tis ok dave we can make em listen to yoko ono for hours that will break anoone. heh

Yes, I know that intelligence collection will probably suffer. And I know that we'll probably embolden the terrorists by assuring them that they won't be tortured.

Perhaps I am just a product of the MSM.  But cant we get the same stuff with chemicals?  ANd is not Torture unreliable?  Chemicals are not inhumane, and are not disallowed by this.

But cant we get the same stuff with chemicals? ANd is not Torture unreliable? Chemicals are not inhumane, and are not disallowed by this.

Yes, I agree. Chemicals are a much more humane way of extracting information from terrorists than torturing them. I honestly don't see why the administration (Cheney especially) has had a problem forswearing torture. It's unreliable at best. Most times a tortured person will just run his captors a load of crap to make it all end.

Perhaps I am just a product of the MSM.

I really don't think being opposed to the excruciating punishment that comes from torture is being a brainwashed MSM zombie. It's good moral sense.

I was thinking the most tortuous thing we could force upon the terrorists would be making them read and participate in the C.O.L.'s each and every thread.


To get serious for a minute though, I support the idea that we should not be using torture to accomplish our goals, but I don't like tieing the hands of our intelligence gathering operations. We are fighting against people that don't play by the same rules we do. They know this, and they use it against us. Because of that we have to be careful about deciding what we will and won't allow ourselves to do.

If you've never watched 24, then you might not understand what I'm talking about, but if you have, then you know that the Jack Bauer's of the world sometimes have to do some very bad things in defense of your loved ones or your country. Failing to do so might cost you much more than you feel will be lost along the way.

Again, it's a fine line, and having well defined boundaries helps, but having one-size-fits-all policies does not seem to be answer, no matter how well intentioned those boundaries and policies may be.

If you've never watched 24, then you might not understand what I'm talking about, but if you have, then you know that the Jack Bauer's of the world sometimes have to do some very bad things in defense of your loved ones or your country.

Your statement reminds me of the line from "A Few Good Men", where Nicholson says that if you're wanting to protect the country, then take a rifle and stand a post.
I definitely understand our need to wage the war on terror, but where's the line between pragmatic and evil?

I guess the next step is to differentiate between torture, degrading and incarceration. I fear that the left will use this as a weapon against Prs. Bush and the whole war on terror. After all, isn't being locked in a cell pretty degrading?

After all, isn't being locked in a cell pretty degrading?

Heck yeah, let's free everyone. We have to now, read below:

In fact, the 9th Circus Court of Appeals today defined "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" as anything other than freedom. The court's opinion: "Any impedance to the criminal's pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness is hereby deemed cruel and inhumane. Denying the convicted criminal's human rights in such ways as jail time, house arrest, and the like is in violation of the Declaration of Independence and such rulings as Terwilliger v. Krustovsky (1992) and Hogan v. Savage (Wrestlemania VII)."



PSYCHE!