The unhinged left is rapidly falling into incoherency. I guess Hillary must have discussed the very tough situation of a ticking bomb about to explode and what should be legal (or maybe even a moral sacrifice). The lefties are all upset she would support ‘severe’ interrogation (which always equates to torture) in this situation of pending mass death:

Whichever it is, Clinton hit a new low last week, telling the New York Daily News that the president should have “some lawful authority” to use torture or other “severe” interrogation methods in a so-called ticking-bomb scenario.

…

The ticking-bomb scenario has routinely been used to justify the legalization of torture in exceptional circumstances. This is how the argument goes: You capture the terrorist who has just placed a nuclear bomb somewhere in a major American city. If you can’t locate and disarm the bomb, millions of people will die. If the terrorist won’t talk, should you torture him until he tells you what you want to know?

…

But though ticking-bomb scenarios pack an emotional wallop, such fictional scenarios are useless — and profoundly misleading — when it comes to making real-world decisions.

The scenario is reasonable to discuss for the same reason we have policies dealing with hostage takers or anyone with a gun or weapon who can do harm to others. In those situations, whether there is a proven risk or not, our police have been authorized to kill a person threatening another person. Gun, knife, car – it makes no difference what the weapon is. If the person seems to be threatening others they can legally be killed. I think we can all agree that on the scale of what is really bad to happen to you, ‘killed’ is worse than torture, and torture is worse than severe interrogation.

This is how far gone the left is. When faced with someone who basically is holding a big gun on 100’s of thousands of people, the left is worried about the guy with the bomb. Yes, there is the chance mistakes are made. We have seen enough innocent people, and even children, killed because the police thought there was a threat that warranted a maximum response. But it is not the fault of law enforcement that they have to prepare for these events. The bad guys force us to prepare for them.

So we agree ahead of time how the police should respond in these situations. The fact is there are violent, sick people out there. We need to be ready to respond to stop them from killing innocents. Whether confronted by police in a runaway car or by law enforcement with knowledge of a ticking bomb, the rules are to treat the scenario as if lives hang in the balance and the suspect is exendable. Period.

Clearly liberals are not law enforcement types – or know them very well. The reality of these kinds of situations would not even be in doubt. There is no question that you do not bend over backwards to get the person with the weapon to cease the threat. You try in the hopes they are not fanatical and can be talked back. But if they are fanatical, and they proceed to try to complete the attack, all bets are off. And severe interrogation is the minimal possible result.

I will make it simple for the leftward fringes. If the suspect is three feet from the detonator and the police have the man covered with their guns, should they kill him if he attempts to reach the detonator and blow up a city? Or will libs prefer to allow him to blow up innocent people, just in case he is not what he seems and (with a good lawyer) can plead insanity in a courtroom?