All the stuff you said is true, however you're arguing based on the opinion that EITs are indeed torture.

I don't have the same opinion. I the crux of the situation is the discussion between being uncomfortable and actual torture. What defines torture? Most of the left just skips over that (because it's a difficult argument), states their opinion as fact, then argues that torture is wrong. They're lazy.

I think that torture is wrong, and I think that waterboarding is not torture, and I'm willing to discuss it with others and listen to them, even though they don't hold the same opinion.

I also don't think that the Attention Grab is torture either.

They just use argument by repetition, by saying their opinion over and over, will turn it into fact. Heck they even named it "The Torture Memos". They're making a circular argument. "Of course it's torture, because the rules are defined in the Torture Memos."

Liberals try to rename things to fit their world view, then validate their world view by pointing to the name of the thing, that they named.

They renamed the Surge to the Escalation.
They renamed President Bush to McChimpyHitlerHaliburton.
They renamed Sarin to a conventional weapon, and WP to a Chemical one.
They renamed the Petraeus Report to the "Bush Report".

Those things aren't quite on topic, but are good examples of the same effect. Sometimes they get away with it, and sometimes they don't.

Here's one. Pelosi wants her hyper-partisan group calling the CIA liars to be called "The Truth Commission".

"Truth Commission"? That's laughable. That would be like insisting on calling the Detroit Lions the "Best Team in the NFL", as their actual name.

Waterboarding is not torture.
Unpleasant, yes.
But if it is used to train someone, I hardly think it can be classified as torture.
Over use could make it a cruel and excessive punishment.Even on KSM. . . not that I'd mind at all.
Torture is making someone choose jumping to their death or burning to death. Torture is cutting limbs and digits off. Torture is locking a naked person into a room with random drips of acid falling from the ceiling from random locations.

Is there any doubt that if the need arises, THE ONE will not hesitate to use enhanced interrogation techniques. The rationale will have something to do with drawing a distinction between their intent and Bush's intent.

CY: "Stand up and be counted, psychophants: proudly declare that your "moral outrage" is more important than the lives of others.
Loudly insist that your idealism is more important than the bonds of family, and the crushing loss of senseless deaths." -

It's principles and ideals that your country was founded on:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ..."

So don't mock idealism!
And it says: "all men", not "Americans".

Is anything okay if it saves American lives? Where do you draw the line? Once you morally accept torture, you are going down that slippery slope of morality: the end justifies the means - that's the ideology of all fanatics, fundamentalists, suicide-bombers...

And I very much doubt that only "saving American lives" was the paramount concern behind Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and the CIA-torture- (sorry: enhanced-interogation-)prisons abroad: the Bush Administration was torturing detainees not specifically because they were trying to "save American lives" - They wanted to find a link between Al Quaeda and Iraq e.g., after no weapons of mass destruction had been found. - Yes, they were trying to save lives: their political lives.

Brando: "... you're arguing based on the opinion that EITs are indeed torture. I don't have the same opinion. I the crux of the situation is the discussion between being uncomfortable and actual torture. What defines torture? Most of the left just skips over that (because it's a difficult argument), states their opinion as fact, then argues that torture is wrong. They're lazy ..."

Well, it's quite simple to define "torture":

Done by Americans to others: no torture, of course.
Done by others to Americans: torture, of course.

It's principles and ideals that your country was founded on:

You have no idea what other people's countries are founded upon. You weren't there, but even if you were, it isn't worth the cost of even one child to test out your opinions.

Yes, they were trying to save lives: their political lives.

Your country wouldn't happen to rest somewhere within the Islamic Republic of Europe, would it.

So we're dealing with subhuman, fanatical lunatics who believe murdering the innocent the highest expression of their faith, and an immediate pass to paradise, and the Left wants them treated like elderly little old ladies who accidently ran a stop sign? Let us forget, for a moment, that the Geneva Conventions offer these vile killers no protection whatever. In fact, under said Conventions, we would be completely justified and well within firmly established international law (yes, that fabled, holy international law that appears in the fevered wet dreams of leftists everywhere) if we merely lined the jihadists up and shot them--a bunch, not just a little.

