.....if the U.S.A. has or is using torture as a means to extract information from haji shit-birds in Iraq and elsewhere? I just want to know who these people are that seem to give a fuck. If torturing 100 of them to death saves 1 American soldier, I'd say that was a good trade.

It doesn't matter, because the US, as a matter of policy, does not use torture. The isolated acts by unsupervised individuals does not equate to US policy.

Quoted: If torturing 100 of them to death saves 1 American soldier, I'd say that was a good trade.

+eleventybillion

That's a tough question, because if you torture an innocent, then what have you become?

On the other hand, taking off the gloves with someone who has done evil (beyond any doubt) is a different deal - like a child kidnapper or something, either way, it's something that will weigh on the conscience of those who practice it.

A person that know you will not touch him is not going to tell you very much is he?

Don't ask,Don't tell and DON'T take PICTURES

Quoted: Quoted: If torturing 100 of them to death saves 1 American soldier, I'd say that was a good trade. +eleventybillion

x2

No - nobody cares about THAT, but what people care about is where the LINE is - and what precedents are being set, because the U.S. is a nation of laws.

If it's okay to torture "terrorists", then the question becomes how you define a terrorist.  If we capture some Al-Qaeda mastermind, we obviously know he's a terrorist, but what about someone we are not sure about?  Do we just go ahead and start torture, knowing we'll torture some innocent people?  Who gets to decide where the line is?  Local commanders on the ground?  Can any platoon commander just begin to torture someone they capture in the heat of battle to get information on where his buddies are planning an ambush?  

The question becomes even more complicated when we step back from the battlefield.  If we capture a known Al Qaeda operative inside the U.S., I don't think anyone cares if we torture him.  But what about a foreign national who we are not sure about?  Maybe he is providing financial support to groups in Saudi Arabia that maybe support terrorism.  Okay to torture him?

What about a U.S. citizen who is an Al-Qeada agent in the U.S.?  While some people might support torturing him, it raises questions about the Consitution that other cases might not.  What about a U.S. Citizen who might be an Al-Qaeda agent, but we're not sure?


In my opinion, the problem is not that torture is invariably inappropriate - there are definiteyl times when it may be necessary.  The problem is in deciding where exactly the line is, which can be incredibly difficult, and people worry that once you open the door a crack, that line might start to move over time.

Even though you might be perfectly comfortable trusting the Bush administration with that authority, will you be as willing to trust the Hillary Clinton administration?  Do you want them to be able to define what a "terrorist" is?  Ultimately, it becomes partly an issue of what power you want any government to have, and how muc you trust them with it.

Quoted: img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/redfisher19/care.jpg

My thoughts exactly.

Quoted: It doesn't matter, because the US, as a matter of policy, does not use torture. The isolated acts by unsupervised individuals does not equate to overtUS policy.

fixed it for ya.

Quoted: .....if the U.S.A. has or is using torture as a means to extract information from haji shit-birds in Iraq and elsewhere? I just want to know who these people are that seem to give a fuck. If torturing 100 of them to death saves 1 American soldier, I'd say that was a good trade.

I care. I despise hypocrites, thieves and liars.

moooooo

Quoted: .....if the U.S.A. has or is using torture as a means to extract information from haji shit-birds in Iraq and elsewhere? I just want to know who these people are that seem to give a fuck. If torturing 100 of them to death saves 1 American soldier, I'd say that was a good trade.

Nope.