I have always had respect for John Warner, we may not always agree on some issues. But I think, and I may be called on this that John Warner is a very respectable man.

One of those past couragous stands was back when the Republican Revolution was going strong in the '94 midterm was that he saw there needed to be a way to stop Ollie North from becoming Senator even though North is a Republican, so he put of Virginia politician Marshall Coleman to run as an alternative.  As it so happened, Robb won reelection.

I think we need more Republicans like John Warner.

for Davis, Drake, Cantor, Wolf, Forbes to do the right thing. That isn't how they got to where they are.

Don't forget the absolutely horrible Virgil Goode, who wouldn't cross the street for anything unless it was about a border fence or troops as border guards. What a waste of a Congressional seat that guy is. Oh, I forgot, 'english as the official language'. Like we don't have other issues to deal with.

Good on ya, John Warner. Someone who usually gets it.

I suggest you go to the Senate website and do the same!

The primary reason for not torturing is so that when our service people are captured by an enemy, they are not in turn tortured.

This is a simple, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Because an enemy does not return that civility does not excuse you from your moral obligation to civility or humanity. That path leads to chaos and a lesser world for our children.

What would Jesus Christ have to say about this?

It think you know what the Bible says Christ said about one's enemies, and I think you know you're both dead wrong about this.

Dead, being the operative word, to many, many US soldiers and men and women who fight for our honor.  Our honor need not be sacrificed to find, try, and convict terrorists.  We need not become that who we fight.  And most importantly, our actions reflect our character, and the best way to get terrorism to recede instead of grow is to lead the World by example how these radical tactics are not necessary to resolve our conflicts.

Alas, the age of the visionary by the likes of Gandhi, Mandela, Mother Theresa, Princess Diana, and Martin Luther King are waning, and humanity is lesser for it.

Direct to the scriptures to which you are referring?

A relativistic moral code as I understand it centers around situational ethics.  e.g. I only do unto others if they share my value system.

An absolute moral imperative as I understand it is "do unto others" in all situations, simply because what is right is right.

I don't recall learning in CCD that Jesus was a relativist.

As far as al-Qaeda goes, General John W. Vessey's comments have a moral resonance that I recognize (Vessey cites Marshall):

"The United States abides by the laws of war.  Its Armed Forces, in their dealing with all other peoples, are expected to comply with the laws of war, in the spirit and the letter.  In waging war, we do not terrorize helpless non-combatants, if it is within our power to avoid doing so.  Wanton killing, torture, cruelty or the working of unusual hardship on enemy prisoners or populations is not justified in any circumstance.  Likewise, respect for the reign of law, AS THAT TERM IS UNDERSTOOD BY THE UNITED STATES, is expected to follow the flag wherever it goes . . ."

If an enemy abides by a different moral code, why are we obliged to abandon ours?  The true test of our code is not following it when it is easy, but following it in a situation such as this one, when the code is truly put to the test. 

Full Text of the Leter
http://graphics8.nyt...

"I do not think that america should become uncivilized, about I do think that we should use extreme measures against these people..."

Using extreme measures against people IS uncivilized.  Thank God for people who understand this, like Senator John Warner.

The fact is, there are rules of war, and torture is a definite no-no.  That includes "waterboarding" and other such methods.  If you don't understand that, then obviously you're an Allen-supporting, far-right-wing Republican.  Look to John Warner and John McCain for leadership on this issue, not the Torturers in Chief in the White House.

Yeah, yeah, macho-Republican is tough and will torture his way out another terrorist attack. After all, there is nothing more manly than hurting a man that can fight back and will say anything to stop the pain.

These terror campaigns--yes, Virginia, torture is state-terrorism--only turn whole nations against the U.S. because they validate the claims that Bin Laden says about Americans.

Yes, Bush can be a tough man with captured civilian in Abu Ghraib, yet he keeps failing at finishing the real job.

Bush, another dude-Rancher, has had five year to capture Bin Laden, the guy behind 9-11. So,

Where is Bin Laden?

