Torture Report

[Cackalacky]

Let's go through those inalienable rights and see how they apply to enemy combatants.

Not following this statement. Can you clarify?

 

[GoIrish41]

You just keep avoiding the question altogether. Let's see if you can dodge this one. Take you and me out of it.

Your daughter's life is in jeopardy. Military, CIA, law enforcement, etc captures a high level operative (non US citizen) who is connected and they believe he has intel.

Would you NOT want that professional to exhaust every option possible to gain the intel? Or, like I said, would you just want them to shrug their shoulders and stop everything after a few questions with no answers?

There is a lot of things between torture and shrugging ones shoulders and as with most things the extremes are both poor choices. To answer your hypothetical directly the truth is that i am not certain how far into the dark i would be willing to step an if you are honest withyourself you are not certain what you would do either. I hope that neither of us has to ever find out. I do not think that even that horrific situation would make me agree to torture. I guess our principles are only as solid as when they apply to the most desperate situations. Otherwise they are just loose guidelines and we stand for nothing.

 

[Cackalacky]

You didn't list the rights. What are they? How do they apply to the enemy combatants that DON'T believe in those inalienable rights and are not US citizens? We wouldn't want to push our way of life or beliefs on them would we?

They are those that we hold for ourselves becaus we are "All Men". Or just American Men...

 

[wizards8507]

I'm sure this won't be a popular opinion but I believe that if you take up arms with the enemies of the United States you have pretty much forfeited your due process and protections as an American citizen and should be treated as an enemy combatant. Giving comfort and aid to the enemy is treason.

That's true, but you need to be convicted first.

8 U.S. Code § 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

They are those that we hold for ourselves becaus we are "All Men". Or just American Men...

Yes, all men are created equal. A lot of shit can happen after that haha. As noted above, your rights go out the window when you infringe on others or conspire to kill or cause harm.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

That's incorrect. The radical islam caliphate wants to rule the world. In order, 1. eliminate infidels inside the caliphate, 2. eliminate shia, 3. expand the caliphate and eliminate anyone that is a nonbeliever

By that logic, every crackpot group out there which includes "world domination" as one of its goals is an existential threat to the US. Honestly, radical Islam would be a lot easier to handle if it was embodied by a state instead of a bunch of disparate groups like ISIS. We're awfully good at handling enemy states.

 

[Cackalacky]

Your rights end when you start trying to infringe on the rights of others. i.e. You lose your right to life (or at least liberty) when you, ya know, plot to kill people.

Well then, we are now at a point which is a different scenario which is why the nebulous definition of enemy combatants and terrorists are meaningless. What to do with them at this point? Still, torturing is immoral and also cannot be justified on legal grounds as has been clearly established in recent history.

 

[Cackalacky]

Yes, all men are created equal. A lot of shit can happen after that haha. .

Lmao

 

[goldandblue]

By definition, those 26 tortured prisoners who were "wrongfully detained" did not want to blow us to smithereens. I doubt you'd be so cavalier if there was a 22% chance that a traffic cop would simply shoot you in the head every time you got pulled over.

Did you read any of the rest of my post It is all about collateral damage. It happens in EVERY situation of War

So the answer is to kill thousands of non-combatants ourselves?

Well obviously, that is not what we are trying to in this case. It just so happened that as said before, collateral damage is inevitable. Why the hell would you be shocked when it does happen?

If you're a sincere nihilist, then your view makes perfect sense. But I doubt you really live according to such principles.

I am a nihilist when it comes to anyone that may harm someone I care about and love. A terrorist fits that description.

In Genesis 18:32, God tells Abraham he would spare Sodom if there were even 10 righteous people within the city. We're not nearly so conscientious regarding collateral damage.

Thank you for biblically proving my point. Do we know there weren't 9 innocents? Also, I like how you use a verse you think you can prove your point with while totally disregarding the great flood of the Earth. Are babies innocent? Do you think there was a time in earth where there were no babies. Your quote above is an absolute fail as an argument.

1st Samuel Chapter 15. Go read it and tell me again God does not understand sacrifice for the greater good. Here I'll save you some time.

