Do you support forced interrogation/torture of suspected Terrorists?

Great Debates
321

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]
There has to be a pretty firm definition of what constitutes “known”.
[/QUOTE]
In our legal system, for someone to be considered a Known Criminal, a person goes through an adversarial system in which there’s an opportunity to challenge the government’s assumptions in front of an impartial party (a judge) and even one’s peers (the jury). Since the time of the Magna Carta, the system of laws we live under has recognized that the government cannot be trusted to make its own decisions affecting the life and safety of people without some type of oversight or check or balance.

But it sounds like you’re willing to allow the Executive Branch to torture people unless they’re really sure that the subject is a known terrorist. Do you really think that the CIA or whomever snatched up this innocent guy thought, “Hmm. This is kind of a close case… his name is on a terrorist watch list, but we’re not really sure if this guy is a known terrorist… Let’s beat him anyway!” Some may disagree, but I’d bet the CIA was SURE they had the right guy. And since nobody could challenge their judgment, when it came to light that the CIA was wrong, we’d done serious damage to a completely innocent person.

So how do you propose that we make sure that the CIA is double-dog extra sure they’ve got the right guy?

322

And here’s Andrew Sullivan weighing in. I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees. Some principles are worth dying for.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/10/live-free-or-di.html

And the other thing that irks me is that the pro-torture people somehow seem to think that the Islamists are winning, that only by the harshest possible measures do we have a hope of surviving. And that’s utter crap. WE’RE WINNING. They’re losing, and the reason they turned to suicide bombing and terrorism is that they are hopeless and in despair over the strength and power and confidence of the liberal democratic world. And this fight didn’t start on Sept 11, 2001, it’s been going on for hundreds of years, since the Renaisance and the Enlightenment did away with the Divine Right of Kings.

And now people want to throw away the freedoms we have fought for and died for…all because they are trembling in fear of a few cave-dwelling barbarians on the other side of the planet. Islamism will join Feudalism, Fascism and Communism on the ash heap of history in a few short years or decades. Islamism is worth fighting against, but these barbarians can never be worth throwing away our freedom for, no matter how many they manage to kill before they go down to their inevitable defeat.

323

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
And the other thing that irks me is that the pro-torture people somehow seem to think that the Islamists are winning, that only by the harshest possible measures do we have a hope of surviving. And that’s utter crap. WE’RE WINNING. They’re losing, and the reason they turned to suicide bombing and terrorism is that they are hopeless and in despair over the strength and power and confidence of the liberal democratic world. And this fight didn’t start on Sept 11, 2001, it’s been going on for hundreds of years, since the Renaisance and the Enlightenment did away with the Divine Right of Kings.
[/QUOTE]

Wow…gimme some of whatever you’re ingesting. I can see how you could link terroristic acts to an overwhelming despair, but Suicide Bombing? As far as I know that’s usually linked to a theoretical desire to get to that virgin-replete Heaven that Islam promises. With the added benefit of plumping up your case for induction with a few infidel deaths. I do agree that we’re winning.

Your flowery last sentence has me confused. Are you saying that the current terrorist (or let’s be neutral and call it guerrilla warfare) methods are decended in a direct line from Moorish dissatisfaction with the Crusades? Good morning! Before you write 9/11 off to a historical rememberance of Saladin’s stomach problems after eating a piece of English cheese, remember that warfare is not the only response to a larger, richer, confident (?!?) West. They always had the ability to proceed/negotiate through diplomatic means or through intermediaries…they didn’t have to kill people, either.

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
And now people want to throw away the freedoms we have fought for and died for…all because they are trembling in fear of a few cave-dwelling barbarians on the other side of the planet. Islamism will join Feudalism, Fascism and Communism on the ash heap of history in a few short years or decades. Islamism is worth fighting against, but these barbarians can never be worth throwing away our freedom for, no matter how many they manage to kill before they go down to their inevitable defeat.
[/QUOTE]

Are you referring to Pan-Arabism? I don’t think Islamism is a very good term, as Islam is anything but a united front (see Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Indonesia). I don’t think we’re particularly afraid of the cave-dwelling barbarians, either…I think we’re afraid of the bombs and willingness to go beyond what we as a society believe to be acceptable (suicide bombing). You might say we view them as immoral.

