These peoples' brains lack mirror neurons, or empathy.

That's why they're almost universally religious maniacs because religion involves a kind of forced socializing, or socially sanctioned coercion.

It's the only way they can really empathize. It's what makes them human. Or not.

>>"You do what you have to do." And then take the responsibility.

Let me know when someone takes responsibility.

The time to argue that torture is OK is before you do it, not after you get caught. That alone eliminates Krauthammer's moral credentials.

Then there is the slippery slope. It sure didn't take long to get from Bybee's memo to MP's smiling over a corpse or using these torture procedures as a means of entertainment.

Seriously, how do people talk to public advocates of torture? I seriously want knock them to the ground, sit on their shoulders, and pummel the shit out of them.

These people are as evil as evil gets in the banal way that is the most frightening.

I know this is a place for reasoned debate, but, wtf? This is beyond reasonable debate.

I feel like we are discussing whether it is right to kill jews. I mean, of course it is an impermissable evil to kill jews, unless the jews MIGHT be a part of a plot to sap the strength of the Aryan race. Then we should kill them. Oh, I'm sorry, there's no real way to tell the difference between a plotting jew and an innocent jew, so we probably SHOULD kill all of them in PRACTICE, but you must understand the theory behind it.

Why aren't these people being egged and/or stoned? Jesus H. Fucking Christ.

The problem with discussing these hypotheticals is that we now have REALITY to compare to them - and turns out that when the United States 'legalized' torture for the first time in our history, we did NOT restrict it to the 'ticking time bomb' scenario, or even for 'high value information likely to save lives' - instead, our government immediately began to torture individuals who'd been in custody for so long that they could not possibly have any actionable intelligence.

AND we immediately employed these new powers in an effort to gain false confessions to justify military action. I'd always thought it would take years for a democracy to get that corrupt, but the Bush administration dived in head first.

"You do what you have to do." And then take the responsibility.

Wait? What is that? Saving millions of lives isn't worth some jail time? What kind of sick twisted soul are you, to value your liberty more than millions of lives?

And to stoop to debate, and to reflect what has already been said:

If you are such a fan of the ticking time bomb scenario, just make it so you have to get court approval.

Of course, you'd have to withdraw from a few treaties first, but if that's what you really believe, and you actually believe in the rule of law, then that is the route you would take.

As much as I hate to admit it, personal repugnance about torture is secondary. The legal question is limited to legality (it ain't) and nobody on the right seems to have put forward any legislation to make it legal, to withdraw from any treaty, or to institute judicial review.

Torture apologists are morally bankrupt AND they have no respect for the rule of law.

To be fair, Krauthammer at least knows whence he speaks. His columns invariably inflict a unique form of torture on the reader.

Stand by for Fox to broadcast shows with lots of ticking time-bombs in them, lots of sweet American kids in jeopardy, lots of manly-men making evil look good.

Krauthammer may be a sociopath, but he's not irrational. He has to know that his second exemption means anything goes. He has to know that it makes drivel out of his premise. IOW, we torture whenever the fuck we want, just not for fun, just not when it merely arouses our prurient interest. The Washington Post may as well give a column to Charles Manson or Ted Kozinski so we can get their ramblings about public morality "out there."

For whatever reason, it's hard to make the argument to some that the notion that "the means do not justify the ends" is not just a cliche. Effective or not, torture is never justified. I don't understand why, but that argument is a hard sell.

However, arguing against torture isn't a hard sell when we educate people that such means have no ends. The right is trying to convince people that torture works. They support this lie with additional lies such as the one that torture prevented an attack on the "Liberty Tower" (actually the Library Tower). It's b.s., they know it's b.s., but they're going to keep repeating it anyway because they know what liberals haven't figured out--repetition is the mother of all learning.

The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy.

And then the "bad guy" lies to you, you believe it because you don't know what the "bad guy" knows, then "this life" dies.

Stupid.

I have seen zero intelligent arguments for torture, presumably because there aren't any.