"This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy
all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."

What's the "greater good" here? Getting unique actionable intelligence from Islamists? Or wiping them out? Because the objective evidence indicates that torture isn't eliciting any of the former, and is probably creating more Islamists in the process.

It is an effort to the greater good. To stop terrorism

Your disregard for innocent human life is chilling.

You are correct, I have zero give a shits about anyone who's sole purpose in life is to kill people. I am mature enough to know that while you make an effort to stop an enemy, collateral damage will and is totally expected to happen.

Very few Islamist groups are primarily dedicated to attacking Westerners. The vast majority have limited regional ambitions-- like setting up a Caliphate across Syria and Iraq. They end up killing Westerners because we insert ourselves there. If we weren't acting like hired guns for our regional "allies", we'd have far fewer problems with them.

How many missionaries and reporters have been murdered??? Hired Guns???
This happened in May in Brussels which is neither in Syria or Iraq... and this is after 1 quick google search.

That's an entirely separate issue, but the ability of liberal democracies to effectively assimilate Muslim immigrants is a major concern that Europe has utterly failed to address.

No argument. I don't think it is possible though.

 

[ozzman]

By that logic, every crackpot group out there which includes "world domination" as one of its goals is an existential threat to the US. Honestly, radical Islam would be a lot easier to handle if it was embodied by a state instead of a bunch of disparate groups like ISIS. We're awfully good at handling enemy states.

Sure, but ISIL isn't just some crackpot group and they've been the first Islamists crazy enough to declare a caliphate. Do I think they're going to attack the US territory tomorrow? No, but if they had a chance, they'd do it immediately, regardless if we had any mideast presence.

Also, it was mentioned that the only reason that Bin Laden went after the US was because of our support of the Saudis. One of Bin Laden's biggest influences was Sayyid Qutb who hated the US because of time he spent here in the 40s. The seed was already planted to hate the US.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

You just keep avoiding the question altogether. Let's see if you can dodge this one. Take you and me out of it.

Your daughter's life is in jeopardy. Military, CIA, law enforcement, etc captures a high level operative (non US citizen) who is connected and they believe he has intel.

Would you NOT want that professional to exhaust every option possible to gain the intel? Or, like I said, would you just want them to shrug their shoulders and stop everything after a few questions with no answers?

No, I don't want to do evil to prevent/minimize evil. Just because you attempt to bring emotion into it by making it personal doesn't mean my mind will be clouded. The idea that because now it's less abstract and actually involves me, my logic and consistency involved with respecting human life goes out the window is confounding.

If we are thinking as hard as we claim, we should already be assuming these things could happen to us. This isn't some distant mental exercise that we've started in hopes to keep our hands off our cocks and our minds on what matters. This is at the heart of what it means to be human. Either we value human life at all costs or we believe it's able to be forfeited or corrupted beyond repair and that we are given the right to draw imaginary lines on this earth and defend each one in the name of freedom.

The freedom-bearing nation becomes the tyrant in the blink of an eye. With it's brute force, it demands all others bend the knee to it's economic interests.

We call the innocent deaths in the middle east casualties of war. Those countries did not start a war, they were the recipient of a terrible draw. Their people, the recipient of a terrible place and time to be born. We are simply too fat and too hungry to wake up and realize that our insatiable thirst for all things has caused us to raid the pantries of other people's homes.

 

[tussin]

"[G]ets it done" is doing an awful lot of work in that paragraph, because there's literally no evidence that torture works! So what's the case for it then? Seems to be little more than the psychological benefit of assuring ourselves we're clear-eyed realists who are tough enough to defeat these barbarians-- who, by the way, are mostly illiterate rubes huddled in caves on the other side of the globe. This is the enemy that so frightens us that we have to compromise our ideals?

But I'm open to changing my view if someone can present credible evidence that our torture program has saved innocent lives. Conversely, I've presented a lot of evidence that it hasn't, and yet the pro-torture group refuses to grapple with it.