All torture does is make the victim say anything he thinks you want to hear, not the truth.  This has been proven since the French Algerian war through the current crisis we face in the Middle East. You'll get a lot more real intelligence with good food and sophisticated psychological methods than torture. For all the bad press the CIA gets, they understand this simple concept a lot better than the current administration.  Frankly I think Dick Cheney and Rummy have watched too much television.

Suspects who are tortured will confess to anything.  Ask John McCain.  You will finally break and you'll say what they want you to say, but the tortured suspect will remain defiant, lie at every opportunity to stop the pain, but they will resist giving real intelligence. Remember the American POW in Vietnam who admitted to war crimes on camera, while batting his eyes in Morse code to spell out T-O-R-T-U-R-E. 

Read Ron Susskind new book The One Percent Solution.  There's some good information on this very subject and a lot of information I had not heard anywhere before. 

Though I'm against this war in Iraq, I've always thought we should go after Al-Qaeda, but we need to fight smart and so far this administration has chosen dumb every time.  Going to Iraq and leaving Afghanistan wide open for the Taliban was dumb.  Look at Afghanistan now. Parts of the country are back in control of the Taliban and we're losing ground just because we don't have enough troop there to support the government there.  If we'd stayed out of Iraq, there wouldn't be any Al-Qaeda in that country.  Hell, they were scared to death of Saddam.  Now Iraq is the Wild West. The Anbar Province is in control of Al Queda and American soldiers are pay the price in blood so our administration chickenhawks can play at cowboy.  Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

I don't expect Al-Qaeda to respect the Geneva Conventions. But I do expect we should. We're supposed to be the good guys.  It's time we started acting like it. How are we going to stand as example to the rest of the world if we use the same tactics as the enemy. 

Having been in a war, I have no illusions about the battlefield being a tea party, but the moment we lose our own humanity, we become no better than the enemy.  If we want this country to be the United States we brag about--this great promised land, then we have to stand for what's right. 

We'll never win the hearts and minds in the Middle East with waterboarding and the baton.  But we can show the world we stand for the rights of everyone and allowing due process for our enemies.  If our justice system works, we'll get the proper results, and when we show the rest of the world this country stands for justice and fairness for everyone. it will be the beginning of winning back hearts and minds all over the globe.

Yes, Americans are interested in that.

So, what happened?

Americans understand one of Christ's central messages.  Yet right-wing types who often profess to be his biggest and bestest (first in line at St. Paul's gates!) fans, consistently get this MAJOR commandment, WRONG.

You cannot become what you seek to defeat.

LOVE THINE ENEMY.

And that he hates muslims?
And that he is for personal wealth over common good?
And that he preached you should torture as you would like to be tortured...

Oh wait, I think I meant someone else.

If the Administration's plan worked, then the trail of Osama Bin Laden wouldn't be "Stone Cold" after 5 years of secret prisons, illegal wiretapping, and torture.

Where is he? Where is bin laden? Where is bin laden? Where is bin laden?

The point is, George Bush said we would get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."  Why haven't we?  In large part, because of Bush's decision to pull troops, intelligence assets, etc. out of Afghanistan so he could finish off his father's job and take out Saddam (who had NOTHING to do with 9/11, and in fact HATED bin Laden!).  Dumb, dumber, dumberest.

and you cannot take a little name calling? You are a troll. You are probably an Allen campaign paid hack. You are a liar. You probably only know torture from 24. You are a hack. You make me sick. Your party was in complete power on 9/11.

Did that hurt? Imagine having your arms broken and never set like Sen. McCain had happen to him. Imagine having your thighs turned to pulp from repeated kneeing, as documented by the army performed on those who may or may not have been enemies of the united states.

You make me sick.

Sounds nice, but it's just talk.

One of the things I learned from my high school football days way back when was that 99 times out of 100, the guys that talk the toughest are the people most likely to cave when the going gets tough. 

Bush and Cheney talk the talk, but neither of them walks the walk.  They are unwilling to make the same sacrifices of themselves and of their families that they are requiring of others. 

