But I thougth lefties were nuanced?

Hmmm.

What's really amusing is that "the ends do justify the means" for lefties, when it's in their interest and if it's a pet cause.

Embryonic stem cell research? Gun control? etc etc etc.

In every case the ends do justify the means, unless the lefties are opposed to it, in which case it doesn't.

You could call your second example the "24 Scenario" as it is the common situation on the TV show '24' where Jack Bauer usually has some terrorist flunkie in front of him, knows an attack is imminent, and is trying to pull the info out of the guy.

In '24', Jack usually wastes no time, shooting the detainee in the knee, breaking something, etc. to get info.

The argument for making such exceptions when innocent lives are in immediate danger is compelling, in my opinion.

Except for the truly saintly that walk among us, most people are going to maximize their efforts to serve their own interests - ideologically, materially, etc. Our laws and whatever ethical and moral sensibilities we have are the means or the contract we have of assuring civilized existence with our fellow man. When that "contract" is broken and your welfare is threatened, how far do you go to defend yourself? Would you hesitate to kill an armed intruder in your home that is a threat to your family even though murder is a crime? What if it is not you personally but an outside agency such as the national government which under certain circumstances is given sanction to protect your welfare. It seems to me that the perception of how aggressive that outside agency should be will be as varied among individuals as their moral or ethical frame of reference. Like a good friend who might "take care" of someone bullying you, this good friend turns around and beats the bully to a pulp causing marked disfigurement more severe than the bully ever caused you. And you might be left with regrets at someone having been too brutal on your behalf. Jay, I think there are people out there who truly believe torture is always wrong. But I think those are very , very few. I also think most are sanctimonious types who feel they will never be inconvenienced by terrorism and so the Gitmo situation is just another means for them to complain about the inhumanity of the Bush administration. But these are the same people who also yell the loudest if any of that "inconvenience" should come their way and look for any shred of evidence, no matter how tenuous, that the government didn't "do enough" to protect them.

It reminds me of pacifists in a way; "I refuse to use violence because my conscience must be clean", but they'll damn well call the police to have someone else do violence for them.

The way people really act and think is a based on ends justifying means. What is really interesting is if 1) the means succeed to achieving the ends and 2) what the ends are.

On this whole "torture/gitmogulag/Bushilter" meme, I can only conclude that:

1) Those who really are seeking to improve human rights or the human condition are failing (and failing badly) by destroying the concept of what real tortue is...and when it is or isn't ethical. In other words, they are subverting their own ends (of improved human rights, justice, etc).

2) Others have ends which have nothing to do with justice, human rights, improving lives, etc. Their ends are Bush-bashing, political power and satisfaction of their own egos. Their ends are to hate, grab power and make themselves feel better at others expense.

So question for debate: Are most "anti-torture" folks 1) Stupid or 2) Dishonest. Discuss...

Grrrr....

1. I fully support the "torture warrant." Great concept, and necessary, in my opinion.

2. Protecting the "greater good" has been the policy of this, and every society, for thousands of years. This policy has justified the sacrafice of a relatively few soldiers to protect their greater societies since the history of war. It has justified all quarantine policies. It justifies the mandatory innoculations imposed by school boards. It has justified emminent domain. It is used by liberals to justify progressive tax schemes. People are being asked to sacrifice for the good of others every day in this world, and it is frequently the tax-and-spend hypocrites demanding that sacrifice.

3. What torture? From all the FBI reports, and even the claims of prisoners, I have not heard of anything approaching what I would call torture. Maybe there's a little humiliation and discomfort, but nothing that even approaches a typical Jr. High hazing incident. I have taken jobs that impose far greater discomfort and sacrifice than anything the prisoners are exposed to (commercial fishing in the Bering Sea during college). Even many of my recreational pursuits create more discomfort than the prisoners endure (marathon running, mountain biking, cold water scuba diving). I really don't understand what the liberal wimps are whining about.

George Orwell said it well: "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Congratulations on your lucid demonstration of Moral Relativism. There are no black and whites, only shades of gray...