I've said this before in this thread, but the evidence that "torture" (in some form) works is that the CIA continues to do it. I have faith in our interrogators that they are gathering intel in only the most effective and efficient ways. If the CIA said it worked, I believe them.

Just because the Senate Committee on Intelligence says the methods are ineffective doesn't mean it's a fact. The Senate Committee itself is split on the findings in the report and I doubt the CIA provided even 5% of the intel gathered over the past 12+ years. I know you posted that article explaining other potential motives for enhanced interrogation, but they are also just unsubstantiated opinions.

As an aside, I'm not personally advocating for torture and I think many of the methods described in the report are reprehensible. I just disagree with many of the conclusions about the origins, effectiveness, and consequences of enhanced interrogation made by the SCI.

 

[dshans]

Just to clarify:

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

"Unalienable rights" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

Some reading I've done indicates that there is a (narrow?) differentiation between "in" and "un" alienable rights.

This does not diminish the current argument ... err ...discussion.

While the declaration was prompted by "troubles" (Bogs, where the hell are you?) between colonists and England it can be applied, by extension, to others. That the phrase was not included in the Constitution does not lessen its import.

Read the whole of the document. Substitute A for a B or a C and you get the gist.

 

[tussin]

Yes, I do. Torture is one of many counter-productive Middle East policies that Islamist groups use against us as recruiting tool.

How can they possibly use that as a recruitment tool when some groups are publicly beheading innocent journalists in front of the entire world?

Not disagreeing with your statement, I just don't understand how they can justify that pitch.

 

[wizards8507]

Whiskey, to be clear, are you saying:

1. Torture is wrong so we shouldn't do it.
2. Torture doesn't work so we shouldn't do it.
3. Torture is basically wrong but if it's effective ENOUGH to overcome its wrongness, maybe we should do it anyways, but it's not so we shouldn't.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I've done my damndest to steer clear of chiming in on this thread ...

BUT ...

Count me in on the "Humane 4" group.

Not sure why people keep leaving me out.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Well obviously, that is not what we are trying to in this case. It just so happened that as said before, collateral damage is inevitable. Why the hell would you be shocked when it does happen?

When my government is complicit in the deaths of women and children, it bothers me. Such things can be accepted with sadness in a just war, but none of our recent armed conflicts in the Middle East meet the necessary criteria. So yes, it bothers me. You seem to feel that we're entitled to kill any and everyone we want because of 9/11.

I am a nihilist when it comes to anyone that may harm someone I care about and love. A terrorist fits that description.

Human rights, like moral laws, apply equally to all persons, or to none of them.

Thank you for biblically proving my point. Do we know there weren't 9 innocents? Also, I like how you use a verse you think you can prove your point with while totally disregarding the great flood of the Earth. Are babies innocent? Do you think there was a time in earth where there were no babies. Your quote above is an absolute fail as an argument.

1st Samuel Chapter 15. Go read it and tell me again God does not understand sacrifice for the greater good. Here I'll save you some time.

"This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy
all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."

I'm not about to derail this thread with an argument over biblical exegesis. Suffice it to say, you won't find any support for the premise that, "God permits the murder of righteous people, because shit happens in war" anywhere in the Bible.

It is an effort to the greater good. To stop terrorism

How is the Good being served if torture isn't producing unique actionable intelligence and isn't dissuading Muslims from radicalizing?

You are correct, I have zero give a shits about anyone who's sole purpose in life is to kill people. I am mature enough to know that while you make an effort to stop an enemy, collateral damage will and is totally expected to happen.

Your flippancy toward the deaths of innocents is very similar to Irish in MT. We've called in drone strikes on Pashtun weddings in Pakistan, killing scores of women and children, due to questionable intelligence that a single low-level AQ member might be in attendance. You're comfortable with that? At what point does the target: collateral damage ratio become so high as to make you question its morality?

How many missionaries and reporters have been murdered??? Hired Guns???
This happened in May in Brussels which is neither in Syria or Iraq... and this is after 1 quick google search.

You know who handles murders? Local law enforcement. Islamists are in no way, shape or form a legitimate threat to our national security.

Sure, but ISIL isn't just some crackpot group and they've been the first Islamists crazy enough to declare a caliphate.

