Movies and media have exposed us to fictional representations of people making difficult decisions about when and how to use torture. Dramas often force individuals to debate with themselves the morals of a particular situation.
One problem with Obama’s rhetoric to date is that he assumes that there are no gray lines when it comes to what he calls torture. He has reserved the definition of torture to himself, with the expectation that everyone will agree with his definition. He explains that there are no circumstances that justify its use, but an intellectual argument would consider both sides, no matter what the legal or moral conclusion.
If Obama’s argument is not intellectual, then his position on tortue would appear to be based on faith or religion. Applying a religious argument to a divisive matter is a symptom of a grave conflict in Obama’s character. He wants us to believe that people can reconcile different opinions by talking, but in this case he denies the merits of an opposing viewpoint, hence there can be no discussion.
Looking at Obama through the lens of his own logic, it would appear that the rift between his idealogy and the application of that idealogy is growing.
