I'm not happy about this flap with Pelosi, because I think it's distracting from the more important central issue of serious crimes committed by government officials. Not that the four people Congress are blameless in any way, but that the people who ordered torture to take place deserve first attention.

Notice that Pelosi is being questioned to a degree that Dick Cheney, as yet, has not.

Some of the commentary has gotten to the stage where torture seems to be legal when Republicans order it, but illegal once there's a chance of attacking a Democrat. That's an exaggeration, of course, but the moral equivalence being bandied about defies belief.

From what I read the torture was legal under Bush. Obama made this illegal immediately after taking office. I think they are looking at the legality and or the actual methods used. I believe some of the methods introduced in 2002 do not reflect the actual methods used in 2003, ie waterboarding. Some more is coming to light at the moment. I think Cheney will be questioned. GW Bush will be questioned. More to come. But yes, the Pelosi issue is an distraction but she will become part of the larger picture because she did not protect back in 2002 or 2003. A 'letter' was sent and she expressed her concern, to whom we do not know.

Here is a good article in today's news:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051404240.html

They just might unearth more than they care too.

Torture isn't legal.

From the article link above. 'Techniques Presidnet Obama banned.' Torture in the word illegal but some techniques not? Very gray area, no? So, what exactly was not illegal in the eyes that ran the show in 2002-2003?

The fact that Obama banned torture doesn't meant that it was legal before.

Note from former Senator Bob Graham, who had the same suposed briefings as Pelosi -

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar...ot-talking.php

In steps the gray area. Bare with me, Obama takes the helm and immediately bands certain techniques. So, what are these certain techniques and are they considered torture? What exactly was Obama banning if it was illegal to begin with?

I'm getting a headache:oops:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22550.html

Oh my, she needs to stop talking.

Yea, talk about torture, did you see that conference :o

No kidding. And I've already (100 times over) stated the conditions and form of torture I agree with.

So, what's your point?

Richard Cohen, a notorious lefty, wrote an intriguing piece in the Washington Post that ran this Tuesday, entitled "What if Cheney's Right"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051102668.html

An excerpt:The fact is that there are two essential views, here: torture in certain cases is okay, and torture never is okay. The problem with the latter view is that many on the left tend to try to support it by making the absurd claim that torture hardly ever (if not "never") works.

The question that should be debated (but is often glossed over) is whether or not torture should be employed in specific cases, respecting specific guidelines, in order to attempt to save innocent lives.

As far as I'm concerned, there is little to no doubt that waterboarding is an effective technique at information extraction. The argument that subjects would simply say anything makes little sense, as the technique is used to glean specifics and therefore any nonsense would be easily identifiable.

So, here's the question: if we have reasonable suspicions that a captured terrorist has valuable information that can SAVE LIVES, and other techniques have failed at extracting that information, should strictly limited applications of torture be permitted? Why/why not?

Good article on Cheney. He is very adament about these memos so I suspect there really is something in there.


Very gray area. What is list of approved "enhanced techiques'? What constitutes torture by definition? Physical? Emotional? None? Sleep deprivation? In the article you linked Cheney makes a good question:

After the attacks all stated the NSA/CIA/FBI and everyone else knew this was coming but did nothing. It is almost like being damned if they did and damned if they don't.

That's absurd. You're saying that a point of view is flawed because some people don't argue it well.

As I've said before, the point about torture is not whether it works or not.

Who sets those guidelines?
Who decides how much torture is OK? (I can't believe that I'm asking this question)

Have you anything to back that up with?

Have you anything to back that up with? Libi was tortured until he admitted to a non-existent connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Does that fit your "specific cases"?
What exactly are the criteria for torturing someone, then? What would your limits and specific cases be?
No, because it is wrong to torture. It is wrong to torture people in order to gain information.

What the hell is "limited" torture anyway?

Apparently Dick Cheney says it does work but the memos will not be released. He is very adamant about this. I think there is something there.

Ultimately as you stated, what is and is not torture? Who decides? When is enough enough? There is no clear defined answer so in retrospect torture should not be employed.

I have a question to the ones accepting certain forms of torture, in this case water boarding, under specific conditions.

Would you agree that the members of a terrorist organisation are right, both legally and morally, to apply the same methods of torture in the same kind of conditions as specified?

For example, they capture three Americans that they know are working for the army, but not as uniformed soldiers, and they know these persons to have knowledge about a planned air strike that will kill and maim hundreds of civilians in a village somewhere. If the terrorists can extract this knowledge, through torture it will make it possible to save the civilians.

It should be right should it not? I mean the Americans won't suffer any real serious harm, and the cause is good by all standards.
Or is this not right, as the terrorists are bent on doing, and already have done, and probably will continue to do, all kinds of evil stuff against the US and its citizens. This would only be another of their misdeeds.

I'm really curious about how anyone would reason in a case like this, given that you accept the initial thing about some sort of torture under special and specified conditions. If this rule can't be extended and more general, how is it that it can be valid reasoning for a specific nation or a special group of people?

There seems to me to be a recurring theme in the thread. It's very easy to combine "they are evil anyway and started the whole thing" + "the purpose of controlled torturing for vital information is a good one". The conclusion, according to some, seems be that evil persons don't have the right to do some torture for a good purpose, but good guys can get away with some torture if the cause is good, without any moral blame, or even legal action.

Maybe I'm wrong and you see it some other way, in any case I would be interested to hear your view on this. :yep:


cheers Porphy