Just like John Edwards said, the best way to deal with a bully is to punch him in the face.  Thanks to George W. Bush, his arrogant style is saying to the world--come on take a shot at us.

In fact, I understand his "Bring 'Em On" statement was the equivalent of "bulletin board" material for insurgents in Iraq.  It's easy for Bush to utter those words, especially if he's not the one getting hit by IEDs or having RPGs shot at him.

The Bush administration was passive on this issue because they'd burned up all their energies on that other TV docudrama, the one that ended up airing on Showtime.

If you think the Path to 9/11 was history you're full of it.

Btw, the Washington Post did NOT reveal the information about Bin Laden's satellite phone use (as per Disney ABC).  It was THE WASHINGTON TIMES.  If Disney had had some balls, they would have run with the slander, or swapped in the correct newspaper name.  Instead, their lawyers got scared and they cut the scene.  Shameless. 

Torture does not work.

1. The person being tortured tells the torturer what they want to hear, not necessarily what is true.
--So, as was the case in 2004, we have these warnings about shopping malls, apartment complexes, nuclear facilities, bridges, tunnels all being targets.  The evidence was obtained through torture and none of it was actionable, because the source was simply feeding his tormentors the information that they wanted to hear.  (I believe this was in reference to al-Masri).

2. What does work is building a relationship.  Isolating the target, but not threatening him or his family members, etc.  This process takes a lot longer, but it's generally reliable, and it works. 

3. The 1 billion to 1 scenario used by Cheney to justify torture--e.g. we capture someone, they have information that can save American lives within 24 hours--is a fantasy.  In the event that an informant had that information--for reasons stated in #1 they are just as likely to feed the interrogators 1,000 B.S. scenarios along with the 1 legitimate 1.  Try sorting through 1,000 B.S. scenarios in 24 hours.  You haven't gotten anywhere.

4. The pragmatic dimension--I have heard compelling stories about how the U.S.'s benevolent reputation saved AMERICAN lives at the end of WWII.  Because of the American reputation as generally being benevolent, German and Italian soldiers were more willing to put down arms toward the end of the war.

5. There's the moral dimension.  This issue is one of the great indictments of Bush's form of politically, earthly minded "Christianity".  When push comes to shove he throws the moral argument out the window.  The problem here is that the pragmatic choice and the moral choice are identical. 

Not only is torture wrong, but for the reasons stated above it doesn't work.

Why is it that the only GOP Senators with combat experience (Graham excepted) are opposing this bill?

"I am someone who happens to believe that the dems are wrong and only interested in gaining power".  Stop projecting. 

... some actual common sense and not republican talking points. For supposed free-thinkers, why do they just keeping drinking the Kool-Aid?

the person being tortured will say anything to stop it.

Just like those prisoners that claimed that Saddam had WMD. Thanks to this "evidence" the US is unable to fight the real terrorists, and instead we are bogged down in Bush's Vietnam in Iraq.

The problem with many fake conservatives is that they are sadists pretending to be harden realists.

If you are so concerned about safety, explain why Bush failed in Katrina. Those levies could have been brought down by terrorism. Yet there was no plan to protect Americans in American soil.

Bush and Allen are just not interested in protecting the safety of Americans in the U.S. It is not their issue.

The Adminstration did screw up with Katrina.  I freely admit that.  However, if you are honest, you will also admit that the Democratic Governor and Mayor messed up too.  The Democrats had been in charge in Louisiana for several decades and did nothing to prevent the Katrina disaster.  They knew about the precarious condition of the levies.  If we are going to play the blame game, let's admit that both parties let the folks in New Orleans down.

How can you say that Katrina was the governor's fault or the mayor's fault.  They turned to the federal government for help and the help never came.  Look at New Orleans now, it looks like a war zone.  How can this happen to americans in this day and age.

BTW, has anyone here discussed the latest Rasmussen numbers?

I haven't seen a discussion on that subject.  Just curious.

The federal government, Bush himself, promised to help them in the case of a disaster. It never came. If the local goverment made a mistake, it was believing that Bush was going to follow through.

Furthermore, it seems that you are admitting that Bush is not protecting Americans in American soil by implying that local protection is not the responsibility of the federal government.