Establishing a Sunni caliphate across the Middle East has been al-Qaeda's top priority for decades.

Do I think they're going to attack the US territory tomorrow? No, but if they had a chance, they'd do it immediately, regardless if we had any mideast presence.

They don't have the capability to attack us, nor did they have much incentive to (aside from our support for some of their regional enemies) until we declared war on them. Every credible source I've read has unanimously agreed that ISIS' (literally the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, not the world) ambitions have been and remain regional.

Also, it was mentioned that the only reason that Bin Laden went after the US was because of our support of the Saudis. One of Bin Laden's biggest influences was Sayyid Qutb who hated the US because of time he spent here in the 40s. The seed was already planted to hate the US.

I don't buy it. The "they hate us because of our freedoms" argument is a weak generalization meant to demonize an enemy, thereby justifying our actions against them. American drone strikes have made Muslim children fear the sky, and we continue to prop up some of the region's most brutal and illiberal regimes. If we had a more realistic view of our vital interests and committed to off-shore balancing in the region instead of bombing everything that moves, I seriously doubt we'd be facing much of a terrorist threat.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Whiskey, to be clear, are you saying:

1. Torture is wrong so we shouldn't do it.
2. Torture doesn't work so we shouldn't do it.
3. Torture is basically wrong but if it's effective ENOUGH to overcome its wrongness, maybe we should do it anyways, but it's not so we shouldn't.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) he's saying #1, first and foremost. And, it's also important to note #2.

I don't think he's ever said or implied #3.

 

[gkIrish]

Your flippancy toward the deaths of innocents is very similar to Irish in MT. We've called in drone strikes on Pashtun weddings in Pakistan, killing scores of women and children, due to questionable intelligence that a single low-level AQ member might be in attendance. You're comfortable with that? At what point does the target: collateral damage ratio become so high as to make you question its morality?.

I though that only happened in Homeland

 

[Cackalacky]

Just to clarify:

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

"Unalienable rights" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

Some reading I've done indicates that there is a (narrow?) differentiation between "in" and "un" alienable rights.

This does not diminish the current argument ... err ...discussion.

While the declaration was prompted by "troubles" (Bogs, where the hell are you?) between colonists and England it can be applied, by extension, to others. That the phrase was not included in the Constitution does not lessen its import.

Read the whole of the document. Substitute A for a B or a C and you get the gist.

I wish we have a "Find all" and "replace all" function. Then I could quickly fix that.

I also need to go back and check my use of "men" versus "Men" as well.

 

[woolybug25]

I wish we have a "Find all" and "replace all" function. Then I could quickly fix that.

I also need to go back and check my use of "men" versus "Men" as well.

So is it "raining men" or "raining Men"?

 

[wizards8507]

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) he's saying #1, first and foremost. And, it's also important to note #2.

I disagree. If torture is inherrently immoral and that's why we shouldn't do it, bringing up its relative effectiveness only muddies the waters of discourse. When Whiskey and others say "torture doesn't provide actionable intelligence," it creates the impression that he (and they) wouldn't object to it if it did provide actionable intelligence. If torture is just plain wrong, then its effectiveness is irrelevant.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I disagree. If torture is inherrently immoral and that's why we shouldn't do it, bringing up its relative effectiveness only muddies the waters of discourse. When Whiskey and others say "torture doesn't provide actionable intelligence," it creates the impression that he (and they) wouldn't object to it if it did provide actionable intelligence. If torture is just plain wrong, then its effectiveness is irrelevant.

I see that and I basically agree. I think that the argument that it's ineffective is a response to those who say that the morality doesn't matter (or is mitigated) because it helps gather intel.

 

[Irish#1]

So is it "raining men" or "raining Men"?

It was Rain Man. A pretty good movie.

 

[Grahambo]

Why Did The CIA Torture When They Knew Interrogation Techniques Didn't Work? Senate Report Shows History Repeats Itself

The CIA has long conceded that torture is ineffective. A 1989 report from the agency to Congress stated that “inhumane physical or psychological techniques are counterproductive because they do not produce intelligence and will probably result in false answers.”

