What the hell does ‘the circumstances are different’ mean? Imminent danger? If they knew of the imminent danger, then why the need to torture? Isn’t the need for torture to find out IF there is a danger?

All in the name of national security!!!!!!!!!! Well, upon further analysis, it seems that this is all based on national INSECURITY. Too insecure to ask the enemy what their problems are. Too insecure to use diplomacy. Oh wait, this is an enemy that wants to kill us, right? An enemy that doesn’t use diplomacy, right? An enemy that will torture its captors, right? An enemy that has no regard for innocent bystanders, right? Sounds like we’re no different than the alleged ‘enemy’………

The enemy already laid out it’s problems with the US. Bin Laden spelled them out clearly and concisely in his declaration of war. What we didn’t know is that he was partners with Bush to send the world into chaos in hopes of bringing about the endtimes they so long for. Notice how they both use the same tactic and logic. This is the MABUS we have been warned about.
Pay close attention when politicians say they are godly and just people but do the opposite in their actions.

again, if only three people we’re interrogated via waterboarding, a technique we use on our own troops during training, and it was close to 9-11, that kinda shoots a hole in the “we torture everybody all the time deal”…as if the average detainee gaining weight and drastic illness drop upon entering US custody was any indication…

in any case, i doubt this is the true story, the CIA by nature is secretive and i’d take anything they put out with a grain of salt

and jed, i dunno what kool-aid you’ve been drinking, but Bush and Bin-Laden are not in cahoots…if anything they are radically different from one another, even if their methods seem the same

both want a destabilized ME, but for different reasons. Bin Laden’s destabilized ME would lead to a toppling of the Saudi Royal family, and instituting a kind of nationalist-theocracy, and create some sort of Islamic pan-arab sharia state, a kind of melding of Khomeini and Nasser’s dream in response to western imperialism

Bush, or rather the policy makers within the US govt, want a destabilized ME to A) to prevent the posibility of what i mentioned above, and B)to thwart Russian efforts in the Gulf, which since the late 90s has been slowly inching its way back into the region via weapons technologies

oil also plays into it…the US is merely acting to its own interests, and is Bin Laden…but neither are going to bring about the end of the world

I like the comment about “playing inside the box.” Where “playing” means “torturing.”

Merk,

So, torture is ‘okay’ if WE think the ends justify the means? And anyone else who might use torture? Well, they’re doing it ’cause it’s fun, NOT for ‘valuable’ information.

Pretty selective reasoning. Carrying that thought forward, if a person only ‘thinks’ they’re going to die, then it’s not torture. And no one’s going to die if they’re denied a little sleep, or kept in the dark in a small room with no bed or chair or toilet, or threatened with hate inspired dogs.

And technically speaking, it’s not torture to push one person out of a helicopter at 10K feet and then promise another the same fate lest they talk. It IS murder, of course, but we’re talking torture here.

And just for the record, how many people have been ‘saved’ because of the torture? Oh, WE can’t reveal that information. Classified. Convenient, don’t you agree?

It goes something like this: WE have to torture to save lives. And WE can tell you that it works. Only WE can’t tell you how, when or where it works ‘cause that would give away OUR ‘secrets.’ Do you believe a crock like that?

very true, the whole torture deal is very, very shakey

torture seems to be an outdated concept, especially with drugs available nowadays

pragmatism to me dictates however, you include every arrow in your quiver, including forcefull questioning…again, anyone who would rather die than give up info isnt going to break under torture anyway, but not having the option at all is rather foolish

essentially, yes we can do away with torture, but on the off chance that it does give up vital information, i rather not monday morning quaterback with another 9-11 on what signs we should have been looking for and who we should have interrogated

in that case. let’s start using torture on this administration to find out how it has failed so miserably in all it has endeavored. Gonzales would be a good place to start, he looks like the nut that would crack the quickest.

How is it that the person responsible for handling $500 Billion of our money refuses to speak to congress? How is it that constitutional attorneys were convinced to creatively interpret the constitution to allow torture and the breaking of international treaties? Let’s use a little waterboarding to force cheney to reveal what was discussed at that energy policy meeting, hell, they don’t even feel the need to let us know who attended, what the hell.,. let’s loose the dogs of war and let the whole planet get engulfed because that is what our ancestors taught us was the right way to deal with adversity and that is our stated philosophy.
LONG LIVE CAPITALISM!!! CAPITALISM IS DEAD!!!

Of couse you understand I’m being ironic, right? only takes that one first step to set you on the fast lane to turning the planet into the depictions of hell we’ve been told of. We’ll go down as the race that turned it’s homeworld from a productive cornucopia of wealth into a dessert of misery and despair. Keep up the good work.