-Cem

324

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
In our legal system, for someone to be considered a Known Criminal, a person goes through an adversarial system in which there’s an opportunity to challenge the government’s assumptions in front of an impartial party (a judge) and even one’s peers (the jury). Since the time of the Magna Carta, the system of laws we live under has recognized that the government cannot be trusted to make its own decisions affecting the life and safety of people without some type of oversight or check or balance.

But it sounds like you’re willing to allow the Executive Branch to torture people unless they’re really sure that the subject is a known terrorist. Do you really think that the CIA or whomever snatched up this innocent guy thought, “Hmm. This is kind of a close case… his name is on a terrorist watch list, but we’re not really sure if this guy is a known terrorist… Let’s beat him anyway!” Some may disagree, but I’d bet the CIA was SURE they had the right guy. And since nobody could challenge their judgment, when it came to light that the CIA was wrong, we’d done serious damage to a completely innocent person.

So how do you propose that we make sure that the CIA is double-dog extra sure they’ve got the right guy?
[/QUOTE]

Great question, Ravenman. I don’t know how you determine to within x% of a doubt that the person is a “known” terrorist. I would hope that the CIA would know who they wanted to pick up, and have a good reason why. I’m not sure how you’d measure their due diligence (Is there a Six Sigma guideline for terrorist affiliation?). I also think that the CIA has a process for vetting those captured. Will they be correct every time? Let’s hope so, but I share some doubt.

As far as I remember, the Constitution provides for broad war-time powers for the Executive Branch. I believe it allows war-time processes outside of the established domestic patterns.

-Cem

325

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
You are assuming as a given that war is an acceptable extenuating circumstance. This is again a case of begging the question.
[/QUOTE]

I think it’s a great question, and I believe war-time to offer complexities and danger so far beyond the norm to effectively make it an extenuating circumstance.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Surely if it outside the mores, it is immoral? The fact that it is acceptable to you doesn’t change the morality of the action itself. This is what I mean by the failure of relativist approaches. Or is it also acceptable for the terrorists (who are also in this war) to torture your troops? If not, why not?.
[/QUOTE]

Sure, if mores/morals remain static. Surely you won’t tell me that societal mores never change? I think the Bush Presidency is a great example of how society’s views change over time (specifically in comparison to Clintonian views). And I’ve said earlier that I find it acceptable for an enemy gonverment to torture captured combatants if they believe that it will gain them useful information.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I disagree - if you continually change your premises, nothing you do can be said to be traditionally logical as I would understand it. The key is to graft the premises such that they are generic enough to deal with any situation.

I find “It is bad to hurt other people” to be such a premise. That’s it’s simplified form, of course - by “hurt” I mean something complex, that allows for nuances like surgery, S&M and (this is an important modifier –>) immediate self-defence.?.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t see the problem in changing the premises. It just requires you to back down the logic chain until you reach the point of divergence. At the point where the changed premise affects the argument, you have to re-structure the argument.

If you allow for nuances in one aspect of your premise, then you have to allow others to apply their own nuances. I doub that premises match outside of a tightly-structured forensic debate.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
What better thread? It cuts to the heart of the whole argument this thread is about. And there’s nothing flip about it. It’s a well-known logical fallacy - you are saying it is OK to visit an acknowledged evil on someone because they did (or will do) something evil. It’s a variant of the good old tu quoque - call it the “Him Too!” or "He started It!"fallacy.
[/QUOTE]

I think you’re going a little strong with “fallacy”. And for that matter, “He started it!” is a consistently-applied defense in criminal courts, in international law, etc.

-Cem

326

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]
I also think that the CIA has a process for vetting those captured.
[/QUOTE]
Of course. It’s called torture. Which is why they always admit that they are terrorists, thereby “proving” that the CIA is never wrong.