Eidelson said the CIA's defense is partly a means of psychological justification and moral disengagement. “I would think the people in charge of the program want to believe that they saved lives. Psychologically, that’s far more comfortable than the alternative,” said Eidelson, who studies and writes about psychological issues -- including torture -- in political organizational settings. “They don’t use the term ‘torture,’ for example. They called it ‘enhanced interrogation techniques,’ so that they don’t have to every minute think that what they’re doing is torturing.”

Glenn Carle, who served 23 years in the CIA’s National Clandestine Service, said the agency had never been tasked with interrogating before. “I was appalled by the whole process," he said in a telephone interview. "I had worked terrorism issues for years. I was as eager and determined as anybody to stop al Qaeda and get the people who perpetrated 9/11."

The interrogation program appeared to be, in part, unethical experimentation on unwilling subjects to research which coercive methods might work, Eidelson said, adding that government officials at the time were potentially unaware of the 1989 report. Data was carefully collected from each session of waterboarding, for example. “In a sense, there was a future-oriented aspect to this. The CIA did not know what effect waterboarding or sleep deprivation had on detainees. You might continue using these methods, even though they weren’t providing actionable intelligence. There’s still data that, in theory, could be used in the future to better design other coercive techniques,” he said in a telephone interview. “It’s a very ugly thing.”

CIA director defends agency's handling of torture

"In many respects the program was uncharted territory for the CIA, and we were unprepared," John Brennan said in an unprecedented 45-minute televised press conference Thursday afternoon from the agency's headquarters in Langley, Va. "But the president authorized the program six days after 9/11, and it was our job to carry it out."

Brennan also said the agency made mistakes within the program, especially early on, and that some of the techniques were "abhorrent and should be repudiated by all" involved.

"None of these lapses should be excused, downplayed or denied," he said.

But he said he disagreed with the Senate Intelligence Committee report's key conclusions — namely, that the agency's use of torture was ineffective and that the CIA lied about it to Congress.

 

[Cackalacky]

I disagree. If torture is inherrently immoral and that's why we shouldn't do it, bringing up its relative effectiveness only muddies the waters of discourse. When Whiskey and others say "torture doesn't provide actionable intelligence," it creates the impression that he (and they) wouldn't object to it if it did provide actionable intelligence. If torture is just plain wrong, then its effectiveness is irrelevant.

I don't think that is what Whiskeyjack is saying at all, but he can answer for himself. However that is what some other posters here ARE saying, and that it isobtaining actionable and more accurately, non-actionable intelligence is justifiable to ignore our morals even in the face of evidence to to the contrary.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I've said this before in this thread, but the evidence that "torture" (in some form) works is that the CIA continues to do it. I have faith in our interrogators that they are gathering intel in only the most effective and efficient ways. If the CIA said it worked, I believe them.

I've posted some of this before, but the torture was not carried out by actual CIA operatives. The program was designed and executed by two independent companies working as government contractors. Both companies have since closed shop and unplugged their phones, for what it's worth.

I appreciate your instinctive deference to the government, but the shady actors in question were not patriotic Jack Bauer types.

Just because the Senate Committee on Intelligence says the methods are ineffective doesn't mean it's a fact. The Senate Committee itself is split on the findings in the report and I doubt the CIA provided even 5% of the intel gathered over the past 12+ years. I know you posted that article explaining other potential motives for enhanced interrogation, but they are also just unsubstantiated opinions.

That's fine. I personally feel the SSCI is much more credible than the rebuttals (for instance, the CIA and GOP reports don't even agree on what's wrong with it). But no one is disputing that: (1) the CIA tortured 119 prisoners; (2) at least 26 of the people tortured were innocent; and (3) the CIA has been unable to produce any evidence that unique actionable intelligence was elicited via these methods.

Maybe the CIA did get some valuable intelligence through torture that they couldn't have gotten otherwise. But if that's the case, they need to prove it. Since these methods are illegal under US law, illegal under international law, and morally repugnant to most Americans, the burden of proof is firmly on them. They've had every incentive throughout this process to prove that these brutal "enhanced interrogation techniques" saved lives, but they haven't been able to do so. Which leads me to believe that they've been an abject failure.