I'm surprised ol' Chuck didn't include a third permissable use: when the detainee might be able to provide some kind of confession, true or not, of Iraq-Qaeda cooperation in order to sell the public on your war.

Other than that it does not work, it is illegal, and it is immoral; what is there not to like about torture?

I have yet to hear an argument from the pro-torture crowd which cannot be used as a 'justification' for any group or country to torture Americans, civilian or military.

Having served 10+ years in the U.S. Army, including 22 months in the Republic of Vietnam, I will always have a special place in my heart for those serving and having served our country in the various branches of the military. To hear these assholes providing 'justifications' that can be used against our military personnel is totally disgusting!

Why the hell are these assholes not labeled as anti-american and anti-military for these abominal pronunciations?

"The first is the ticking time bomb. An innocent's life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy."

Maybe it's my lack of knowledge of interrogation techniques, but doesn't waterboarding, "Palestinian Hanging", sweatboxes, sleep deprivation, starvation, forced standing, sensory deprivation, sexual abuse, and humiliation all require time to set up, and have to be used over an extended period of time?

How do these help with the ticking time-bomb scenario?

I Krauthammer injured a lot more than his spinal cord when he had his diving accident.

To Krauthammer torture is impermissible for other countries and for Democratic administrations.

First, the "ticking time bomb" is a tired cliche most often used by people who've seen a few too many episodes of "24."

Or spend too much time reading Alan Dershowitz!

A simple test: substitute the word "rape" for torture where it appears in Krauthammer's column (rape, after all, is an often-used form of torture) and then see how it reads:

Rape is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances.....The second exception to the no-rape rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. Some people, however, believe you never rape. Ever. They are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in any war under any circumstances, and for whom we correctly show respect by exempting them from war duty. But we would never make one of them Centcom commander....It is similarly imprudent to have a person who would abjure rape in all circumstances making national security decisions upon which depends the protection of 300 million countrymen.
....So much for the lazy, mindless assertion that rape never works.

Does everyone else feel as disgusted as I do?

Krauthammer = Tales from the Crypt

Always reminds me of the Cryptkeeper, except not so animated. Seriously is he alive? Has he been embalmed?

I am subjected to his ugly vis on the TEEVEE screens at the gym nearly every day EEEEYUK

I will say in defense of Krauthammer, that he has a defensible position concerning his first exception. Defensible, but hardly a winner. There are certain very narrow circumstances where torture might be justified in the "ticking time bomb" scenario. Problem is the requirements for that scenario will, inevitably, be much more complex than the simplistic storylines of "24" or some other neocon wet dream.

If bomb sniffing dogs in an international airport encountered an individual coming out of a secure area of the airport with traces of explosives on their clothing, and a quick computer check of the fingerprints turned up a terrorist connection, there might be enough solid evidence to justify torture, in order to determine where the suspect might have recently hidden bomb. So, what you need is 1) evidence that there might just be a real ticking bomb, and 2) evidence that the individual is really a bad actor. How often will that happen? Not very.

But more important than whether torture can be justified is the question of how we should handle the issue if it arises. Do we try to carve out an exception ahead of time or do we let the law stand and allow a legal defense of necessity to be put forward?

There are certain legal requirements for a criminal charge of torture. First is that it only applies to acts done outside the US. If police or the FBI torture in the US that is really just old garden variety police brutality. If the CIA or the military take action outside the jurisdiction of the US they may be guilty of torture.

But there are other components that must be satisfied, components that were never discussed in the Bybee memo, which is one of the reasons that the memo wouldn't pass muster for a second year law school writing exercise. Torture is "...an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control." So most of what was done in Iraq and GTMO would qualify as torture under title 18, section 2340A of the US Code. When I read the Bybee memo I was a little taken aback at the fact that the the legal requirements and standards were never discussed in any meaningful way...other than severity of harm. For the GTMO and Iraq detainees, got the severe pain or suffering, got the intent, got the acting under color of law, got the not incidental to lawful sanctions, and definitely got the custody or physical control part. Happened outside the US, so everything you need to prosecute a torture case. The cases should be brought and let the defendants make their case for necessity. And for those that wrote the memos? Let them be tried under the Conspiracy provision.