327

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]
I think it’s a great question, and I believe war-time to offer complexities and danger so far beyond the norm to effectively make it an extenuating circumstance.

[/QUOTE]

That’s an argument you still have to make, though. For instance, what makes wartime more critical than, say, a criminal case. Would you condone torturing a kidnapper to find his where he has hidden his victim, for instance?

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]

Sure, if mores/morals remain static. Surely you won’t tell me that societal mores never change?
[/QUOTE]

No, I wouldn’t. But you aren’t (or weren’t) arguing that society’s mores had changed, just that it was OK to operate outside them in certaion situations. This means (to me) that the mores are still the same, you’re just ignoring them. Am I wrong?

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]

And I’ve said earlier that I find it acceptable for an enemy gonverment to torture captured combatants if they believe that it will gain them useful information.
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t say “government” - so you’re OK with AQ torturing captured US soldiers?

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]

I don’t see the problem in changing the premises. It just requires you to back down the logic chain until you reach the point of divergence. At the point where the changed premise affects the argument, you have to re-structure the argument.
[/QUOTE]

If you have to do this with every change in case, you’d have a near infinite number of different premise sets. I don’t know what you’d call that, but I wouldn’t call it a moral framework. Morals should at least try to be consistent, not ad hoc. Call it another axiom of mine.

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]

If you allow for nuances in one aspect of your premise, then you have to allow others to apply their own nuances. I doub that premises match outside of a tightly-structured forensic debate.

[/QUOTE]

“Nuance” doesn’t mean “change the definition as cases change” - my definition of “hurt” doesn’t change, it just requires an more-full explanation if you’re not me.

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]

I think you’re going a little strong with “fallacy”.
[/QUOTE]

No, I’m not - it is a logical fallacy. I didn’t make it so. Blame the logicians and philosophers. Better yet, blame the Universe.

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]

And for that matter, “He started it!” is a consistently-applied defense in criminal courts, in international law, etc.

[/QUOTE]

…but would your Mum buy it?
Or, to put it another way - we are not talking about whether torture is legal. The current US junta can define “legal” anyway they like. But they can’t legislate morality, and that’s what we are discussing. Not “is it legal” but “is it right”?

And I wouldn’t bring up international law when it comes to torture, if I were you. Let’s just say, I don’t think it favours your side.

Well, I’m off to bed…

328

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
That’s an argument you still have to make, though. For instance, what makes wartime more critical than, say, a criminal case. Would you condone torturing a kidnapper to find his where he has hidden his victim, for instance?
[/QUOTE]

Two questions hidden there! In the first case, I would argue War to be a far greater stressor due to the chaos involved, the lack of agreed-upon conventions (especially in this conflict…and yes, I used the word “conventions”), and the sheer scale. In regards to the kidnapper, it’s an interesting question. We have to visit relative scale again. I would tentatively say “no”, as the person is presumably an American citizen, and has rights that do not pertain to enemy combatants. I’ll say that you could, if you change the equation (serial killer, convicted, with known victims still alive…like a slightly altered Gacy) change my mind.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
No, I wouldn’t. But you aren’t (or weren’t) arguing that society’s mores had changed, just that it was OK to operate outside them in certaion situations. This means (to me) that the mores are still the same, you’re just ignoring them. Am I wrong?

I didn’t say “government” - so you’re OK with AQ torturing captured US soldiers?..
[/QUOTE]

Maybe you’re right on the first part. I wasn’t arguing that societal mores had changed (although on review, maybe they have), but was arguing for operating outside of those mores. Score one for you.

I as an American citizen am certainly not “OK” with AQ torturing Americans, but I agree in the abstract that it would probably be in their best interest. I can see that relying on the “government” crutch isn’t too germane. Not having read the Geneva Conventions lately, I wonder if QA qoudl qualify under the “hey, they ignored the conventions, now you can, too” clause? I wonder if they’d have standing?