All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly which can -- and must -- be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As human survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempting to formulate a "perfect society" on any foundation other than "Women and children first!" is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly -- and no doubt will keep on trying.

" There are no black and whites, only shades of gray..."

Nope, black and white still exist. Moral relativism says there are no black and white (or gray).

I think this is part of our national character and deeply ingrained in our collective psyche - we want rules and laws that define us as a just, moral compassionate society, committed to principles of justice, fairness and equitable treatment for even the worst among us.

But we also want men (and in some circumstances women) who will go outside those laws and break those rules when necessary and who bear the burden of the guilt (sin) incurred by their extra-legal actions.

And yes, Jack Bauer is a perfect example - but also Shane, Dirty Harry, Bronson, and even Batman.
The torture question is just the latest manifestation of the struggle with vigilantism that's one of the eternal unresolved questions of the American Experiment.

The flip side of this is that for all the nobility we ascribe to the vigilante in popular culture, vigilantism in real life tends to be ugly and excessive, usually the action of a mob rather than the One Good Man Who Will Bear the Burden.

Some times the means cannot justify the ends either. For instance if we had maintained only a diplomatic stance towards Iraq while the sanctions collapsed and Saddam killed millions more in torture rooms and , as he planned, rebuilt his wmd, and CONTINUED his ties with Terrorists that have attacked us and our allies. Great means, diplomacy, lousy ends, eventuously losing the war on Terrorism.

Congratulations on your lucid demonstration of Moral Relativism. There are no black and whites, only shades of gray...

On the contrary! Moral Relativism is not "shades of gray," because shades of gray imply an absolute black and white from which a mixture is obtained. Rather, it is, "what is black for you can be white for me."

The only problem with allowing such strictly limited torture is keeping it under control. Once you allow it for certain cases, it becomes easier to allow it for others, and onward we go until we are using torture like it's our job. I'm not saying I am against your proposal (in fact I agree with you); I am just wondering how you propose to keep it under control.

What torture? Maybe we should drop the Leftist Codewords(TM) and focus on what we are really talking about (the ethics of playing Rap music, temperature changes, lack of cable TV, etc).

First of all, the context (from where I'm sitting):
1. The official policy of the US is that prisoners are to be treated humanely. I support that policy. A country is not a rock. A country is what it stands for when standing for something is hard.
2. Some prisoner abuse has taken place, but almost all of it is not torture as it doesn't cause extreme mental and physical pain. Prisoner abuse by US soldiers is expressly against their orders and is a criminal act. It is grossly unfair to imply that criminal acts by a few represent US policy or our soldiers. They are doing an fantastic job. (Similarly, it is grossly unfair to say that Jeffrey Dalmer represents Americans. The Left have lost their minds.)
3. We haven't reached a point at which "torture warrants" are needed. Whatever information you get cannot offset the image problems it creates. Even if you had bin Laden, he doesn't have any information that's worth it: he isn't in control of any critical assets, and those assets will change location and MO the moment he's captured. Also, the worldwide terrorist movement is already splitting up into smaller units. We can set a good example and still win this thing. If we don't win, it's because we're loosing heart: we don't have the staying power.
4. Are there any examples where torture would be used? Obviously, there is always a possible exception, but it would have to be an extremely serious immediate threat (e.g. a nuclear weapon actually being deployed) based on very good information. But the possibility of this happening is too small to be seen with the naked eye.

To me, this smacks of unbridled egotism. Those who say "the ends never justify the means" are saying that they prize the sanctity of their own consciences above all else, including the lives of innocents. "We're sorry, Mrs. Jones, about your little girl. But at least her death goes to show what fine, upstanding, moral people we police are. I hope that's some consolation."

Yes, but that's already happening today: it's the price that all of us pay to live in a free society.

Consider our judicial system. It is constructed based on the idea that it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to punish one innocent man. We could build a safer society without the expanded view of the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments and without the very high "reasonable doubt" standard for guilt. We could make a few changes to the criminal justice system that would save many, many lives. We have chosen not to do that because we prefer to live in a free society, even if that is riskier.