So, what exactly is the Republican government going to do the next time there is an attack? Blame again local goverment because they didn't plan for it?

If this is the position of Republicans, that the federal government is not responsible for the protection of American citizens, then they have obviously run out of ideas and good will, and they should let others run the government.

"They're" not issues for Dems.

THEY'RE issues for AMERICANS.

You are hopeless.

and thugs on the streets of DC concern themselves with following rules or fair play?  Hell no. 

But do they have the right to a fair trial free of torture?  Hell yes. 

If we apply your logic almost no one in the U.S. should be allowed a fair trial.  Confessions should be coerced through torture so the accused doesn't strike again.

It's not just DC, it's everywhere in the U.S.  And it's not just drug dealers, it's everyone accused of any crime.

and everyone else who cares about the US Constitution and American values. 

Now, as far as calling Democrats racist, you're following in the fine footsteps of I. Publius, recently banned from RK for constant ad hominem attacks and other crazy comments.

You already said in another thread that you don't care about racism.

Yet you are trying to inject words that were never said into an accusation of racism.

It seems that you are overly interested in finding racism now. This is a good place for you to explain why

Republicans coddle racism

Why aren't you so upset about the noose that Allen had in front of his office? This is not only a sign of racism, it is a sign of terrorism, similar to having a burning cross.

So,

Why do Republicans coddle racists like Allen?

was directed at the fact that the District has had one of the higher violent crime rates in the region for many years.  Nothing more to it.  But after re-reading it I realized it did not across like I intended, which is why I posted the second comment immediately afterward.  Nonetheless, I apologize for the misleading tone of my first post.

Back to the point I WAS making: Your argument was that the terrorists, supposedly all non-American (anyone remember Oklahoma City?), are ruthless and pose an ever present danger to American citizens.  I agree.  But I say the same applies to murders and rapists.  They are ugly, ruthless criminals who prey on innocent Americans. 

There is a much greater chance (for any of us) of being a victim of an old fashioned murder than of being a victim of terror.  So by your logic, we would all be better off if we suspend the constitution in favor of public safety.

And yes, I think justice is universal.  If we need a kangaroo court to convict someone of terrorism then our investigators haven't done a very good job or they don't have very good evidence.  That isn't justice and it doesn't give me any level of confidence that the real terrorists have been thwarted.

but my question to you is how can a civilized society expect to defeat an enemy that is attacking it and will stoop to any level to bring about it's destruction, unless you adapt your responses and tactics to meet the enemy head on.  I do not see how America can expect to defeat terrorism by using normal rules of engagement when the enemy is not following the very same rules. 

It is like trying to play a game of baseball with one team using a bat to hit the ball and the another team using a two foot wide plank with a handle. 

That's one of the big problems with this White House they obsess over tactics.  Their thinking stinks at a strategic level.

Using suicide bombers and attacking civilian populations is a tactic designed to create fear and chaos.  As far as the larger strategic aim of creating an Islamic caliphite from Pakistan to Algeria--this is what is called a delusion.  The terrorists tactics undercut their objective.

From our perspective, our question is "How do we keep al Qaeda from attacking America?"

On a strategic level you look at economic, diplomatic, and military levers.  This White House only thinks in terms of the military levers, and even in that regard it doesn't know what it's doing.

The strategic aim in Iraq was winning "hearts and minds" of ordinary Iraqis.  Because we lost sight of the strategic aims early--in fact because the strategic only accounted for flowers and being welcomed as victors--we lost the initiative.  We allowed commanders to round up males 18 to 55 and send them off to detention by the hundreds; we allowed family members to be taken hostage in place of suspects; we have Abu Ghraib and other instances.  Our torture policy works against our strategic goal not only in Iraq, but in the war against militant fundamentalists.  The tactic of torturing suspected terrorists, undermines our strategic aims.

I emphasize: "suspected terrorists" because we have tortured civilians who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.  This is documented, and it is one of the reasons that we are having such a hard time in Iraq right now. 