But if you try to short circuit the law by creating an exception to act as a loophole, you effectively eviscerate the law.

I have been a big fan of 24 since it began. However, anyone with one ounce of brains knows that it is fantasy. For example, in this season's episodes the president's son is murdered and buried in Arlington in less than 24 hours! Funny, but I don't even remember any funeral services for him.

The attraction of 24 is Jack Bauer - a good man going after evil men. He is the modern day Superman ridding the world of evil. He is a cartoon character just like the comics.

The fact that some people take this show seriously, is beyond my comprehensive. The show is like a roller-coaster ride - exciting and fun while you are watching, but when you turn off the TV you realize it was just entertainment.

At least, most normal people realize it is only entertainment. Too bad that the folks on the right are so enamored with torture that they can't see the harm it does to us and this country.

I have lived too long. With columnist after columnist and roundtable panel after roundtable panel blithely discussing the finer points of what used to be The Unspeakable -- my disgust is unbounded.

When I was in the Army, we knew that practicing torture on our captives would make it far more likely for *us* to be tortured if we were taken captive. Frankly, that weighed more heavily for most of us than the plain morality of the issue. But now the endangerment of American soldiers doesn't seem to enter the conversation at all. Whatever happened to "Support the Troops"?

And, frankly, if the captive -- excuse me, detainee -- hasn't given up what he knows after 80-plus waterboardings... guess what? Either he doesn't know anything, or torture doesn't work! At that point (or rather, long before that), you're just waterboarding him because you ENJOY it. Sickening.

I'm surprised ol' Chuck didn't include a third permissable use

Or the fourth permissible use: when some Afghani taxi driver is shackled to the wall downstairs, and you feel the need to blow off some steam so you just go down and beat on him.

Heck, a stressed out squad might kick a detainee to death over 4 or 5 days. (Innocent, guilty, Arab, Afghani - I think these words don't matter to Krauthammer.)

First, the "ticking time bomb" is a tired cliche most often used by people who've seen a few too many episodes of "24." >/i>

Not just "24," I would say.

We live in a "Dirty Harry" society, these days, created by two generations of indoctrination on the value of brutality and torture. Every cop show put out in the last 40 years has featured their "heroes" getting valuable information quickly and efficiently by bouncing some punk against a non-flexible wall or around the room.

Of course, every B action movie shows that violence is not only the best answer, brutal violence is the only sure answer, the only thing that puts the bad guy down so he never gets up again.

The more "sophisticated" crime shows, like CSI or Law & Order, relentlessly demonstrate that the true purpose of the rule of law is to prevent criminals from being punished. Law & Order, in particular, would almost never have a second half if lawyers and judges were not constantly looking for excuses, often ludicrously trivial, to exclude evidence and testimony.

As anyone brought up on a diet of American television and movies could tell you, the only greater obstacle to justice than the law itself is that greatest of evils, "diplomatic immunity." This elitist legal technicality has, of course, no other purpose then to allow smirking, arrogant, swarthy foriegners to murder cops, rape women, and commit any number of heinous crimes right out in public. Thanks to those worthless "treaties," enforced by indifferent government bureaucrats, the cops have to let the bad guy go even if the hero's best friend is lying there bleeding on the ground. He might even get to keep the murder weapon.

So, does televsion create culture or does culture or does culture create television? Still an open question.

We all mock the right's constant use of the ticking time bomb scenario, and why wouldn't we, but it's not just a laughable random excuse/defense on their part. It's emblematic of their widening disconnect from reality. From believing that tax cuts for our wealthiest citizens are effective stimuli to denying global warming to mocking disaster preparedness to pretending our healthcare system is "taking care of everyone," these goobers choose magical thinking over facts and data every single freaking time.

