Mr. Obama also ignores the rendition that took place under Mr. Clinton's Administration.

That's because Mr. Obama is a typical Leftist, whose ends are so pure that "any means necessary" to achieve them are acceptable.

Moral superiority MY ASS.

You know what? I imagine that the people in the towers, above the floors where the planes collided, knowing FULL WELL they were about to die, were being indirectly tortured by the terrorists.

So we're going to let the discomfort of a couple of hundred of people get in the way of the lives of thousands? And, more importantly? The comfort of NON-AMERICAN hundreds vs the lives of AMERICANS?

These leftists need to just shut up, else we LET the next attack on LA, New York, or San Fran go through. They'll be the ones crying about it then.

I'm sure if you were to ask a liberal in San Fransisco if his life was more important than 'terrorist X,' he'd say "Of course!" Then we tell him that 'terrorist X' is planning to bomb the city in which Liberal Z lives, and he'll likely be in the blast of the nuclear device that 'terrorist X' managed to steal from the pakistani government. You think he'd be so self-righteous about torture when his life is on the line?

These libs are just too comfortable. Makes it easy to pretend to be morally superior.

American leftists are eager to rail about American injustices because they CAN. And not worry that they will be subject to it.

However, they will absolutely NOT go to any place that actually tortures people for stuff like this precisely BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT IF THEY DID, THEY WOULD BE TORTURED.

True courage indeed.

"...but apparently, torture only bothers them when the subjects are terrorists wishing to kill Americans."
There certainly are not many facts available to dispute this.

Keep in mind those slavering for the blood of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld allegedly because of torture didn't want Saddam removed - and as the Iraqi's know the Americans can't hold a candle to the attrocities committed by Saddam/Uday/Qsay.

Cheesecake,

It's coming, no doubt. Just a matter of when. Does anybody believe the manchild president can match Bush's record of no attacks against the U.S. or our interests?

I've offered all my liberal friends a $1,000 bet that he will not. I have received lots of indignity, talk of "luck," and claims that moral integrity is more important than security. I have gotten no takers.

I'm being tortured every day having to watch such a pissant in the White House.

" claims that moral integrity is more important than security"

That is, unless they can pass a law that takes my liberty in the name of security, which happens all the time. Its called the "an accident happened, there should be a law" syndrome.

PD Quig: If memory serves me right, the terrorists hit hard during Bush's Term: Its called 9/11, ring a bell?

And we were in a 'war on terrorism' well before 9/11, it just hadn't 'hit home' yet.

And of course, as the anarchic libertarian that I am, I still oppose torture in all forms in all places for all reasons.

Al Quaida and all terrorists are feeble enemies that may be able to strike at the United States, but will never have the power to knock us to our core unless we, the American people, kill ourselves trying to kill the terrorists. Allowing torture is the first major step towards a slippery slope to the end of America as we all know it, a place of liberty, freedom, and justice for all.

Don't get caught up in the tarded left-right divide in politics. The truth is that there is government power, and there is the people, and the only question that matters is where does the balance between state power and people power rest...I'd argue for the distribution of power as much as possible.

Peace.

And we were in a 'war on terrorism' well before 9/11, it just hadn't 'hit home' yet.
Except for in had, in 1993 when the WTC was bombed and Clinton responded ineffectively.

Neocon that I am, I say the US gov exists to protect the rights of American citizens and to advance American interests, whatever that entails. My personal brightline is, if you're an American citizen, hands off. If you're not, all bets are off. If advancing American interests means we liberate your country, great for you. If American interests are served by hooking your balls to a battery, sucks to be you, but, ah well. Move here, move to a country we're friendly with or get a better government in your own country - no more risk of ball shocking. It's simple math that makes everyone's life easier. Americans are safer, and people in other countries aren't shocked (no pun intended) when they initiate a conflict having taken us at our word, only to realize that all of our "we don't torture people", and "we don't act unilaterally" and "we don't attack preemptively" shtick has the massive unspoken caveat of "unless we feel like it". Because that's what it boils down to. Panetta has already stated that if they really need to get info from someone, he'll ask (and expects to receive) permission from the President to exceed the new guidelines.

Further, I feel that those who would make the claim that they are against using any means necessary to save lives in imminent danger are either dishonest even with themselves, or they are monsters in their own right, willing to sacrifice the lives of innocents for their own quite-warped absolutist ideology.

I don't see another way to look at it. In particular, the second clause (which I emboldened) can be paraphrased: "My feeling of personal moral purity is more important to me than your loved one is . . . to me."

I call this the "Me First" ethic.

"I call this the "Me First" ethic"...which seems to be a predominant trait of Big-L libertarians - purity before reason and/or responsibility.

Mook Monster wrote:
Al Quaida and all terrorists are feeble enemies that may be able to strike at the United States, but will never have the power to knock us to our core unless we, the American people, kill ourselves trying to kill the terrorists. Allowing torture is the first major step towards a slippery slope to the end of America as we all know it, a place of liberty, freedom, and justice for all.

What's missing in your slippery slope argument is context. Can we both agree that its' wrong to pull someone's teeth out in most cases? Yet can we also agree that in the case of someone with a cavity, a teeth may have to be pulled. There is a difference between a sadist yanking out someones teeth to cause pain and someone pulling out someone's tooth because it's rotting and causing them pain, even though the actions are virtually identical correct?
So context might determine the same action be categorized differently depending on the intent.

If we are waterboarding Al Qaeada members because we want them to simply suffer then I can see the objection to the action. But surely you can see a distinction between interrogating someone like KSM who by DEFINITION knows about past and future plans because of who he is, and simply waterboarding a citizen because we don't like their political beliefs.

Clearly, there is an imperative, in the case of KSM to get information that will save lives, which might in certain cases outweigh the harm that needs to be done to get said information.

Suppose on 9/10 we had KSM. We knew there was an upcoming attack we just didn't know where or exactly when, but he said "You'll know soon enough" and being one of the heads of Al Qaeda would be privy to such info.

Are you telling me that you would, were the army field manual to not work in getting information from KSM, allow the attack to go through and let people die because of some abstract slippery slope argument about losing our souls? Weigh the damage of 2 minutes of waterboarding one person versus the horrific deaths of potentially thousands. Allowing murder of citizens because we are too chicken shit to even cause discomfort to someone plotting our deaths is also a slippery slope.You just seem to think that people who get killed by such an attack, were it to be successful should pay the price in their lives so that we don't ever get our hands dirty.
Letting other people die so we don't have to make tough choices isn't exactly a moral stance, and if you weigh the cost of waterboarding one guy versus an attack that kills 30000 people there is very little doubt as to which side of the scale will be more damaging.

jr565, allow me to respond to your pointless hypothetical with one of my own:

If by legislatively enacting gay marriage in all fifty states we could guarantee that there would ever again be a terrorist attack against American interests, would you argue with religious conservatives to bite the bullet and support gay marriage?

If you can figure out a democrats mind write a paper. Millions have tried to discover the cause of insanity so you can become an overnight billionaire with a one page revelation. I'm still wrapped up in their justification for supporting the murder of babies, support of homosexuals, and then attending church. I don't attend church (anymore) since i'm afraid the roof will cave in when a democrat enters the door. O'Dumbo has kind of dumped his christian beliefs in favor of Islam as he stated he would do (in his own words in his book). Democrats are not only rabid liars, they are dangerous.

Evan, allow me to respond to you futile hypothetical.

jr565 was in the realm of possible and your hypothical not.