"Give me liberty, or give me death." - Patrick Henry
"Those who would put safety over liberty deserve neither" - Franklin

This is really funny watching you guys trying to wrestle with your mind in trying to condone torture.
All the American ideals you grew up with you're now trying to flip and doing quite a successful job.

George Orwell is alive and well.

"This is really funny watching you guys trying to wrestle with your mind"

You mean we are THINKING insteed of barfing up cliches, meaningless abstrations and crustly leftist talking points in order to (unsucessfully) score a few political points?

"in trying to condone torture."

What is torture? Rap music? Non-comfy chairs? Lack of cable TV? Temps above 100 degress for people who grew up in 100+ degree environments?

"All the American ideals you grew up with you're now trying to flip and doing quite a successful job"

I must have missed where terrorists having rights to comfy chairs, cable TV and air conditioning were "American Ideals." Did you learn this in public skool? Is this the same place where you learn "right to bear arms" is not a right, but terrorists having cable TV is a right?

"George Orwell is alive and well."

Indeed. But keep trying to convice us that 1+2=5.

"Alleged" terrorists Stan. They haven't been convicted of anything, and that's also according to the senate judiciary committee last week.

And you act as if you're the first western country to deal with terrorism. The Brits tried their version of Gitmo in 1973 with the introduction of internment in N.Ireland. It led to such a spike in violence that it had to be ended after a year.

This is exactly what is happening here too. It only lends credence to your enemies arguments and swell their ranks, leading to more American soldier deaths.
Don't take my word for it look at the figures.

The upshot of you guys condoning all this stuff is more young soldiers coming home in bodybags. It's common sense, read your history books, stop thinking of everything as a right/left issue.

Gordon's right. We should have just shot these guys instead of capturing them alive. They sure as heck aren't going to give us any useful information if we used the Amnesty International interrogation method anyway ("Please, kind sir, would you do us the honor of sharing the plans of your fellow jihadists---*ahem*, my apologies, your alleged fellow jihadists?") And it's easier to take flak about civilian casualties when you don't have to deal with the false allegations of torture too.

(I mean, Gordon DID tell us to read our history books, right? How many German POW's did we just summarily executen instead of taking the trouble to imprison?)

Hey Stan, 2+2=5.

Semantics semantics. What we're talking about, Stan, is not the lack of comfy chairs. Try being chained to the floor of an empty room for 24-48 hours with no food or water, extreme temperatures, and extremely loud music pounding at you and tell me then if it is a day at the beach. Is it torture? Semantics. The question is where does our country draw the line? Apparently many of you believe that anything short of pulling out toenails with rusty pliers is acceptable.

How much can we do to these detainees and still issue report cards on other nations' adherence to human rights with any credibility?

Now, on the usefulness of such techniques, lets defer to the US Army Intelligence Interrogation Field Manual (FM 34-52):

Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.

Gordon:

1) Alleged or not, they are not US citizens and have no nation-state willing to claim them. They have no right to trial under US law. Un-uniformed enemy combatants have very few "rights" under International Law. Your "legal argument" isn't valid (and I thought we were talking about ethics, not legality?)

2) Your second point is also bunk. The real world is situational and circumstancial, it is irrelevent what the British did in the 1970s. This particualr historical event might be an interesting example if you can provided evidence that "torture" (lack of comfy chairs, air conditioning & cable TV) is directly causing terrorists to "swell in ranks" and is directly causing "more American soldier deaths." (Again, I thought the debate was about ethics, not effectivness?)

But I suppose thinking about this rationally is "Right-wing."

mantis:
Semantics, semantics. It's not a day at the beach, but it's not force either (so goes your link to some manual).

And it's still not a violation of "human rights" despite how many hyperlinks you post (so your sacred "hypocracy" argument isn't valid). Unless you count comfy chairs, minor hunger pangs and 70 degree environments as a "human right"?

