When you can form a cogent non-hysterical arugment let me know. i’ve learned from the past it’s useless answering people who are more interested in their sanctimonious pacificity then reality.

And don’t give me any of this ivory-tower moralizing about “collateral damage” and “innocent people”. They’re living there, so they’re guilty. And even if they were innocent, well, it’s worth killing them and debasing our morals, because it keeps our people safe.

Explain to me why that that is not the logical conclusion of your premise, Vince, if ruthlessness is the ideal we aspire to for victory.

Next. I’m not talking about slight discomfort. I’m not talking about “mean faces” (as someone put it). I’m talking about harsh mental and physical suffering. A person suffers in both ways with water boarding. I don’t think there is any rational way to dispute that. I really don’t. So most of the arguments made are along the lines of, “It’s OK; they’re evil.” For that, see previous paragraph.

Please get over it.. they did it to a grand total of THREE PEOPLE.

As for the argument about “if we know he has information, we should torture”, well perhaps. But I think something important to ask is, “How, in normal cases, do we know what information an individual has if he has been so uncooperative as to warrant torturing.”

How do we know he had information? BECAUSE HE WAS THE GUY IN CHARGE OF THE OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT of Al qaida!

This is the real world.. these people are ruthless and deliberately are trying to kill as many civilians as possible.

i find your moralizing offensive to be honest. Are you telling me that we should have done nothing to KSM and thereby condemm who knows how many thousands of people to their deaths because you’re too high and mighty in your ivory tower of abstract purity?

This mindrot is precisely what is wrong with this country.

When you’re in a war with ruthless people, the most ruthless win.

I don’t think anyone here would argue–well, I’d hope not, at least–that multiple simulated deaths by drowning couldn’t result in fairly serious and permanent mental repercussions for a person.

As for this notion that to be torture, it must leave “permanent marks” or cause permanent physical harm, frankly that is the biggest line of crap I have ever heard.

I don’t think anyone here would argue–well, I’d hope not, at least–that multiple simulated deaths by drowning could result in fairly serious and permanent mental repercussions for a person.

Are you not people who follow the philosophy of Barry Goldwater, such as I do? Do you not recognize that man is not just physical needs, but a complex interweaving of both the physical and the psychological/mental, as he did?

If you are such and do recognize that fact, then the logical conclusion is that harm to a person need not necessarily take a physical form to be real.

Why would supposed conservatives take such a non-conservative and materialist-based approach to this issue? Please explain; I am truly curious.

With that out of the way, so many of you are way oversimplifying this. When you say “Why not do it!? They’re terrorists!”, you start with the assumption that all such persons in US captivity are terrorists, absolutely and undeniably. That’s a pretty crass error.

Now that you’ve read that and gotten yourself ready to accuse me of calling KSM a dear high school chum, I don’t deny that a great many of these people probably are and/or are evil people. But the fact that you commit an evil act against an evil person does not mitigate the evil of that act.

Next. I’m not talking about slight discomfort. I’m not talking about “mean faces” (as someone put it). I’m talking about harsh mental and physical suffering. A person suffers in both ways with water boarding. I don’t think there is any rational way to dispute that. I really don’t. So most of the arguments made are along the lines of, “It’s OK; they’re evil.” For that, see previous paragraph.

As for the person who made the extraordinarily jumbled conceit between this situation where a procedure is ramped up and the situation of using non-lethal force, i.e., a DOWNGRADING OF FORCE–well, hats off. You made the worst case ever, in my opinion.

As for the argument about “if we know he has information, we should torture”, well perhaps. But I think something important to ask is, “How, in normal cases, do we know what information an individual has if he has been so uncooperative as to warrant torturing.” So should we just torture everyone we suspect of having information, even those who have none, like Zubaydah? Where do we, as a civilized people draw that line in your opinion? I want real answers, not “We torture terrorists! We do not torture not-terrorists!”

For the next crassly stupid argument, I will take the “You could say we are like the Gestapo because they gave food to prisoners and so do we!!” Again, why do you set the bar so low? If you take a category so strikingly broad as “give their captives food”, you might as well take “breathe oxygen” as your limiting qualifier. The point in the comparison is in the uniqueness of the limiting standard. You show me just one civilized, democratic institution which has been supportive of using extreme sleep deprivation for extraction of information, and then I MIGHT consider your argument.

Lastly, I can’t believe that a group of fellow conservatives would be so…trusting of their government as to allow it the power to, without oversight or restraint and based solely on executive authority, administer torture to any human being.

It’s slightly slanted in wording, i’ll admit, but the question which stands before us is, “Should the US debase its ideals for safety.” I think that a fellow by the name of Franklin had a retort to that…

(Pardon me if this has all been a bit disjointed, but I am trying to rebuff and address so many disparate arguments in one comment. It becomes difficult to maintain fluidity.)

Yes, well, we all know where that leads.

Don’t we Waterboard our own troops as part of the SARE training?

And I assume gil is all for treating these people as the Geneva conventions allow?

One has to wonder why the liberals, who torture and beat us over the head about Abu Ghraib, reward General Sanchez with that sort of deal.

I nearly drowned when I was eight years old.

I almost drowned when I was four or five. That was in salt water off Boca Grande, swallowed a bunch of it and puked my toenails up. I’d venture to guess that I got more water than KSM.

I remember back in elementary school, sometimes when you acted up, the teacher would have you stand with your arms out and hold it until they said stop.

Had a jr. high teacher who would make you stand in front of the class if you had the hiccups.

Not only did I get over that, I barely remember it or think of it.

Is it OK to torture an innocent person?
Or maybe is it OK to torture a terrorist’s children?
Or maybe is it OK to nuke a whole city because a terrorist might be there?

Sweet Jesus! What are you talking about?

How quickly they change the subject.

Sorry Houndentenor, but the line only works when it’s true.
No one - not even among your fellow lefties - has dodged the real and important points being made in this thread, more than you.

If I believed that torture would only be used on those who had information that would save lives, I wouldn’t bother protesting it. But I don’t trust this administration. (I also feel confident that in spite of what the rules are, the CIA will indeed use torture in extreme circumstances and we’ll never hear about it.)

I have never called a US soldier a babykiller by the way. And I don’t have any association with anyone who would. I spent quite a bit of time on the Wiesbaden Army base in 2002-2003. I met men who are probably dead now. This isn’t abstract to me. Nor is the threat of another terrorist attack. What I can’t endorse is giving this administration a blank check to detain any person for any or no reason and torture at will. Now would you give those powers to a Democratic president.

And to silly people, it’s right to let innocent people die so that guilty people can be spared momentary discomfort.

Is it OK to torture an innocent person?
Or maybe is it OK to torture a terrorist’s children?
Or maybe is it OK to nuke a whole city because a terrorist might be there?

Your “torture a few eggs to kill the omelet” philosophy is bad road to start down….