Yes, we must adapt our tactics to defeat the enemy.  But that adaptation has to do with fighting an intelligent war, not a body bag war.  We will lose if our goal and tactic is simply to kill terrorists - there will always be more of them. 

And stooping to their level won't win it either - it'll just make us more like them. 

One of the things that make this country great is that we're NOT like them.  We have higher standards and greater respect for the rights of people.  Let's not sell out and lose part of what makes us great in the name of fear.

from Colin Powell, from John Vessey, and from 29 retired military leaders (see list below) on this subject?  First, here's Colin Powell:

The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.  To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts.  Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.

Now, here's an excerpt from the military leaders' letter:

...If degradation, humiliation, physical and mental brutalization of prisoners is decriminalized or considered permissible under a restrictive interpretation of Common Article 3, we will forfeit all credible objections should such barbaric practices be inflicted upon American prisoners.

This is not just a theoretical concern. We have people deployed right now in theaters where Common Article 3 is the only source of legal protection should they be captured. If we allow that standard to be eroded, we put their safety at greater risk.

Finally, here's former U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, John Vessey:

If such legislation is being considered, I fear that it may weaken America in two respects. First, it would undermine the moral basis which has generally guided our conduct in war throughout our history. Second, it could give opponents a legal argument for the mistreatment of Americans being held prisoner in times of war.

Does this cover it for ya?

P.S.  Here's the list of signatories I promised:

General Joseph Hoar, USMC (Ret.)
General John Shalikashvili, USA (Ret.)
Admiral Stansfield Turner, USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, Jr., USA (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy, USA (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Albert H. Konetzni Jr., USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Charles Otstott, USA (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, USN (Ret.)
Major General John Batiste, USA (Ret.)
Major General Eugene Fox, USA (Ret.)
Major General John L. Fugh, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Don Guter, USN (Ret.)
Major General Fred E. Haynes, USMC (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, USN (Ret.)
Major General Melvyn Montano, ANG (Ret.)
Major General Gerald T. Sajer, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General David M. Brahms, USMC (Ret.)
Brigadier General James P. Cullen, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General David R. Irvine, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General John H. Johns, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Richard O'Meara, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Murray G. Sagsveen, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Anthony Verrengia, USAF (Ret.)
Brigadier General Stephen N. Xenakis, USA (Ret.)
Ambassador Pete Peterson, USAF (Ret.)
Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson, USA (Ret.)
Honorable William H. Taft IV

Blackamerican....it is YOU who doesn't understand the Consitution!!!!

That precious document is based in ALL humankind's NATURAL INHERENT RIGHTS.  You are SORELY mistaken that it does not apply to people who don't happen to be US citizens.  Non-citizens in this country, or anywhere US law has effect, are EQUALLY protected by this constitution....

It is simply amazing that someone "black" as you advertise is so out of touch with the Bill of Rights, the US Constitution, and the civil rights that they give you.  Did you not learn anything in civics class?

If the constitution speaks of rights that are inherent in all humankind, why would I need a bill of rights, constitution or civil rights to "give" these rights to me.  You make no sense.

Also, the constitution when written, denied black africans, slaves, rights and treated them as chattel.  I have read the constitution and to say that the US constitution applies to all humankind is an arrogant statement to say the least.  As I read the constitution, it applies to US citizens who reside in states that make up the United States of America.  Here is the preamble in case you need a refresher course.  ""We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Individuals who are in this country illegally do not have the protections of the US Constitution, because they are not US citizens.

I have a hard time caring about whether Bin Laden and his followers are tortured (even if you can forget that no association with Bin Laden has been proven for most of these Victims of War, and we have created our our enemies where they are concerned). What I DO care about is the poorly supplied, inadequately prepared 18-year old who is ordered to torture. What happens to him? What about Pfc. Steven D. Green, who snapped over there?  What happens to the 40 year old father of 3 who is ordered to torture? His family pays a terrible price for his anguish. Our medical system pays a terrible price.

