Moral imperatives are important. I feel the same way about abortion and capital punishment and all failures by others to intervene when possible to avert in senseless death. It’s why I think impaired drivers who maim or kill should confront a -0- tolerance policy and why assisted suicides are a crime against our collective spirit.

I don’t want to kill the terrorists in interrogations; I just want the information quickly, fully, and reliably. Torture is an inexact word… but right up to prolonged sensory deprivations and multiple beatings and intense psychological trauma, I’m good for go. Barbarian? No; just a realist. It doesn’t make “us” any less better than them.

The middle eastern bazaar is not a place for the squeamish or ill resolute. Nor is war.

I don’t, Matt; sorry – going back to #33 – #11.

The Left just can’t accept that.

Actually, it’s the first of those that the Left can’t accept.

The latter they not only accept, but embrace, provided it’s the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Ba’athist Iraq, Taliban Afghanistan, or any other anti-American country.

The truth is that torture does exact reliable information in a timely manner from individuals. It can also serve to keep opponents at bay if used as part of an intimidation scheme within a dictatorship.

The Left just can’t accept that. And their pleadings for “moral high ground” is nothing more than political posturing… for partisan gain.

Americans accept that torture works. Americans chose wisely in the last election where a major Bush-Cheney campaign ad involved sinister wolves on the hunt –for us.

Actually, this is what I thought was the most interesting statement you had previously made:

Yes, sometimes its necessary to do evil in the name of defeating a greater Evil. If I had a terrorist in front of me who knew the location of nuclear weapon under one of our cities, I’d gladly rip him apart to find out where. I’d even whistle as I worked.

But of course, if anyone else did that, they were inextricably trapped on the slippery slope to moral oblivion and kicking puppies.

Again, what is it: “Do as I say, not as I do”?

Ok, there are times when your images provide Just Too Much Information. I think NDT did a good job of nailing your arguments to the wall, Gramps… no need to be meanspirited and uncivil.

I wrote a longish comment and lost it to a power outage.

You may wish to compose longish comments in a word processor (I use Notepad) and save frequently to disk. That would guard against crashes and power outages. (A battery backup would help with the latter.) After the comments are composed, copy and past into the comment box, and retain them in the word processor until after you are sure that they have been posted. That’s what I do–even if the comments aren’t particularly lengthy.

On the subject of “torture,” it seems to me that “torture” is in the eye of the beholder. There may be such a thing as psychological torture based on culture. Psychological torture would probably not leave physical marks, but it may be reasonable to consider it torture, nonetheless.

To say that lives were not saved because prisoners were interrogated is stupid. If prisoners don’t give true statements we discover that because those statements prove to be not true. Often enough they *do* prove to be true.

Well, maybe. The usual hypothetical that I have seen goes along the lines of “if you capture someone whom you have reason to believe has information of a plot to go off in 24 hours (or so), would you refrain from using torture to extract information from him as to the plot.” It seems to be a fairly remote hypothetical–I haven’t read of anything like this having occurred. Aside from that, two issues arise. One, if the captors actually have reason to believe that the captive has information regarding the plot, it strikes me that they (the captors) would likely have other information regarding the plot. And two, if the plot is to go off in 24 hours (or any other time frame), it seems likely that the captive could provide information that would end out the captors on wild goose chases until after the plot was to be consummated.

President Bush needs to tell the American people what happened to those Soldiers. He needs to let the people know what we are fighting and quit white-washing the actions of our enemies….

Yes, sometimes its necessary to do evil in the name of defeating a greater Evil. If I had a terrorist in front of me who knew the location of nuclear weapon under one of our cities, I’d gladly rip him apart to find out where. I’d even whistle as I worked.

OMG! You mean I might display some moral ambivilance about applying the death penalty? Big Whoop.

Now go haunt a house.

Whether or not you are correct, I am personally curious as to why you would publicly tell your hosts (in front of the other guests) what they should do.

Yes, sometimes its necessary to do evil in the name of defeating a greater Evil. If I had a terrorist in front of me who knew the location of nuclear weapon under one of our cities, I’d gladly rip him apart to find out where. I’d even whistle as I worked.

Or in addition to that:

I believe in the “Just War” doctrine of the Catholic Church for example. And although I believe that killing someone is always wrong, I also think that the death penalty is a just punishment for some crimes.

