"But if we knew an attack was imminent, couldn't we torture for info?"

[WinkyDink]

OFGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is such an outlandish and illogical (if we "know" an attack is imminent, then we KNOW) "argument" NEW to the years 2001-2009??

Was such a totally remote "possibility" NOT possible when we ADHERED TO the Geneva Conventions, when we DID NOT TORTURE?

IOW, WHY is it ONLY in the ca. BUSH ERA that this IMMORAL and PSYCHOPATHIC rationale is proffered?

Oh, gee; could it be because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, et al. are CRIMINAL PSYCHOPATHS?

[zbdent]

1. um ... they had all kinds of information of imminent attacks on the U.S. ...

along with agents tracking known persons suspected of plotting stuff in the U.S. ...

but they chose to ignore the information ... and pulled agents off the tails of people on the "watch lists" so that they could investigate whether or not Bill Clinton sat on a copier with his pants down 1/19/2001 ... and also were having to shadow Gary Condit ...

and having agents patrol the waters, searching for sharks "with friggin laser beams" ...

[WinkyDink]

12. I don't understand your "um". THEY are the ones arguing that TORTURE was needed for the info you

describe.

Surely you haven't read my post as pro-torture??

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

2. How about a "ticking time bomb" exception? But the torture has to be televised in place of "24"

Thw wingnuts would probably go for that.

[opihimoimoi]

3. We should Water Plank them PUB BULLIES into admitting devious and criminal activities

[jody]

4. The moral question is how many innocent people must be tortured to hopefully discover one plot?

In a not unrelated way, how many innocent people accused of a capital crime must be murdered just to hopefully execute one person guilty of a capital crime?

[Bad Thoughts]

5. OBFUSCATION!!!

If a terrorist knew an attack would occur within days, he would have the opportunity to mislead investigators by passing false information. At the very least, he would know to hold out until the attack succeeds. Torturing would doubtlessly be ineffective, but also a waste of investigators' time.

[Arkana]

6. YOU ARE NOT JACK BAUER, THIS IS NOT "24", AND SITUATIONS LIKE THIS DO NOT HAPPEN.

THAT IS ALL.

MORONS.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

7. For the record my response was supposed to be sarcastic and I should have used the smiley.

Part of my point is that there IS NO TICKING TIME BOMB scenario as you have stated.

[Arkana]

11. I know.

My answer is more posed towards the millions of idiots who ask this question unironically.

[Arkana]

10. Dammit.

I are not target reply post so good.

[lunatica]

8. Well if you've been torturing someone for months wouldn't that 'imminent'

Have happened months ago? Or is 'imminent' now something that will happen in, say, two to three years in the future?

They are so stupid!

[TheKentuckian]

9. Even if we take this mad leap of logic

I'd argue these are the circumstances that are the reason behind the power of the pardon. There is no reason to make an extreme contingency the law of the land when it clearly is the fit for specific relief.

If "Jack Bauer" needs to overreach in an isolated situation to save American lives then the President is perfectly capable of letting him off the hook. The attempt to argue this wild exception to reality is justification for law to cover it in a blanket fashion is clearly a clumsy exercise in logic. Or a shoddy veil for something altogether more frightening.

[WinkyDink]

13. Post title isn't quoting MY ideas; I'm quoting THEIRS. And I don't watch "24".

[Uncle Joe]

14. I believe the question is, If we knew an attack was imminent because the President had

a Presidential Daily Briefing titled 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,' should the President be water boarded in to reading the PDB?

[Duer 157099]

15. "could it be because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, et al. are CRIMINAL PSYCHOPATHS?"

Yes?