Reply #6: Torture acceptable in some cases???

[gristy]

According to the editorial...

If a prisoner were a known member of an al-Qaida cell, for instance, and were known to have intimate knowledge of an imminent terrorist act, torture might be acceptable in that limited case.

Known member according to whom?.
Known to have intimate knowledge according to whom?

There is no indication that this writer advocates that this person be tried in a public court of law and have competent legal representation and be first found guilty of some crime. What the writer is saying is that if a person is picked on the street somewhere in the world, and if, according to someone this person is known to be a member of al-Qaida and is known to have intimate knowledge of an imminent terrorist act, then torture might be acceptable.

So how do we define known in this case? Perhaps the writer (and the gov't) prefers the literal definition, as when Bush warned on October 7, 2002, "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” or as Tony Blair asserted on September 24, “(Saddam’s) military planning allows for some of the WMDs to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them."