How can they possibly use that as a recruitment tool when some groups are publicly beheading innocent journalists in front of the entire world?

Not disagreeing with your statement, I just don't understand how they can justify that pitch.

Torturing Islamists makes it easier to sell global jihad vs. the Great Satan. Foreigners aren't flocking to join ISIS because they give a shit about establishing Sharia law in Iraq and Syria. They're doing it for a chance to kill Americans. And since we insist on fighting this war on behalf of regional "allies" who can't even be bothered to dedicate troops to the cause, it's an easy sell.

Whiskey, to be clear, are you saying:

1. Torture is wrong so we shouldn't do it.
2. Torture doesn't work so we shouldn't do it.
3. Torture is basically wrong but if it's effective ENOUGH to overcome its wrongness, maybe we should do it anyways, but it's not so we shouldn't.

2 is separate from 1 and 3. The practical argument speaks for itself. The moral argument is this: torture is an inherently gravely immoral act, which, like war, can only be justified when it is reasonably certain to avoid a much greater evil. See the requirements of just war doctrine linked above.

In this case, I'd suggest that the "reasonably certain" requirement should rule out torture entirely, simply due to how unreliable it is, but it could possibly be justified under a set of very specific and extreme circumstances

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

No, I don't want to do evil to prevent/minimize evil. Just because you attempt to bring emotion into it by making it personal doesn't mean my mind will be clouded. The idea that because now it's less abstract and actually involves me, my logic and consistency involved with respecting human life goes out the window is confounding.

If we are thinking as hard as we claim, we should already be assuming these things could happen to us. This isn't some distant mental exercise that we've started in hopes to keep our hands off our cocks and our minds on what matters. This is at the heart of what it means to be human. Either we value human life at all costs or we believe it's able to be forfeited or corrupted beyond repair and that we are given the right to draw imaginary lines on this earth and defend each one in the name of freedom.

The freedom-bearing nation becomes the tyrant in the blink of an eye. With it's brute force, it demands all others bend the knee to it's economic interests.

We call the innocent deaths in the middle east casualties of war. Those countries did not start a war, they were the recipient of a terrible draw. Their people, the recipient of a terrible place and time to be born. We are simply too fat and too hungry to wake up and realize that our insatiable thirst for all things has caused us to raid the pantries of other people's homes.

1) Waterboarding Al Qaeda bastards doesn't make us a tyrant.

2) Afghanistan? Are you kidding me? They were housing Al Qaeda. God bless the Kurds. Iraq? Debatable.

I'm not in favor of raiding anyone's pantries and we didn't ask for this. These radical Islamists with a 9th century mindset have been poking the bear for decades. We didn't wake up until 9/11.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I disagree. If torture is inherrently immoral and that's why we shouldn't do it, bringing up its relative effectiveness only muddies the waters of discourse. When Whiskey and others say "torture doesn't provide actionable intelligence," it creates the impression that he (and they) wouldn't object to it if it did provide actionable intelligence. If torture is just plain wrong, then its effectiveness is irrelevant.

There are some quasi-moral (e.g. utilitarian) justifications for torture, but every one of them is dependent on it actually working. Since there's no evidence that the CIA's program worked, those arguments are non-starters.

My arguments regarding the inherent immorality of torture and the extreme circumstances under which torture might be morally justifiable flow from Catholic theology. It's a different and much higher bar than the practical one outlined above. The CIA program in question fails to clear either of them.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

There is a lot of things between torture and shrugging ones shoulders and as with most things the extremes are both poor choices. To answer your hypothetical directly the truth is that i am not certain how far into the dark i would be willing to step an if you are honest withyourself you are not certain what you would do either. I hope that neither of us has to ever find out. I do not think that even that horrific situation would make me agree to torture. I guess our principles are only as solid as when they apply to the most desperate situations. Otherwise they are just loose guidelines and we stand for nothing.

Alright. Fair enough.