Waterboarding is considered torture, which is illegal under international law, and widely considered a war crime when it comes to the U.S. Because of this, the use of torture entails walking/crossing the fine line between patriotic duty and moral duty.
If it’s morally bad, not reliably effective, and widely condemned by basically the ENTIRE WORLD, then why is this even something that is brought up?
It’s a good sign that the current CIA director recognizes this moral/ patriotic dilemma, and even more so, puts human life before the state (an artificial construct).
But, if the director does resign in the wake of a president who advocates for torture, then he leaves open a position to which a president may appoint a like-minded individual. At this point, will the director’s choice be considered really that moral and frankly rational?
At least before, he was the buffer that kept the president’s torture tactics from manifesting. Now, the president’s puppet is sitting in the chair.