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
No, I’m not - it is a logical fallacy. I didn’t make it so. Blame the logicians and philosophers. Better yet, blame the Universe…
[/QUOTE]

It’s not a logical fallacy. It’s a pithy quote someone manufactured, and I’m certainly not willing to admit it’s a truism.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
And I wouldn’t bring up international law when it comes to torture, if I were you. Let’s just say, I don’t think it favours your side…
[/QUOTE]

Brought it up in another context to show you that the Law is flexible and changing. I guess it didn’t land.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Well, I’m off to bed…
[/QUOTE]

And Good Night, sir.

-Cem

329

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]
I would hope that the CIA would know who they wanted to pick up, and have a good reason why.
[/QUOTE]
“Hope” is a notoriously unreliable strategy for success.

330

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]
Wow…gimme some of whatever you’re ingesting. I can see how you could link terroristic acts to an overwhelming despair, but Suicide Bombing? As far as I know that’s usually linked to a theoretical desire to get to that virgin-replete Heaven that Islam promises.
[/QUOTE]
You know wrong and you really need to stop getting your information from sites that are more interested in making up stories to denigrate Islam than in understanding the situation. The “72 virgins” line may have appeared in a few old Muslim writings, but it wqs never a widespread belief and has nothing to do with current Muslim belief and is not part of the inspiration for current suicide bombings. (What are all those young Muslim women bombers going to do with 72 more virgins?)

In fact, there is a pretty clear correlation between the acceptance of suicide bombings and a culture of despair. (See “Suicide Bombers: Dignity, Despair, and the Need for Hope: An Interview with Eyad El Sarraj” by Eyad El Sarraj, Linda Butler in Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Summer, 2002), pp. 71-76.)

331

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
You know wrong and you really need to stop getting your information from sites that are more interested in making up stories to denigrate Islam than in understanding the situation. The “72 virgins” line may have appeared in a few old Muslim writings, but it wqs never a widespread belief and has nothing to do with current Muslim belief and is not part of the inspiration for current suicide bombings. (What are all those young Muslim women bombers going to do with 72 more virgins?)

In fact, there is a pretty clear correlation between the acceptance of suicide bombings and a culture of despair. (See “Suicide Bombers: Dignity, Despair, and the Need for Hope: An Interview with Eyad El Sarraj” by Eyad El Sarraj, Linda Butler in Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Summer, 2002), pp. 71-76.)
[/QUOTE]

How insulting! Actually, it was a throwaway reference, but if you want to take me to task on it, it’s in the hadith, per Cecil:
Obligatory Cecil Link

You also have no idea where I get my references, so back it down a notch. I’m pulling a memory from an Islamic Theory class back in college, not some right-wing screed-page. I also question your knowledge of the current state of martyr-marketing as practiced by those who support/indoctrinate the suicide bombers. Who are you to say they don’t make that a focal point of the discussion? If they don’t reference 72 virgins in specific, are you also saying they don’t make the martyred condition sound pretty sweet?

You claim a “pretty clear correlation” based on one study? Hope you’re not going for your doctoral thesis anytime soon. I don’t doubt it has something to do with the martyr motivation, but I’d hardly ascribe it pride of place.

-Cem

332

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
You know wrong and you really need to stop getting your information from sites that are more interested in making up stories to denigrate Islam than in understanding the situation. The “72 virgins” line may have appeared in a few old Muslim writings, but it wqs never a widespread belief and has nothing to do with current Muslim belief and is not part of the inspiration for current suicide bombings. (What are all those young Muslim women bombers going to do with 72 more virgins?)

In fact, there is a pretty clear correlation between the acceptance of suicide bombings and a culture of despair. (See “Suicide Bombers: Dignity, Despair, and the Need for Hope: An Interview with Eyad El Sarraj” by Eyad El Sarraj, Linda Butler in Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Summer, 2002), pp. 71-76.)
[/QUOTE]

And contra, some see this explaination as a politically motivated one, designed to re-create the perps as “victims” of a “disease”, the ultimate cause of which is that which drives them. Here’s an arcticle quoting the one you cited:

And this fellow’s (admittedly partisan) conclusions:

Source:
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp496.htm

Both sources are partisan. But the second makes more sense than the first. It is hard, for example, to understand the “dispair” of the relatively wealthy young Saudis who participated in 9/11: it is easier to understand them as they no doubt saw themselves - not “dispairing” or pathological victims, but culture-heros in the service of their religion.

