using these incontrovertible points:

1. “Immoral”, by definition, is subject to “accepted standards of morality”
2. It is faulty reasoning to force someone to commit to indefinite “accepted standards of morality”
3. Gina Haspel affirmed that she would “support the higher moral standard we have decided to hold ourselves to.”
4. With that response to the true spirit of the inquiry, she closed the argument.

These points of defense cannot be defeated in an argument because their logic is sound.

Your opponents will try to get you to follow a “red herring”, diverting the argument to some tangent.

Don’t get into it with them:  You closed the argument.