The people over there have already volunteered to lay down their lives for us.  We owe them at a minimum, the promise that they will be fighting for honorable principles.  We have no right to send someone's family member to war and order them to perform atrocities.  Bush certainly has even less of a right to do that than anyone who served. This would be true even if it HAD been an unavoidable war, and even if it were Bin Laden himself.

Before McCain sold his soul for the chance of the presidency, he said "It's not about who they are. It's about who we are."

And if it worked, wouldn't we have OBL by now? (Or is "W" even THAT incompetent?)

...something tells me he will act very similarly to John Warner, with integrity and independence, willing to stand up to a President of EITHER party who has gone outside the bounds of American law, values, and the Constitution.

He's twice the man that Warner is.

From The Hill newspaper (April 4, 2006):

Besides McCain, Webb has at least one more fan among defense-minded Senate Republicans. Allen’s home-state GOP colleague, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman and former Navy Secretary John Warner, tried to recruit Webb to run in a 1994 Virginia Senate primary against eventual Republican nominee Oliver North.

“He has the potential of being a serious and formidable candidate,� Warner said in a recent interview.

Warner, calling himself a great admirer of Webb’s military career, said he is loyal to Allen but will not disparage Webb during the campaign. Perhaps that is because Warner also feels some loyalty to Webb, who once served on Warner’s Navy secretary staff.

In a Senate floor speech about the location of an Air Force memorial in 1997, Warner called Webb “a very solid, fair-minded, and … objective person.�

let's let John Warner speak for John Warner!

Isn't even a real senator. He is Bush's clone voting in the Senate along with himself.

Where was Allen during Vietnam? That is right: he was flying the confederate flag while playing cowboy in California.

Don't insult veterans, "black"american, especially when you back chickenhawk Felix Allen.

In a post in three previous threads, one directly to you. You never responded. You are simply to laugh at at this point.

like most of these trolls.

Can't defend his positions. Runs away as soon as the first counter-argument is made. Dodge, dodge, dodge.

This from the anon who just trundled out the tired old man measuring stick clichè?  (see your ½ the man bit above).

This is tiresome. Really. 

When called on a mistake on your part, you try to trick yourself into the high ground.

You insulted a veteran for partisan reasons. Y

ou may not like Webb for senator, but there is no reason why you should insult him the way you did.

You can't debate. You either use cheap rhetorical tricks like your last post, or you just cut-and-run when confronted.

You refuse to answer my questions and those from other users. This seems to indicate that you are afraid of engaging in a real discussion because, well, you know you will lose.

But I am willing to give you another chance. Answer my question:

Why do Republicans, and yourself, coddle racists like Allen?

Cheap rhetorical trick, "black"american. Attempting to generalize something that is very specific.

Here, you will see that the name chicken hawk only belongs to a very specific class of people:

Let's define a chicken hawk:

A warmonger who didn't serve in the military himself himself, but is too eager for other people to fight wars.

Who are not chiken
If you didn't serve, but are against the war, you are not a chiken hawk.

If you served, and are against the war, you are not a chicken hawk.

If you are in favor of the war, but got rejected by the military, you are not a chicken hawk.

Even if you didn't serve, were in favor of the war, but changed your mind once you saw no point for it, then you are not a chicken hawk.

You see, there are many ways to avoid the name. Again, you are only a chiken hawk when you are a war hawk who never served.

Who is a chicken hawk:

Allen is in favor of waging the war in Iraq "as long as it takes." Yet he never served.

Thus, a chickenhawk.

And a cheap chicken hawk for that matter.

Allen voted twice against bills that would provide body armor to those who actually serve in combat.

He doesn't even care enough about our soldiers to spend the money to protect their lives, an expense that no American would object too...expect for chicken hawk Allen that is.

There's a reason he's half of the namesake with the Warner of the Week.

P.S.
Guys, just ignore blackamerican, I.Pubs, and all of the other trolls.  The more you comment on them, the more attention you bring to them.

... the more they come on here to argue, the more desperate they feel about Allen's reelection slipping away. It's a thing of beauty to watch. In the word's of the mortal Shrub "bring it on!"

but good lord to hear them defend torture. That goes so far beyond what our great country stands for and sometimes I just lose it with these jokers. I know Blackamerican is just a hack, and a very twisted individual, but it still makes me sick.