333

Well, when I say “despairing”, I mean that they are losers who realize they’re losers and can’t get over the fact that modern western values are going to crush theirs. Their psychology is pretty much exactly equivalent to guys who shoot up schools and then turn the gun on themselves.

334

You also need to pay attention to what you are reading a little better:

The fight is not against Islam. The fight is against authoritarianism and despotism. The current encounter with Islamist extremists is simply the most recent incident in the long battle for the world to remove itself from monarchical powers invoking claims of a god’s authority to open societies with participation in decisions and governance among the entire populations.

335

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Well, when I say “despairing”, I mean that they are losers who realize they’re losers and can’t get over the fact that modern western values are going to crush theirs. Their psychology is pretty much exactly equivalent to guys who shoot up schools and then turn the gun on themselves.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, I’d disagree with this as well (I acknowledge that it is different from the form of “dispair” discussed in tomndebb’s cite).

One of the common characteristics of the “true believer”, whether it be of the political or religious sort, is if you will a complete inability to rationally judge probable outcomes or relative strengths. The true believer often knows that ‘history is on their side’, however powerless they appear compared to their enemies; the inevitable forces of history, or God, or whatever is ‘on their side’. As long as they maintain absolute conviction (demonstrated by acts of martrydom), their side will prevail - for example, the West can be seen as decadent, abandoned by God, ripe for a fall; the success of Islam, inevitable.

We may see that they are pretty well powerless against us. They may not see it that way - can the powers of the West prevail against the will of God?

336

[QUOTE=Malthus]
Both sources are partisan. But the second makes more sense than the first. It is hard, for example, to understand the “dispair” of the relatively wealthy young Saudis who participated in 9/11: it is easier to understand them as they no doubt saw themselves - not “dispairing” or pathological victims, but culture-heros in the service of their religion.
[/QUOTE]
The second makes no more sense than the first. It selects only the aspect of personal despair while ignoring the culture of despair that permeates the society.

I absolutely agree that there is strong political motivation behind suicide bombings (while dismissing the silly “72 virgins” claim that was dragged up by the same ignorant people who like to pretend that Allah is “really” a moon goddess).

I also do not buy into the “victim” status of either the individuals or the group, which does not change their internal experience of despair.

This is a bit of a hijack from the central point of trying to defend the failed and corrupting practice of torture, however, so I will probably not continue it.

337

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]
Two questions hidden there! In the first case, I would argue War to be a far greater stressor due to the chaos involved, the lack of agreed-upon conventions (especially in this conflict…and yes, I used the word “conventions”), and the sheer scale.
[/QUOTE]

Morality doesn’t get cheaper when you buy in bulk. It’s still one person being tortured at a time. And stress is no excuse for immoral action. A reason, yes, but not an excuse. And there are agreed-upon conventions for how we treat other people. They are called morals.

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]
In regards to the kidnapper, it’s an interesting question. We have to visit relative scale again. I would tentatively say “no”, as the person is presumably an American citizen, and has rights that do not pertain to enemy combatants.
[/QUOTE]

Again, I remind you, we’re not arguing legal fictions like granted rights. We’re arguing what’s moral, what’s Right, not “rights”.

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]
I’ll say that you could, if you change the equation (serial killer, convicted, with known victims still alive…like a slightly altered Gacy) change my mind.

[/QUOTE]

Just so we’re clear - So you’re possibly OK with torturing an American serial killer to find his still-living victims?

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]

I as an American citizen am certainly not “OK” with AQ torturing Americans, but I agree in the abstract that it would probably be in their best interest.
[/QUOTE]

We’re not arguing in the abstract.
So you’re not OK with it, but you are OK with Americans doing it to AQ. Morally.

Are you saying you subscribe to the theory of “It’s OK if you’re an American”?