How does the old saying go? “Do as I say, not as I do”?

I look at the use of “torture” a bit like I do the use of a police officer’s sidearm; if used, it should be investigated and determined if it was necessary. I don’t think you would ever say it was “OK” for a police officer to discharge their weapon; however, there are certainly times when they have better reasons than others.

…so basically you do practice moral relativism.

Should Jose Padilla be tortured then? And if you can justify that, can you justify the occasional use of torture in ordinary civilian criminal cases where someone’s life may be in danger? Why not? Whats the difference between a serial murderer planning to kill 50 people over 10 years and a terrorist killing 50 people in the next 10 minutes with an IED? Some things are just inherently evil and cannot be practiced by good people without being corrupted and coopted by that evil. You cannot undertake such a fundamentally immoral act and still be a moral man.

Sorry, NDT, you are sliding buck naked down that slippery slope so fast you must have KY spurting out of your ears.

Go ahead and call me a judgmental asshole if you wish, but you are still morally, ethically just plain wrong. Bad gay. Bad American. No pride for you.

(yes, I’m making a reference to Nazi’s, so discussion can end now, even if its just a reference to the soup Nazi)

All depends on the relative value of OK, Calarato.

I look at the use of “torture” a bit like I do the use of a police officer’s sidearm; if used, it should be investigated and determined if it was necessary. I don’t think you would ever say it was “OK” for a police officer to discharge their weapon; however, there are certainly times when they have better reasons than others.

Unfortunately, that wasn’t your argument.

I quote your exact words:

And, if Saddam really had been able to procure uranium from Niger or even from other countries, just how much would he have had left in those “suitcases and suitcases”?

Caught again, it seems.

And as for the rest of the smears in your post, it’s obvious that you can’t remember your own words accurately; that makes it virtually impossible that you could accurately assess the words of others.

Bye now.

I wrote a longish comment and lost it to a power outage.

As for interrogations… I can’t imagine anyone at Gitmo having any information that is useful this many years on. Anything they used to know must be desperately out of date. HOWEVER, current events include interrogations. When Zarqawi was killed and the other sites being watched were raided they captured people as well as information. This leads to more raids, which leads to more raids. If what a prisoner says does not lead to something real, we know they made it up.

It’s the same thing with tips. If they don’t lead to something real we know it was a lie. I’ve read accounts by soldiers involved in this sort of cascade operation (or maybe it was Yon) where a prisoner talks or someone brings a tip and they haul in that guy who turns in someone else, who turns in someone else… do you think our people are idiots? They know people lie. It has to lead to something *real* like weapons or an IED lab or they know it was a lie.

To say that lives were not saved because prisoners were interrogated is stupid. If prisoners don’t give true statements we discover that because those statements prove to be not true. Often enough they *do* prove to be true.

No, I’m not saying it’s okay to torture anyone, but talking like anything less plesant than conversation over a cup of chai while assuring everyone involved that they are safe to say nothing is torture… and yes, it’s about that bad. I could describe a scene from a TV show interrogation that no one objects to *at all* with yelling policemen and threats and physical discomfort and emotional manipulation but if I change that to someone in a military uniform suddenly people are crapping their pants.

I honestly can not imagine what people think we do.

Are we still bitter over the price of uranium, Raj?

Sorry, you have never shown that Putin made use of a front company, the definition of which you never contested.

Moreover, you suggested that I wrote things that–I never wrote–and then you said that I lied about them.

I frankly don’t give a tinkers’ damn about your citation of the price of uranium metal, largely because the price of uranium metal has little if anything to do with the cost of actually producing a nuclear weapon.

BTW,

In short, you’ll bitch no matter what is done, because your only concern is feeding your irrational hatreds.

it’s amusing that you, like some of the others here, have picked up on the Bush malAdministration talking point “hatred.” I suppose that you all believe that that might cause people to cringe in horror: “I don’t want to be called a hater.” Sorry, it doesn’t work like that.

Maybe someday you’ll actually say something rational. Or even reasonable. I doubt it. Over at IndeGayForum, you weren’t even able to reconcile a statistic from an article from the Wall Street Journal with the summary from the organization on which the statistic was supposedly based. If you were unable to do that, why should anyone believe what you say–anywhere?