True, circumstances do matter a lot of the time, but part of my problem with torture is where does it end?

10 years ago had someone told me that we would have this debate about whether we could use torture on people i would have they where crazy. here we are today and I don't know where we stop when we go down this path. I am a typical small government conservative and I barely trust the government with regular powers, much less torture (or aggressive interrogation techniques). I believe Government tries to always expand it's power and this is one power i would rather Government not have at all. How long till someone thinks we should use torture on some other crime? You here the stories about the occasional child molester that kidnaps and hides a child. I don't know about you but i have strong urges to say "use whatever means to find that child" so how long till someone says "what ever means necessary to get the information about where the child is?"

Basically this comes down to the fact that I think that Americans are afraid. I don't mean that the government is trying to make us fearful, but that Americans are just afraid of another tragedy and that we are letting that collective fear control us. We are afraid of an attack that might happen, so in order to prevent a maybe we argue whether torture is acceptable. I don't know whether we actually torture people or not, but if we do we are torturing people over a maybe. I cannot support using a technique that might produce a big enough result that leads to ending an attack that might happen. To many maybes, to many unknowns, for me to treat human life that way.

Anyway thats my two cents. Not attacking anyone and not saying my response is the absolute right answer. It's a hard issue, and like a lot of hard issues, rarely is the answer black and white.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

The Bush administration has not said that waterboarding or other forms of torture are OK.

In fact the Bush administration has prosecuted torturers who were subsequently sent to prison.

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

thats because they know if they get into power they must have the leeway to do whats needed to protect our national security and they are not going to fuck with that ability in any way whatsoever.

their bitching about it now is strictily political bullshit.

__________________

"We cannot continue to rely on our military .... We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Barack Obama

"My age group was pressured into joining although it was allegedly voluntary. But later on it was compulsory. No one could say no."
Hitler youth, Willi Demf, born 1920

As you don't even have a consistent opinion as to what your dark little State should , or should not, permit, carrying the opposing views that 'anything goes' whilst simultaneously acknowledging that it doesn't, the authority of your 'definition' ranks with that of toilet wall graffiti .

Actually, I'd bet that the average American public toilet wall offers more honest 'definitions' of torture than you do .

Except the law is capable of having exceptions written into it. It is a crime to shoot someone, but self-defense is an affirmative defense to murder, if it is found that you shot someone in self-defense, you are found NOT GUILTY, not guilty, but of a lesser crime.

Now, I believe that our laws should not put the people in some of the highest stress situations faced by people (making choices between the undesireable over the unthinkable) having to way jail time in the mix. If you want to discuss what guidelines and standards should be, and what procedural processes are in place to guard against abuse, that is a seperate and distinct discussion that I am more than happy to have.

I view the no torture for any reason at any time as being as silly and thoughtless position as those who take to the streets boldly proclaiming as a blanket statement of principle that "war is NEVER the answer". Well, that is simply not true. While war is often not what we should turn to as our first resort, history is full of examples were war--however distasteful--eventually became the only real solution other than surrending to outright evil.

That's a different discussion though. We readily permit police to use deadly force in some circumstances, but we do not constantly second guess that by saying "where does it end" because we have as a society recognized the need in certain circumstances, and our laws reflect this basic reality.

Do you honestly believe that all of these methods have not formed part of our intelligence tools since the founding of the union? The difference is that it used to be quietly understood that certain times and situations call for extreme measures, and that this was the price of our national sovereignty and security, and that the only reason we are "debating" it now is for partisan political reasons? There was torture, mistreatment, rendition, etc. under past presidents, Republican and Democrat, but since the left has a pathological hatred of Bush, everything is a partisan political issue to them.

What else can we make of the hysterical reaction to what any objective assessment can conclude are incredibly mild policies and actions by our government in the war on terror compared to prior wars (no internment of 120,000 people, no blanket suspension of habeus).

Take Gitmo, before such things were politicized, and kicked into the ball court of activist judges, there was no debate about whether people picked up outside of the U.S., and detained outside the U.S. had any right to habeus access to our courts. There was no debate that these people were NOT entitled in any way to make habeus applications in U.S. Courts.

Well, when police shoot someone holding hostages, we are executing someone over a "maybe". "Maybe" they will shoot the hostages at any moment, hell "maybe" the gun is loaded (is it less morally justified to shoot someone holding hostages if we later discover their gun wasn't loaded?)