Ok, deep breath. I agree with you. They just sicken me so and this subject certainly brings out the very ugliest side of them.

Was not Leee a confederate general. 

The idea that you have to use torture and such techniques against terrorists because they don't play by the rules falls apart as soon as you actually think it over.  Were the Nazis and Imperial Japanese really such nice guys by comparison to today's terrorists? 

The point of having due process and rules of law and war is not as a way of complementing the prisoner for their good behavior.  It's about maintaining a civilized society that doesn't arbitrarily arrest, imprison, torture and kill people.

We're lucky to live in a country in which the Founders and pretty much every president since has understood this -- every one except our current self-proclaimed emperor.

I truly appreciate these kind thoughts, but they miss the point.  In WWII the Kamikaze didn't think twice about flying their planes at American boats (i.e. 9/11/2001).  The war only ended when the atomic bomb was dropped on two cities.  We are naive if we think that nicities will work.  They simply do not work with terrorist.  They folks do not fear death...do you think that fear the possiblity of being denied due process.  As Americans, our first obligation is to protecting Americans not granting terrorists equal protection or an obsession with our image to the rest of the world.

Of hiroshima, nagasaki or dresden. It would have just cost a lot more American soldiers' lives. I'm not saying which is right or wrong. I am pointing out that you are mischarictarizing the nature of the end of WWII. I think the point is well made that torture does not protect us, and that to descend to that level is to threaten our very way of life more than anything else.

Conflating the atomic bomb with torture is not a valid argument anyway.

The only people that I know who sing the praises of torture and claim that it is effective are chickenhawks.

"The terrorists are not going to play nice" is a given.  We don't torture because it doesn't work; in the long run it also costs American lives.

What you see on "24" is not representative of the threat that we face, and it is not representative of tactics that work.  Apparently though, you must be a regular viewer. 

I guess we will respectfully disagree.

By the way, I have never watch "24."  When I am not putting in 60hrs at my law firm, I active in my civic association or volunteering with SOME.

In still hurling unfounded accusations, let's debate the issues.

24 is irrelevant, the central point is not:

Torture. Does.  Not.  Work. 

My opinion is informed by Suskind's "One Percent Doctrine," Rick's "Fiasco," and other reading.  Unfortunately, my friends in the service are not in intelligence. 

However, I have yet to hear an intelligence person go on the record saying--Yeah, torture is very useful.  Bush has said this, but he also says the U.S. doesn't "torture," which everyone knows is just another game of "what is the meaning of 'is'".

I have heard intellligence people say that information gather via torture tends to be useless, but I have not heard any claims that would support your justification.

I'm glad to hear that you're working for SOME--it's a great charity.  Unfortunately, places like SOME are going to be in even heavier demand if Allen get's another 6 more years.

So you're saying if the suicide bomber was stopped in the middle of his run and tortured that everything would be OK?

This thread has gone off the deep end.  Torture is bad period.  Anyone who professes differently is crazy.  Just ask Sen. McCain, the only real expert on the subject.  If he thinks torture is wrong and not in the best interests of american foreign policy, then I think we should heed his warning.  As for this blackamerican character, I would not seriously pay too much attention to his rants.

These people are DEFENDING torture!

Wait until they face Jesus.

argument has nothing to suicide bombers.  They are evil and ruthless.  Very few people debate that.

But it's all the people who are rounded up afterward in an attempt to determine who supported that bomber.  You're implying that the police/military/intelligence community will never make a mistake, will never pull in the wrong person, or will never become so zealous to get the bad guys that they take a shotgun approach.

So all those people they round up can be tortured because they are all terrorists?  Talk about a policy that makes friends.  When we're done torturing an innocent young man he is then highly vulnerable for recruitment by a REAL TERRORIST.  So instead of lower the number of the people we have to fight, we've increased the number.  Brilliant.

Make no mistake, this war will require using guns and bombs against the enemy.  But a great deal of it will also require thinking outside the box - something that you and neocons seem to be incapable of.