But we'll be so morally superior if we don't do what's necessary to survive, and the international community will love us and rogue, homicidal regimes will talk with us, we'll have a dialogue about mutual respect. Torture doesn't work. Lord Acton was wrong when he said that all that was necessary for the triumph of evil was for good men to do nothing. Up is down, black is white, night is day, we can solve a financial crisis by borrowing and spending so much money that no one can imagine its scope, and evil is good.

Sorry folks, but torture does work. It works if it is applied intelligently--not to cause pain and to satisfy sadistic or political (am I being redundant?) impulses--but to gain necessary intelligence. This intelligence must always be measured against other, verified, intelligence to determine whether it is valid or a wild goose chase. This is precisely what has been done to this point, and we have yet to suffer another catastrophic attack on American soil as a result.

Ultimately, if we lack the intellect and moral certainty to do what is necessary to protect the innocent and to ensure the survival of liberty, we are indeed doomed, one and all. That far too many of our fellow citizens on the left lack that intellect and morality is distressing indeed, particularly when one considers that the murders they'd love to hug would be more than delighted to cut off their heads with the dullest, rustiest knife they could find on short notice. One wonders if they'd feel morally superior during the process.

"Is anyone really going to argue that if authorities had been tipped off April 17, 1995 that Terry Nichols was involved in a plot to detonate a truck bomb somewhere in the American midwest within 48 hours, that the federal government would have been wrong to waterboard Nichols to learn the location of the building targeted?"

And, if the tip is bogus? You just tortured an American citizen who is assumed to have Constitutional (and natural law) protections for no reason.

What is the limit of torture on suspects? Remember, S-U-S-P-E-C-T-S.

all men are created equal

Operative word - "created". Not all men "are equal" from-birth-to-death.

There are various good and poor decisions people make during life that render some clearly more worthy than others. One's stature depends greatly on one's life choices.

If all men were equal during their lives, there would be no prisons since nobody would chose a criminal lifestyle.

If all men were equal during their lives, there would be no distinction between a street sweeper and a Nobel prize winner.

Choosing to become a terrorist rather than a scientist, street sweeper, or other peaceful profession is a choice that in 99% of the publics mind lowers one stature and worthiness considerably.

"Mockmook" makes a common liberal error: equating non-state terrorists with common American criminals. While the Oklahoma city bombers, or those committing similar acts without a connection to the Islamist murderers about which we speak, might well run afoul of the specific language of a number of anti-terror laws, they are foremost common criminals who are usually properly adjudicated in the US criminal justice system. This is not the case for foreign, non-state terrorists who observe none of the laws of war. Such people may, under international law, not only be actually tortured (unlike what we've done), but may be summarily executed.

But to play along for a moment, let's imagine that an American lunatic who is not associated with our terrorist enemy has planted a ticking bomb in a public facility and comes into the hands of the police who have reason to believe that the ticking bomb exists and that the suspect is the only one who has information that can reveal the location and time of detonation. Under the usual rules, the police cannot touch him, and should he ask for a lawyer, can't ask him anything other than the questions necessary to carry out routine tasks such as identification and booking. However, if an officer was to take it upon himself to apply more forceful methods that ultimately saved lives, what would happen?

Nothing gained as a result of the application of those methods could be used against the suspect in court. However, if other evidence, untainted by that action, was available, it could be used and a conviction could be obtained. The officer or officers involved could easily be fired, sued or prosecuted under state and federal law. However, after saving thousands of lives, one would hope that cooler heads would prevail and no charges or judgements would occur.

In any case, there is a very, very large difference between common American criminal suspects, entitled to the presumption of innocence and the protection of the Constitution and non-state terrorists captured on the battlefield. Many on the left would like to blur that very clear line, the better to justify the unjustifiable.

Well, HE. You've contradicted yourself.

"Done by Americans to others: no torture, of course.
Done by others to Americans: torture, of course.