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]
I can see that relying on the “government” crutch isn’t too germane. Not having read the Geneva Conventions lately, I wonder if QA qoudl qualify under the “hey, they ignored the conventions, now you can, too” clause?
[/QUOTE]

Again - we’re not arguing legality, here. Are you saying if the GC says it’s OK, then it’s OK?

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]

It’s not a logical fallacy.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, it is

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]

Brought it up in another context to show you that the Law is flexible and changing. I guess it didn’t land.

[/QUOTE]

Laws change, Society changes, morality stays the same. What was moral then is moral now, what is immoral there is immoral here.

Slavery has always been immoral. Murder has always been immoral. Rape has always been immoral. Torture has always been immoral. IMO, of course, but I think I’ve put enough work into justifying that belief.

338

And you’re avoiding the question. I’m asking which is more immoral: A or B? And you’re trying to say both are immoral so you want to pick C instead. Everyone would rather pick C instead; but that’s not always an option.

And this is more of the same. If you’re presented with a question whose answers you’re not comfortable with, you dismiss the question.

But the issue you’re avoiding is that once you declare more than one thing to be immoral, you’ve created the potential for a conflict in your morality. Because you have to weigh the relative immorality. If you think murder and rape are both immoral, what would you do if the only way you could stop a rape was to kill the rapist? Which is more immoral; rape or murder? This is the kind of issue the rest of us are discussing and you are pretending doesn’t exist.

339

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
And you’re avoiding the question. I’m asking which is more immoral: A or B? And you’re trying to say both are immoral so you want to pick C instead. Everyone would rather pick C instead; but that’s not always an option.
[/QUOTE]

And I’m saying that last statement is bullshit. When it comes to whether to torture or not, there are always other options.

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
And this is more of the same. If you’re presented with a question whose answers you’re not comfortable with, you dismiss the question.
[/QUOTE]

No, I’m saying I have never beat my wife, rather than your two options of “Yes” or “No”. Your side is the one insisting there are only two options, but has absolutely failed to show that that is in fact the case in the real world.

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
But the issue you’re avoiding is that once you declare more than one thing to be immoral, you’ve created the potential for a conflict in your morality.
[/QUOTE]
I agree this is sometimes the case
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Because you have to weigh the relative immorality.
[/QUOTE]
That’s the real world, yes. But it doesn’t diminish the immorality of the less-moral action. Like I said - a reason, not an excuse.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
If you think murder and rape are both immoral, what would you do if the only way you could stop a rape was to kill the rapist?
[/QUOTE]
Another bullshit hypothetical. Why can’t I just wing him? Why can’t I pull him off? The setup is artificial - things are never that binary in real life. Yopu always have choices.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Which is more immoral; rape or murder?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see what that has to do with anything - fallacy of two wrongs again.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
This is the kind of issue the rest of us are discussing and you are pretending doesn’t exist.
[/QUOTE]

No, I’m not pretending it doesn’t exist - I’m saying the assumption buried in there is bullshit - that the greater immoral act wipes the slate for the lesser. It’s an assumption that has yet to be shown to be valid.

Pro-torture advocates want to both be allowed to commit the immoral act, and not suffer the moral weight of their actions. I say that’s not right. If torture was so necessary, it would be done and the consequences suffered. But it seems like nobody actually wants to be a martyr for the cause - they want to both have the cake and eat it too. Which I don’t agree with.

340

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
The second makes no more sense than the first. It selects only the aspect of personal despair while ignoring the culture of despair that permeates the society.

I absolutely agree that there is strong political motivation behind suicide bombings (while dismissing the silly “72 virgins” claim that was dragged up by the same ignorant people who like to pretend that Allah is “really” a moon goddess).

I also do not buy into the “victim” status of either the individuals or the group, which does not change their internal experience of despair.

This is a bit of a hijack from the central point of trying to defend the failed and corrupting practice of torture, however, so I will probably not continue it.
[/QUOTE]

Heh, too bad. It’s more interesting than the central debate, since I have no interest in defending the practice of torture. I’d start a new thread, but for the fear it would quickly degenerate into yet another pro/anti Israel/US slugfest.