That's dick cheney's philosophy too. Ron Suskind wrote a book about it. Anyway, I don't know why you would assume courts are really into letting terrorists run free, or that federal judges are staying up at nigt just waiting to let a terrorist free. That is the bogus argument we always get and it is never true - I can't think of a single instance of it happening. Even keystone kops wannabe terrorists like Jose Padilla and Zaccarias Moussaoui waste away in brigs and stockades for years before a court even came clsoe to being involved - way past any "ticking time bomb scenario" You seem to be buying into a bogeyman argument.
I think you've misunderstood me. I've never said anything about that the courts are letting terrorists free only that if someone feels the situation is extreme enough to merit torture they should have to face the consequences in a court of law..
Well it would have to happen, then the terrorist who was captured would need to be the only one who could tell us how to actually stop it. He would have to know where it was, and we'd have to be sure that torturing him would actually give us the accurate information we needed. I just don't think it's realistic that all of those circumstances would fall into place at just the right time, that we need to be make policy decisions based on such a remote chance that it would happen.
rj, appreciate your perspective in this thread. but what do you think of all the information suggesting that torture does not work. So, even in a ticking time bomb scenario, we'd probably need the most expert, up-to-date methods of pscyhology (even drugs?) instead of outdated, neolithic torture. and basso, not that you're reading this, but can't you be against torture and still be a republican? nobody (I hope) agrees with one party lock-step.
I think we are in agreement on that point. As I said before I can't rule out that there will never be a situation where torture wouldn't be considered needed but I don't think such an extreme situation should be the basis of policy.
Does anybody have any data on the scale of torture going on. Reading these threads would make one believe that everyone in our custody is being tortured. Perhaps we'll never know but I get the impression that it is a select few who get the treatment. And all this time I thought 24 was a documentary... it feels so real!
I agree that most studies have shown that torture doesn't work. In fact I was listening to an NPR discussion about it a few weeks ago where a military historian pointed out that during WWII the US captured a Japanese field manual that said that torture was the worst way to colllect usable information but it should be used to instill discipline among prisoners. If even the sadistic Japanese Imperial Army didn't think torture was a good way of collecting intel I don't see how we can think it works. To answer your question directly as I said I can't predict every situation and given that we do live in an age where there have been major terrorists attacks on our military, embassies and cities I can see the possibility of an extreme situation arising. Putting intel together to actually stop something is very dependent on time and what corroborating information. If a situation arose where someone was captured and the timing of the capture corroborated strongly with other intel that the threat was dire a decision might be made that there wasn't time to use other means. For instance lets say a known Al Qaeda member is captured in a US city in a car with fertilizer and diesel residue. The time is the morning of the anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq and for months there has been chatter of an Al Qaeda attack coming. Putting those together this would lead to very strong likely hood that a bomb has been planted to go off that day and the guy who planted it is in custody. Given the time constraint the people holding the person in custody might feel there is no choice but to torture him to find out where the bomb is. Again I will emphasize that I don't see such a situation as being very likely but I don't think given recent history that such a situation might be totally out of the realm of possibility. My only point is that rather than consider that such a situation means we should base a policy on that remote possibility we should keep torture illegal and leave it to the courts to decide if it was justified if the most extreme situation did happen to arise.
and that makes it ok? to try and claim that it was isolated incidents would be incredibly naive. especially in light of the fact that we know the administration authorized the things that were going on. but what does that have to do with the fact that this administration authorized these practices and actually changed the definition of torture to say it "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or death"? for cruel or inhuman psychological technique to rise to the level of mental torture the harm must last "months or even years". dismiss it if you want, but the fact is that high ranking members of the military have stated that the show is having a negative effect on troops.
That's one of the issues: We don't know the extent of it and the administration refuses to offer any information... and pardon me for being cynical, but your impression is the exact impression the administration wants you to have and thus, I doubt it is remotely close to the truth.
Oh, the fact that your hero, Mr. Bush, is promoting torture? That several of the top GOP candidates for the '08 nomination are tripping over each other supporting it? Stuff like that, basso. D&D. Atempt Civility! Impeach Bush for Promoting Torture.
Bush promotes torture? really? [rquoter]The policy of the United States is not to torture. The President has not authorized it, he will not authorize it.[/rquoter] seems pretty unequivocal.
Before getting into what a load of crap that is, are you finally prepared to make a statement on torture yourself? Since Bush is "against torture," are you as well? Or are you, like him, into publicly opposing it and privately doing whatever's necessary to continue doing it? Don't worry. I don't actually expect you to answer. It's been nearly a week and you obviously have some great reason for refusing to say where you stand on this. I take it for your usual brand of cowardice but maybe it's something worse.
You're quite possibly the first person in the history of Western Civilization to take a press release at face value.
It was also crap as evidenced by the article posted above and several others. Everyone knows Bush supports torture. That's why virtually the entire GOP field are battling each other for the prize of being most pro-torture of all. You, meanwhile, are a fraud. And, until you say word one to the contrary, we will all have to assume that you support torture but are too ashamed of that position to admit it. And to think that you had the nerve to ask if I had the courage of my convictions. You clearly not only lack the courage of your convictions; you lack convictions period. Coward.