So that's you're position, set in stone.

But earlier you argued the inverse of that. You're very confused, and I think you're being very dishonest with yourself. Why is it all or nothing, and then both with you?

Weird.

Mike: "...we're dealing with subhuman, fanatical lunatics..."
- "subhuman" is a word taken directly from Hitler's dictionary. And there has been a long tradition in the military to dehumanize the enemy verbaly (redskins, gooks, ...). Makes killing easier.

Mike: "... non-state terrorists captured on the battlefield ..."
- Among them citizens of Britain, Australia, Italy, Germany, ... kidnapped by the CIA in the streets of Europe.

Mike: "Such people may, under international law, not only be actually tortured (unlike what we've done), but may be summarily executed." - You mean in the My-Lai-style?? You know nothing of international law.

Brando: "But earlier you argued the inverse of that. You're very confused, and I think you're being very dishonest with yourself. Why is it all or nothing, and then both with you?"

- Brando, you didn't get the irony.
'Done by Americans to others: no torture, of course.': See the usual arguments in this blog.
'Done by others to Americans: torture, of course.': Just imagine the reactions here, if hundreds of Americans were submitted to "enhanced interogation" abroad, say in Iran. -
There are no double standards in Human Rights!

PA: "Operative word - "created". Not all men "are equal" from-birth-to-death."

I do not say that all men are equal, nor does the Declaration of Independence. You didn't get the point: "all men" have "unalienable Rights". The idea of Human Rights, so often denounced here as the argument of leftist wimps, was deeply rooted in the thinking of the Founding Fathers of your (once?) great nation and has been the hope of the oppressed.
Reading what Americans in blogs like this say about torture is like looking back way beyond the Age of Enlightment into the dark Middle Ages!

There are no double standards in Human Rights!

But there are cowards that can't even address an argument, because they know it will defeat them utterly.

What is the limit of torture on suspects? Remember, S-U-S-P-E-C-T-S.

Leftist fellow travelers are the ones violating the rule of law. Remember that, before repeating such hypocrisies as using the rule of law to justify radical anti-American pet theories.

It is clear that Democrats and Leftists do not support the rights of American suspects, it is clear that they only support them when the Left sees a benefit to it. When property rights, gun rights, right to life, and the right of Americans to be protected by the military taking necessary and decisive actions on the battlefield is being undermined and attacked, the Left is quiescent. For good reason. It serves their purpose.

Nobody can see Obama's illegal and gross extension of Executive Powers as legitimate and still say "the rule of law" is on their side. And nobody who supports Obama or attacks his rightful enemies, can claim the rule of law as a defense either.

We do not listen to Syria, Iran, or Al Qaeda on what we should do concerning human rights, and the same goes for Democrats, Leftists, anti-Americans, and etc. And if ever we did, as Obama seeks to do, we will become the same as they. And I do not want to become the same as the morally bankrupt Democrats.

Ymarsakar: "But there are cowards that can't even address an argument, because they know it will defeat them utterly."

So sorry, Ymarsakar, that you've been ignored so far. In all your entries here I found: prejudice, ignorance, arrogance - but not a single argument.

What happens when we torture an innocent man?

What happens when we torture an innocent man?

You mean like all our pilots who go through SERE training?

You mean like all our pilots who go through SERE training?

No, I'm talking the "horrible thing" that CY mentions in the post. He says it may be a moral option. But I think if one is going to adopt that position, one has to explain what the moral equation is when we make a mistake -- the guy doesn't know anything.

Normally, I'm pro-business. Credit card divisions are the exception, especially after they paid Congress to remove the few customer protection laws that were put in place after the last round of consumer rape by CC companies.

Another interesting tack: I am paying off a large credit card balance (run up before they eliminated the protections I expected to have).

The CC company sends me junk mail saying, "We noticed you made several large payments, we don't want to lose you as a customer!"

They make an offer that sucks; not only is it temporary, they don't even have to abide by the wording of the contract (due to that Congressional payoff). I hate 'em.

