The author views this from a utilitarian point of view. As he seems to view torture under the same point of view, I have very mixed feelings about this. There should be lines not to cross, no matter what.
I've got to both agree and disagree with this point.
On the one hand I'd agree with you on the point of speaking out against torture from a moral perspective (further, from a utilitarion perspective as well because it doesn't work[0]).
On the other hand, I think the point is more emphatic because even on utilitarian grounds, this policy doesn't make any sense, so the only logical argument is malevolence. I'd say this is a more chilling proposition, especially when stated by someone who has the views he admitted to having.
I agree, but the point appears to be to prove how far afield trump has gone in the authors eyes. He's demonstrating that he's not intrinsically opposed to anti terrorism policies, even unsavory ones, to emphasize how bad this one is. Rhetorically I think it was a pretty effective point.
I think you misunderstand what he's saying. He's not saying torture is justified, or that it isn't, or that it achieved anything worth achieving, he's saying that the people who instituted torture used it against the people they said they were going to use it against, etc. That they were honest about it.
Trump is a high functioning sociopath. You cannot convince him with appeals to morality, but his ego might be convinced if you let him know he's gonna be judged when it doesn't work.