They've created a parallel universe for themselves, one in which you can "create your own reality" (the winger who said that was the most prescient person in the Bush administration) to give you the result you wanted all along. And while that's made the last eight years an agony to us, it's also what's carrying them helplessly toward the cliff now. See ya.

There are certain legal requirements for a criminal charge of torture. First is that it only applies to acts done outside the US.

Not actually true. While Title 18, Chapter 113, Section 2340A of the US Code applies to "whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture", it was passed to provide the US government jurisdiction to prosecute acts of torture committed by Americans or other officials outside the United States. However, under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (which convention is also US law) torture is banned everywhere, including inside the US.

The silliest bit of this scenario, so popular among sociopaths, is the galloping assumption that the terrorist would always tell the truth under torture methods specifically designed to elicit false confessions.

Shorter Charles Krauthammer: For all we know, there could be a time bomb ticking right now, and the only way to find is to torture somebody.

I think one of the key points is a recognition that there are two reasons why people torture. First, because they want to obtain information. Second, because they want to just inflict pain.

Krauthammer's claim that "you do what you have to do" is, I think, based on the thought "Well, we don't torture people just for kicks. We only do it when we have to."

This also explains why Rachel Maddow got so wound up the other night about Obama's description of torture as a "shortcut;" she thought this was meant as a claim that at least torture worked, even if we shouldn't do it. She said it doesn't work; clearly, it does under certain circumstances. I would agree more with the position that even if it works sometimes, there are other methods that are more reliably effective and also lack the possibility of blowback.

In contrast, conservative defenders of "enhanced interrogation" seem to start with that assumption that we would never torture merely to cause pain, even though that seems to clearly be the practical effect of our approach in some cases. If you torture a guy for information that you should be able to figure out he doesn't have, then you're just torturing for pain.

...torture is banned everywhere, including inside the US.

That is true, but we only prosecute "torture" as a criminal act when it is done outside the US. When it is done inside the US we prosecute under other existing laws. It has a different name and different penalties apply. Probably because nobody in Congress ever thought that we would try to legalize torture in the US -- based on the 8th amendment.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, eh?

That is true, but we only prosecute "torture" as a criminal act when it is done outside the US. When it is done inside the US we prosecute under other existing laws. It has a different name and different penalties apply. Probably because nobody in Congress ever thought that we would try to legalize torture in the US -- based on the 8th amendment.

No, its because at the time the Convention Against Torture was ratified, there were already laws on the books that prohibited torture within the US, and so no additional action was necessary for that purpose. But those laws didn't have extraterritorial application, and are in fact much broader than 18 USC § 2340A, which was designed to meet the bare minimum necessary to fulfill US treat obligations with regard to torture commited outside of the US.

Any torture committed within the United States would seem to be a violation of, at a minimum, one or the other, or both, of 18 USC §§ 241-242 (civil rights protections which have punishments ranging up to death) and § 2441 (regarding war crimes, which has punishments ranging up to death), and in many cases may violate any of a wide range of other criminal laws.

Paraphrasing myself from January 18th in regards to Senator Cornyn's almost identical "justification":

Imagine the following:

Your daughter has been kidnapped by al queda.

The CIA bursts into the room and there are five suspects. All deny involvement. Do you torture the 4 innocent ones too? Or does being in al queda mean we don't care?

Same scenario, all we have is a name, though, and the four men with our suspect are NOT al queda. Do we torture all 5 because in order to make an omelette, you have to crack a few eggs?

Same scenario, but the five in the room are all 13-15 years of age.

Again, the same scenario, but the room is in a Saudi school for diplomats and up to four international incidents may be created.

Answer ALL the questions please, Mr. Krauthammer. Implausibility of the scenario is not germane.
Any of these could happen on an episode of "24".

I read the K's first few paragraphs, and quit when it became obvious that he was saying torture is never permissible except when it is convenient.