Rachel:
I have been thinking about Mr. Smirkonish's argument on Hardball that he would torture a person if there were "a ticking time bomb" and the person to be tortured allegedly knew where the bomb was. Rachel, I would love to see you address that ridiculous argument. Mr. Smirkonish suggests that any action is acceptable to glean information about an imminent threat. However, at what point is a threat imminent and what actions are acceptable to stop an imminent threat? How exactly does one define a ticking time bomb? Also, if one cannot define it exactly, how does one know what is best to diffuse it? How much information and what kind of information proves that a threat is imminent? If one cannot physically identify a threat, how can one determine that a threat is imminent; and if one can identify a threat enough to determine that it is imminent, would not torture be merely a cruel excess? Does circumstantial evidence adequately confirm that a threat is imminent? Short of catching a person placing a bomb, is not all other information circumstantial? Should there not first be adequate protection to keep Americans safe before there ever is a ticking time bomb? If the agencies tasked with protecting Americans are vigilant enough to guard America against attack, why would those agencies ever need to torture anyone? Rachel, I know you have addressed the point recently when your guest was the Special Forces interrogator who used rapport successfully to glean intelligence from prisoners instead of torture. However, I think this is a subject that goes to the heart of who we are as Americans, and I really hope that maybe on your show you can get Mr. Smirkonish to argue the point with experts and perhaps even with people like Senator McCain, who have been tortured. Thank you so much.