eugene robinson has written many passionate, convincing anti-torture columns, and i agreed with all of them. but this one, flatly declaring that we didn't catch bin laden through 'enhanced interrogation,' is simply premature, or a priori. the facts can't be read off your moral principles. indeed, that they are your moral principles makes your factual conclusion suspect. it just can't turn out that way, for robinson. (alright, no facts can prove that they couldn't have gotten the info without the torture; but no facts can prove that they could have, if they actually did get it under torture.) but that doesn't mean it can't turn out that way. so: did they actually get information necessary to find bin laden through torture? i don't think we have enough information to make that assessment. the robinson a priori approach to empirical knowledge is also a way of failing to face up to the actual moral dilemma that might emerge: is torture wrong even if it works in some key or fundamental cases? well, robinson and many others don't want to square up on that, so they don't.