Since everyone on the right seems to be huge 24 fans, lets go through another hypothetical.

Lets say the CIA tortures hundreds of people who are suspected of torture. Lots are terrorists, but it would take a fool to believe the CIA is perfect and would never torture an innocent. So the CIA tortures all these people and they get absolutely no useful information. Why would someone who is willing to blow themselves up give away information when they could just as easily lie?


Do you think the CIA is going to say they didn't get any useful info? Or are they going to claim that the did get some intel to save their own asses?










And to Rebellion, since you seem to think that morality and religion are important to the way we govern. Who would Jesus torture?

I don't believe any experts on the matter ever said it "never" works?

At best you might get some pertinent information but in the majority of cases they will say literally anything especially what you want to hear to stop the torture, no matter how minimal the couch generals on here thinks it is!

I am not against torture in certain situations, in fact if someone had my son or daughter for example, and I knew someone might know their whereabouts, you might want to leave the area if you have a weak stomach.

On the other hand we have signed international agreements guaranteeing that we would not torture so that in theory our own troops will not be brutalized. Hasn't proven to be the case but we did make the agreement binding! Maybe we should just add an "as long as you don't do it we won't either" clause. Changing the definition to suit ourselve's isn't exactly what I would call ethical behavior either. If we are going to do it, then just do it and quit trying to cover it up with this "if nobody can prove it, it didn't happen" nonsense!

__________________
There are only two things wrong with this great nation of ours, democrats and republicans!

Not necessarily in that order.

Maybe that suffices in a legal sense, but what about with human beings rather than courts? They explicitly said, didn't they, that the reason they destroyed the tapes was because they didn't want any legal trouble.

If they showed the tapes, it would stop happening.

All the guys that are sitting here saying that they think torture is okay would change their minds if they actually saw it. Okay, maybe not all of them, some of them would break out the popcorn, but mostly we're human beings.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe humans suck and it would inspire a twisted game show craze. If that's the case, though, then I want to know it.

I don't like having my head buried in the sand and I really don't like other people doing it for me.

No, their "excuse" was that it might have exposed the identities of CIA agents.

Supposedly, so far, the story line is that they made the tapes for two purposes: a) for "analytical" purposes, and b) for "instructional" purposes. According to the official line, there was no other purpose.

So then, the reason they were destroyed is because there was video footage of actual agents who are now (or were, or will be) in the field.

That's the "story".

It is kinda suspicious though, how this particular video footage, appears to somehow have been magically selected for destruction at this particular time. That part is definitely suspicious. On the other hand, it's the Prez's call, right? I mean, that's what this CIA thing is, right? All the Prez has to do is issue a "finding" or a "directive", and boom, it becomes national policy. There's very little in the way of direct "checks and balances" in that particular pathway. There's no one from Congress sitting there looking over the Prez's shoulder to make sure he's doing the right thing, in relation to the orders he issues to the CIA. The Intelligence Committees only get that information "after the fact", if at all, and it's entirely the President's call whether he wants to share it with them or not.

So, you know, I mean, how I kinda see this, is it's "par for the course" in terms of the way Bushie operates, and in the global scheme of all the things he's doing during his tenure, this, isn't really "all that bad". You know, in typicall fashion, it's "legal" but "ethically questionable", and so no one can touch the guy from a "letter of the law" standpoint, even though there are plenty of questions about his ethics and his character and his morality and his "modus operandi".

And then there's the whole separate issue of using torture as an instrument of national policy.

So, I mean, I'd be concerned about the latter, and "hardly at all" about the former. The former is like a "given", and a "done deal", and all we gotta do is wait 348 more days to get rid of Bushie "forever", so... I'm okay with that.

That latter piece though, that whole issue is going to continue "after" Bushie - in fact, IMHO it's gonna be kinda interesting to see how this plays out in the Giuliani campaign (or whoever it is that ends up getting nominated on the Republican side). 'Cause you know, McCain won't stand for torture, but Giuliani just might, depending on the political ramifications. That one oughta be kinda interesting.

Well... unfortunately, showing the tapes probably wouldn't stop this kind of thing from happening.

All it would do, is provide some low-hanging fruit for international anti-American sentiment.

You know, I mean, 'cause the little old ladies that would be horrified by those scenes of torture, don't make American national policy, and scenes like that basically have "no effect" on the professionals, 'cause they see that stuff every day, so....

Yeah, reality is a m/f sometimes, ain't it?

Torture is a broad term when you use it. I've seen a waterboarding info video. I wince more when I see someone getting tazed, bro.


I'm certain that most of these "holier than thou" people could easily imagine a scenario in which they would advocate breaking the law to save someone's life. Destroying videotapes that could be used by the enemy is somehow terribly wrong, but destroying classified memos and who knows what else only to protect Clinton's legacy is no biggie. Is there a thimble full of integrity to be found in the Democrat party? It's the same old crap. Their real and only enemy is Bush.

__________________
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. - Theodore Roosevelt

First, you are claiming the torture of Zubaydah let to the capture of Zubaydah

Second, It has been shown that KSM confessed to many things, and many are highly dubious. Daniels Pearls own father doesn't think that KSM killed him.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...ive_pearl.html

You somehow fail to see that once torture has entered the equation, then the information gleaned is highly dubious. So besides the moral disgrace of the nation, which in and of itself should ban these practices. The end results are also worthless and taint anything that may be true.

BACK TO THE TOPIC:
Again, the United States has disgraced itself because these tapes were destroyed to destroy evidence of our use of torture... period. Any other excuse is an obvious excuse. Yea, to cover up the identities of the interogators... yea right.

Do you have anything to support your contention that evidence obtained by forced interrogation is more dubious than that obtained by less effective means?

It shouldn't be lots of terrorists, I think we should have a policy against it. But if ignored like in situations above a hand slap is fine. But they better be sure he isn't an innocent. If he is I would support jail terms if someone makes a mistake. That should put a spoonful of caution in place. In terms of why would they say anything, well if they have a choice of torture or no torture it motivates. As shown in this case where two people spilled the beans and it led to more captures.

They did catch those guys so they go the information somehow.

The money changers and those doing business on church property. He did so with whips if I recall.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.