A friend got a good deal, a low rate "until paid off." After paying it down for a while, the CC company instated a "monthy fee." Hey, it's not INTEREST! It's a FEE! That gets added to his balance and is NOT subject to the lower rate. His payments go toward the lower rate balance without touching the higher rate "fee," which keeps accumluating. Oh ... How I hate 'em.

Obviously, the previous reply was cross-posted. ;)

Pennypacker - It's a good thing we don't torture, otherwiae your question might require a serious answer. Since none of the EIT's cause and prolonged physical or mental harm, why don't you answer your own question for the rest of the commenters.

What if we fail to sufficiently interrogate a detainee claims to be innocent but we suspect does have information concerning a future terrorist plot because of our concern for our theoretical standing in the world community and as a result thousands of American lives are lost?

Dear "HE:"

It is a common practice of the left to demonize rather than engage, to throw mud rather than argue. The surest sign of intellectual bankruptcy is the invocation of Hitler and/or nazis, and you've resorted to that, haven't you? Those who murder women and children, who engage in real torture, the kind that mains and cripples (rather than makes one temporarily uncomfortable, leaving no injury), who behead innocents, who mutilate and kill even fellow muslims who don't quite live up to their deranged notions of piety are indeed subhuman (what would you call such barbarians? Freedom fighters?). Even so, one need not apply labels of any kind to justify killing those who would not only gleefully kill us, but would destroy civilization. Calling them subhuman or any other name does not make it easier to kill them. It is their actions, not epithets, that provide the justification. Recognizing them as a mortal threat makes it practically and morally necessary.

Those who have been "captured on the battlefield" indeed hail from a variety of other nations, but that's not the point is it? We fight an unconventional war with an enemy that does not wear uniforms, is not allied with specific nations (for the most part), but is united in its fanatical desire to impose, through brutality and slaughter, a medieval religious code on mankind. You and the values you probably appreciate would not fare well under such people. No civilized man or woman would. You'd likely be among the first to die. And whether they're taken into custody by the CIA, the FBI the military the Daughters of the American Revolution or the PTA, what does it matter so long as their evil designs are thwarted and innocent lives--and western civilization--saved? Likewise, what does it matter where they lived before they were captured or killed? A jihadist from Germany will saw your head off with a dull knife as readily as a jihadist from Yemen.

Another common liberal tactic is to invoke the Vietnam war as a kind of ultimate moral superiority. invoking My-Lai is a particularly egregious example of this kind of obfuscation. What happened there was clearly a war crime and was prosecuted as such by American military justice, as it should have been. There is no connection between that, and the issues under discussion in this thread. As to my knowledge of international law, I refer you to the Geneva Conventions. You can look them up if you're so inclined. I'll save you the effort, but by all means, don't take my word for it.

Under the Conventions, which we have followed in this war even though we need not, if a combatant does not openly carry arms, does not wear the uniform of their country, hides among and targets civilians and mistreats (actually tortures and murders) prisoners, they may be summarily executed. They have none of the protections of the Conventions. Our enemy does all of these things every day as a part of their preferred tactics. These are facts, facts of international law. If I truly know nothing about international law, prove me wrong with something other than name calling.

Of course, you may simply call me names, perhaps invoke McCarthy? Call me a racist? You've not tried those yet; maybe they'll work better...

I listened to the start of the Senate debate on enhanced interrogations - The lead Democrat put up a partisan rant worthy of an election campaign, or a sermon at your local jihadist mosque. The Republican response by Graham was a pretty lame.

Whatever happened to the bi-partisan intelligence commitee.

HE, So you're saying the inverse of your claim?! You now claim Tucker and Menchaca weren't tortured?

He, you're a monster.

You've stated that the Attention Grab is absolute torutre and what those monsters did to Tucker Menchaca wasn't?!

Double standard indeed. I'm totally pointing to this later.

Can someone tell me how something so timid as waterboarding became "torture?" It's not even an "enhanced" technique much less torture.