I will come out and condone having un-uniformed enemy combatant non-citizen terrorists being "chained to the floor of an empty room for 24-48 hours with no food or water, extreme temperatures, and extremely loud music." I draw the line right about this location. I guess that makes me a nazi, huh?

So where do you draw the line? Do you want them in comfy chairs listenign to an IPOD at 70 degrees? Of course this only effective in the "nuanced land of 2+2=5."

Well, your straw man arguments about comfy chairs and ipods and the words you put into my mouth about nazis are interesting and all, but irrelevant.

The sentence immediately prior to the quote I posted (you would know if you bothered to follow links and read):

The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government.

Now this:

I will come out and condone having un-uniformed enemy combatant non-citizen terrorists being "chained to the floor of an empty room for 24-48 hours with no food or water, extreme temperatures, and extremely loud music."

Do you condone that for un-uniformed, non-citizen detainees who were picked up erroneously and are subsequently set free? If you don't, then we agree. If you do...

I guess that makes me a nazi, huh?

No, just an asshole.

Try terrorists? OK, so was there a CSI:Kabul that was out gathering evidence against these "alleged" (my left one!) terrorists?

That's what I thought. What nonsense.

I think the torture warrant idea is worthy of consideration, however I think it has at least one major flaw. Unless backed up with the threat of death, it seems to me that torture wouldn't be that effective. Would the warrants authorize the use of deadly force?

mantis:

You are misquoting Durbin's, er, FBI source: It clearly states...

"...Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold..."

18-24 hours is a lot different than 24-48 hours. Moreover, if a detainee was left with "no chair, food or water" how could he possibly have "defecated on themselves"? Usually when one has NOT had something to eat or drink for "24-48" as you say, those bodily functions become very difficult to achieve. (I asked my father-in-law who is doctor.) The detainee had to have eaten within 24 hours to poop himself, to put it bluntly. Moreover, do we know if the detainee had perhaps refused his meals and water?

Morever, Durbin has trouble keeping nouns in order ..."detainee...themselves". Is this ONE detainee or many? He speaks of one detainee but FBI agent uses a more collective noun "themselves". The FBI agent also has a subject-verb disagreement in the first sentence: "I entered interview rooms to find a detainee..." Was one detainee in the different rooms simeltaneously? Odd that was not corrected in the report. A small semnatical point for sure, I think. But interesting all the same.

Your precious sentence says nothing about the application of this law to un-uniformed combantats captured on the battlefield. It says nothing about ethics or effectivenss either.

So what do you have next in order to dodge my question of where you draw the line ethically?

The "straw man" bit would be cute if this was 8th grade debate, but you damn well I was just being colorful and this has no bearing on the heart of my argument. Perception is not reality.

I might be an asshole, but at least I am not drinking the cool-aid.

Wait a tic...

Also, was the FBI agent there for the entire 18-24 hours of this detainee's alleged "torture"? He sounds like he came in and out for whatever reason. How does he know the detainee wasn't fed.

Again he speaks in the singular and then the plural about this detainee or detainee referring to them in 2nd sentence as "they". Is this to say they ALL were defecating and urinating on themselves? Or just this one guy? It's certainly very, very unclear!

Wait a tic...

Also, was the FBI agent there for the entire 18-24 hours of this detainee's alleged "torture"? He sounds like he came in and out for whatever reason. How does he know the detainee wasn't fed.

Again he speaks in the singular and then the plural about this detainee or detainee referring to them in 2nd sentence as "they". Is this to say they ALL were defecating and urinating on themselves? Or just this one guy? It's certainly very, very unclear!

Correction: The singular and plural note I made was incorrect. I see now that the agent was referring to the plural "occasions". Apologies.

mantis:

How exactly is "force" being used when detainees are on the ground in the fetal position? The FBI agent idicates no use of force whatsoever in his report. Interrogation tactics, sure—loud music, messing with the thermostat—all hardly the stuff of the Nazis, Pol Pot or Stalin.