Again, the reasonable discussion should be about how, in the real world, should we craft laws and policy to reflect the fact that sometimes extreme measures are justified, and protecting those in whom we place the burden of such decisions and the responsibility to protect and safeguard us

Exactly, I am not saying it is black and white, I am saying that however onerous torture is (and I have yet to get an objective definition out of the "no torture under ANY circumstances" crowd), I am saying that SOMETIMES is is justified to avoid a greater tragedy. This is hardly an extremist position, and one I think the overwhelming majority of americans would agree with. You know, there is a reason that Jack Bauer of TV's "24" is the HERO of the show, when by some of the absolutist, extreme views held by some he would be nothing short of a war criminal.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

First of all, you clearly don't have very good basic skills in the english language. I NEVER said "anything goes". That was your unfounded and utterly idiotic interpretation of what I said. What I said was whatever it takes to protect innocent lives. That is NOT saying "anything goes", it says anything goes TO PROTECT INNOCENT LIVES. This is no different from saying that "anything goes" when police have a hostage situation, up to and including the execution of the person holding the hostages, that is not to say that in any and all day to day situation "anything goes". Police may not go out and randomly start shooting people for no reason, but what is prohibited as GENERAL matter, the law can and should recognize exceptions to.

Now, what I should have made clearly, and I apologize for that is to say whatever it takes, and no more (although I have elsewhere in the discussion indicated my oppostion to gratuitous actions). IF something less extreme will get you the information you need when it is needed to avert tragedy, then I would not condone more extreme methods, but when other methods fail, yes, in the end, I would support more extreme...even the most extreme methods in those circumstances.

Reasonable people understand that "whatever it takes" does not neccesarily mean carte blanche to START with the most extreme measures. If you go to the emergency room with an infection in your foot which MAY kill you if it spreads and you tell the doctors to do "whatever it takes" to save your life, no reasonable person will interpret that as meaning that they should immediately pursue the most extreme measure (like severing the limb) before trying less extreme measures (like antibiotics).

Sometimes those in government in whom we place some of the most burdensome responsibilities have to take factors far beyond their individual squeemishness into account. Take the Iranian hostage crisis for example. I think the proper way to deal with such geopolitical cases of terrorism is a "take no prisoners" approach. Imagine the impact on the next 30 years had Jimmy Carter given the terrorists 24 hours to vacate our embassy, leaving the hostages unharmed, or he would order the bombing of the embassy killing the terrorists and the hostages...making it absolutely clear that we would neither negotiate with terrorists, nor tolerate their actions. I am willing to bet that this would have had a tremendous impact on the level of terrorism in the future (decreasing it). This is--in essence--what the passengers on the fourth plane did on 9/11, sent a message to ALL would be hijackers (even those who's objective is not to use hijacked planes as weapons, but rather as tranportation/hostages) not to even bother because in all likelyhood, the passengers will thwart ANY goals they have (thus becoming the true heroes/martyrs of the day)

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Marcus;
That's the self-same thing. I can appreciate you not wanting to be marked out as a supporter of torture- nobody with any real sense would- but the fact is that that is what you said. Your later effort to qualify that sweeping idiocy, if you'll allow my return serve, failed.
You are now declaring that 'anything goes' in the form of 'whatever it takes to save innocent lives'. No different from what you said initially.

More of the same-

Marcus;
- which brings us full circle. You are saying that 'anything goes'. As you are saying that then everybody is entitled to believe that you are condoning sexual torture, amongst other forms.
So then, Marcus, do you have any limits on the sexual torture you condone ? Or haven't you given it any thought ?

So, then you do not believe that we should do anything other than politely ask people withholding information that could save countless innocent lives for that information? You would willingly let innocent people die? Does this also extend to police shooting hostage holders? If not, why not. You are full of idiotic questions (all of which I have nonetheless answered clearly and forthrightly), yet you have not answered a single question posed to you. I generally find that is because deep down you know your position in not particularly thoughtful, and any socratic exchange regarding your views would leave you unable to rationally defend them.

Well.....if you believe that ALL torture is wrong, why are you so fixated on one form of torture over another? Are you suggesting that there is something MORE inherently wrong? If so, doesn't that mean that you are acknowledging that other forms of torture are NOT absolutely morally wrong?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane