It doesn't matter whether torturing someone was an effective way to gather information. The end does not justify the means. Conservatives used to believe that when the Soviet Union was around.

With each revelation of the Bush administration coming forth, the more ominous becomes the 2004 Karl Rove quote about making a permanent Republican majority here in America! -Kevo

Mueller is still the Director.

You forgot an important and obvious reason not to use torture: it is highly likely to produce unreliable information.

Where are the Dem leaders? None of them has seized this once in a life time opportunity to bury the GOP once and for all as the party that is truly immoral.

Focusing on the effectiveness of the "enhanced interogation" measures misses an important question: How much of the torture and extraordinary rendition programs was directed toward uncovering the Al Queda network and how much was directed toward establishing a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in order to justify the war in Iraq.

I want the focus to be this: These were crimes in the service of an even greater crime, the invasion of Iraq.

this all relates to the "effectiveness" argument preferred by conservatives
I am conservative and I don't approve of much the Republican party has done.They will weild little power until they become consevative. That means minding your own bussiness,not overspending your budget.treat other people as you wish to be treated. This country has a set of values that the Republican party has trashed.Remember Democrats are as prone to lying hubrs and general deciet as their brothers on the other side of the aisle They are mirror images of the same problem. The voters no longer control the government. They are led by leaders who's sole ambition is to be reeleted. They in turn feed off of the money that surrounds them. They then make policy that is in no ones best interst. The results surround you and both parties are to blame.

Can I still preferentially vote for the ones which are less actively participating in war crimes?

It appears as though the Republicans defense of torture is withering towards "torture is served at the pleasure of the president". Cheney will probably demand that the presidential therapist be deposed to say that torture served to alleviate the terrible stress the White House was under from 911.

Particularly the "toture choreography" sessions provided entertainment and much needed distraction for these oafs.

The new line, apparently being propagated with the leadership of the boys at the Corner, is that the line between torture and not torture is not that clear cut, and so the President should be given deference as to his decision on where to draw the line.

I guess then that a blow job is not intercourse after all, for in that case the line is quite clear. On the other hand, may be not to the uber boys at the Corner.

Los Angeles has a library?

A LIBRARY WORTHY OF ATTACK???

Now that's valuable information!

Heretofore I thought LA was all freeways and Mexicans.

Does Las Vegas have a library, amongst the casinos and quickie wedding chapels?

Do Muslim terrorists know where it is?

Can they direct me to it?

Kind of a sadistic bunch, aren't they?

"Now, just to clarify, this all relates to the "effectiveness" argument preferred by conservatives. It's not important to evaluate torture programs on moral, legal, ethical, or diplomatic grounds, the argument goes. If abusing detainees "works," the tactics are worthwhile."

Oh, BS - read Roe v. Wade for a different example of balancing competing interests.

Or read the OLC memos - they quite clearly attempt, however implausibly, to sort out the legal issues.

Just for example, is four hours of sleep deprivation torture? Four days? Four weeks? The OLC lawyers were asked to draw a line - how would you suggest they do that?

Just for example, is four hours of sleep deprivation torture? Four days? Four weeks? The OLC lawyers were asked to draw a line - how would you suggest they do that?
Posted by: Tom Maguire

We, as in Americans, have already prosecuted others for the war crime of waterboarding. Staying within existing judicial lines isn't a stretch, and SERE, JPRA, and army field manuals have already called this torture.

Those looking to justify torturing Arabs because of their own laziness, cowardice, and avarice may argue otherwise, however.

Gregor asks: "Where are the Dem leaders?"

Actually, the Republican leaders and pundits are doing a bang-up job of indicting themselves. Far better to let them obviously self-destruct, with quiet nudges and pokes, than coming out swinging at them. I expect that many of the outrageous statements being made are carefully stored in campaign databases and being made ready for debates.

Let's get to the point, torture instills fear.

Fear is the preferred tool for population compliance by those without a majority of popular democratic support.

28% should suffice.

If at any time torture had produced actionable intelligence, sufficient to pass the grin test, the Bush administration would have leaked it at once.
stone

It simply doesn't matter if it was effective or not.

- Robbing a bank and getting away with it is effective.

- Mass Murder and getting away with it is effective.

- Genocide and getting away with it is effective.

- Waging agressive war and getting away with it is effective.

Likewise, torture is effective, if you get away with it.

Ask Nixon: EVERYTHING is effective, if you get away with it.

The only question has always been: Will they get away with it?

But when you get caught, funny thing: The bank robber, the mass murderer, the genocidal maniac, the illegal invaders, the President run amok - they all are just f_ing criminals.

We have all been hoping and PRAYING (even the non-religious among us) that SOMEDAY, SOMEONE would not let them get away with it.

That time appears to be nearing. MAYBE (it is not a done deal, not by a long shot, but MAYBE it is on the horizon.

I am not religious myself, but I am moved to say,

"God bless that the United States is a nation of laws," and

"Thank God that the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions exist."

But for those two things, they might have gotten away with it.

And Frank Blanger is correct,

These [tortures] were crimes in the service of an even greater crime, the invasion of Iraq.These [tortures] were crimes in the service of an even greater crime, the invasion of Iraq.