If we truly cared about defending our democracy, that wacko old coot would be going to prison instead.

none says it all.

He's become Kissinger. He's going to spend the rest of his life working to secure himself against being brought to legal account for the brutalities he authored. I like that he's worried about it. I only wish he had real reason to worry.

I wonder if he'll be able to bring his man-sized safe along to prison?

To understand how these guys think, Namomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" is a must read.

Given to option, Daniel Pearl would have chosen to be waterboarded. We are dealing with some ruthless people..

what's wrong with torturing terrorists when it works (see KSM)
Lars

what's wrong with torturing terrorists when it works

The populations of Iraq and Afghanistan might say the same thing about captured U.S. military--we wont even bring up the moral implications of being an official torture state.

...what's wrong with torturing terrorists when it works...

Let's exhume Stalin and ask him. I'll bet he'll know the answer to that one.

Canada is looking better all the time.

Yesterday's Oregonian helpfully informed me that waterboarding is a relic of the Spanish Inquisition. I can't tell you how proud it makes me that my country admits using it and says it's all good.

We should impeach while there is still time to show the world that these felons are not going to be tolerated forever.

We all see things differently.

I don't approve of any torture that will cause serious permanent harm, physical or mental. But, if the torture only causes temporary discomfort I don't have an issue using it. For me I place waterboarding (scares them silly but they are not actually going to drown), sleep deprivation, playing music they hate (gangsta rap for a muslim I assume), sitting in a cold room, etc are in that category.

Is the information you get reliable? Sometimes no, sometimes yes. You'll have to verify every piece obtained for accuracy. But they have gotten some very good information out of the terrorist by these very methods along with some very bogus information (I'm sure the govt wont tell us how much).

The question you have to ask yourself. If a bomb has been planted in the heart of NYC crowded streets and you have the guy who planted it. Are you going to serve him milk and cookies then hope he shares with you where?

what's wrong with torturing terrorists when it works (see KSM)

1. It doesn't always work. If it works 50% of the time, what good does that do? Do you take action on all the intelligence, knowing that 50% of it is false? In the case of Khalid Sheik Mohammed (sp?), if the government is saying that it worked, that means they were able to independently verify the intelligence, which kind of begs the question as to why torture was needed in the first place, doesn't it?

2. It kills any chance we have of winning the "hearts and minds" of any of our foes.

3. It's a recruiting tool for terrorist organizations.

4. In the long run, it's a failed strategy.

Darrin, regarding the "ticking bomb" hypothesis, see item #1. The information you get is just as likely to lead you on a wild goose chase then it is to lead you to the bomb.

Miles,

1. If it's only right 25% of the time it can be worth it. Also, your argument doesn't include that the terrorist could easily be giving out information that was not known. With the information is given then you have something to go check up on to verify.

2. The US is held of as the big devil, blamed for all the woes in the world. For those who believe it there is not much we can do to win their minds. For the others, I would hope our other actions such as rebuilding hospitals, schools, roads, infratstructure, etc etc etc will convince them otherwise.

3. Everything we do is already being twisted in a way to use as recruiting.

4. It will take the long run to prove that wont it? The run isn't over yet.

Darrin: 3. Everything we do is already being twisted in a way to use as recruiting.

The straight truth about what we're doing is a pretty strong recruiting tool as-is. Why twist things when the truth is sufficient, and can be verified with reliable news sources?

I don't like seeing our Attorney Generals (or their boss) weigh the pros and cons of the use of torture, (like it was comparing Ford vs Chevy) and if it does or doesn't violate the Geneva Convention.

Call me idealistic or foolish, but in spite of all the anguish and blood that has been spilled since 9-11 I hoped this nation was still better than that.

Other nations are supposed to be on those Amnesty International lists - not America.

Don't you worry that once our leaders shrug their shoulders about torture (and our "opposition" Congress lets them) that we get on a very slippery slope about human rights?

what does it say about our morality when we actually debate how far you can torture another human being before it's "bad"?

and what the heck is a "terrorist", anyway? every soldier is a terrorist. the goal of war is terror, to terrorize the enemy into capitulation or death. or, if you're putting spin on it, to create "shock and awe." i'm paraphrasing Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln here.

why not just admit that we call any enemy we don't like these days "terrorists"?

"The question you have to ask yourself. If a bomb has been planted in the heart of NYC crowded streets and you have the guy who planted it. Are you going to serve him milk and cookies then hope he shares with you where?"

That is exactly the question Cheney has convinced idiots, I mean "tough customers," to ask themselves.

How can the United States of America ever be regarded as a moral authority ever again?

For those who think we must meet evil with evil, your reality is way too dark. May a renewed sense of humanity light your way. Evil withers in the face of goodness. That is the only antidote. We pay a heavy price in terror related death. This evil will never be defeated by engaging in similar evil. It will only diminish when the bulk of humanity lives in harmony and overwhelms the dark powers. As for Cheney, he's in serious need of an exorcism.

It consoles me to see (the) ethics discussed here, just the subject, Ethics.

For the record, repeating myself like a stuck one: All the purported 'war' is a War Game in which the two 'sides' -- Red Army and Black Army -- are both under one and the same command: BushUSA Army.

Among many things, this means our tax dollars, (actually, the next 3 generations' tax dollars), buy the bullets and roadside bombs for both sides. And it means -- keeping in mind you already know Pat Tillman was shot in the back by 'friendly fire' of his own 'USA' soldiers -- Daniel Pearl was grabbed and killed and desecrated with decapitation of his corpse by BushUSA-directed personnel, of which desecration a video just happened to be made which just happened to be in USA NTSC format and just happened to be released into USA massmind media and just happened to scare and hate-incite the unholy bejeezus out of everyone staring at the horrorifying abomination of it.

Sure 'nuff, here we have LIARS, whether real or fake: same diff', regurgitating that hate-bile in. your. face. and not saying a stinking word about the murdered American victims of US Mail powdered with anthrax traced to the BushUSA Army germwarfare lab at Ft. Detrick ... or not saying a word about hundreds more known crimes against Americans and constitutional law, such as LIARS WMDs and LIARS war crimes, and all and all and all suppressed like heroes' flag-draped caskets and LIARS that there isn't LIARS -- as long as your visceral revulsion pukes 'anti-arab' every time LIARS presses the Pearl button. BushUSA 'special privilege' troops, in person, hands-on, murdered Pearl, that's what's not to forget.

Like an inveterate 'global' gamer stooped over a board playing black-against-white solitary chess, the ONLY case where a Comm'der-in-Chief can announce in advance how long the 'war' is going to go on -- "for decades" -- is when he controls each move by both 'sides.'

There is no front lines, no enemy territory, no secured region of operations, in Iraq and there is no plan or intention to 'win,' but rather, only to go on continuing occupation until all the oil is sucked out or all the residents are dead, or both, or whichever comes first.

Yet -- let alone that it is 'to torture or not to torture: that is the question' -- it consoles me to see Ethics discussed here, by us, we the peeps.

Here's some fresh, well-worded reference material encapsulating the argued points, by the way: The Ticking Time Bomb Thought-Experiment, by Caroline Arnold, February 7, 2008