Without due process, you risk convicting the wrong guy, and feeling falsely secure while the real perpetrator goes free to commit more crimes.

I don't think cowboy justice makes the world any safer. It does just the opposite.

...like Allen's big netroots move is to get some trolls to change screen names and to continue to post their ramblings on RK.  If I'm not mistaken, I recognize at least one very familiar writing style.

I sure wish some real conservatives would show up so we could actually discuss the real issues facing all Americans.  True conservatives are often well-read and capable of forming and stating a opinion, without blurting out the neocon list of talking points.  True conservatives don't buy into this Iraq war anymore than we do.  This sort of waste of money and American lives is repugnant to anyone who understands real conservative principles.

Sad to say, but one of the real casualities of this war is the conservative wing of the Republican Party.  Hopefully, after this Nov, these damned neocons will be exiled to the extreme right wing of their party and left with only enough power to get their hoods on straight.  Dwight Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt would run you guys out of the Republican party in a week and they'd be doing the whole country a favor. 

 

He gave the right wing nuts something : the Vice Presidency.  Yeah, Teddy would have pounded on George Allen's head and Ike would have exiled W. to an assistant ambassadorship to Paraguay or something.

Discussing issues with a true conservative is a delight. They bring another perspective into issues, and they are honestly interested in the well being of our nation.

Among the many grievances the American colonists had against King George (of England!) and the British government was holding prisoners indefinitely without letting them know the charges gainst them, and, when and if they went to trial, not revealing the evidence against them or its source.

I am sure that 18th century King George was every bit as convinced as is our King George that he was completely justified in doing so because anyone who opposed him was obviously against God (remember the divine right of kings) and an uncivilized devil. We fought a Revolution over just this sort of thing (among others), and as a free person I am not so frightened to give up those rights just because my fellow citizen is a coward.

Senator Warner is correct. We must not and cannot deny alledged terrorists due process, nor treat them inhumanely, and anyone so craven, lily-livered, and non compos mentos to justify doing otherwise needs a good long civics lesson and historty lesson, (and, maybe, a little whipping and time on the rack to set their minds right, and give them a taste of that medieval justice they so crave).

Ok, so torture doesn't work.

There's another reason to avoid the changes that the President proposes. This global war on terror is not going to last forever. Changing the standards for interrogation opens the door to abuse in future conflicts-- and that goes two ways.

Suppose we engage Iran, and China and Russia side with them. Captured American intelligence officers and soldiers will be much less likely to be treated fairly if the US is viewed worldwide as a nation of bullies.

Changing the standards sets a precedent for abuse.

Finally, when abuse/torture is committed, both the victim and the torturer are dehumanized. This isn't just a matter of being polite, either. Going down the path of allowing for people to be hurt in order to gain something for yourself is an evil choice. Go far enough down that road, and the moral rationale for our "war on terror" becomes nothing more than the law of the jungle. If that is our standard, then we are unworthy of respect. After that, what is to stop the rest of the world from deciding to attack us? After all, the US is a wealthy country, and vulnerable to lots of small-level attacks. A precedent like this opens us to the prospect of death by a thousand cuts.

From this perspective, I would say that the President's proposal undermines the intent of the Constitution and the Geneva Convention, and greatly weakens the United States of America.

I think it's great to have the trolls here because they help answer the question that has been gnawing at me since George W. Bush was elected:

Are there really people out there dumb enough to believe Bush's comic-book view of the world? 

The answer appears to be yes. 

According to Bush's twisted worldview, since we were attacked by Muslim Arabs, then attacking any Arab or Muslim nation is a blow against terrorism, and whatever happens from that point on, the best approach is to "stay the course."

And, since the terrorists use barbaric methods, the best way to fight them is to be as barbaric as possible. 

This is Caveman Logic.  It doesn't even require thinking, just a kind of mindless reflex -- you hit me, I hit you harder, that solves everything.  If the Three Stooges were directing our foreign policy, I guess that's what it would look like.

the more they harp, the stronger they make us. :)