[Aramike]

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.

This makes no sense. If my point is that torture works despite claims to the contrary, how is it that said point is not actually the point?

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

Honestly, I can't believe you're asking this question, either.

It is obvious that who would set the guidelines would be those who are legally tasked in doing so - you know, the same people who set the guidelines against enhanced interrogations.

You know, elected officials. The same people who set the guidelines (read: laws) for the rest of everything.

Are system of government is fairly clear on who's in charge.

Have you anything to back that up with?

I have practicality (along with links I have posted earlier in this thread, ALONG with the fact that the average time for a CIA officer to break is 14 seconds).

If the techniques didn't work, why would anyone want to use them? This is a point of Richard Cohen's piece (and he's against the techniques).

Furthermore, a former Vice President of the US says they work, and there's proof, and has called for said proof to be declassified. Why aren't these memos being shown?

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"?

Please cite this case more completely, with specifics.

Oh, and one case does not invalidate a technique.

What exactly are the criteria for torturing someone, then? What would your limits and specific cases be?

I've already written this several times in the thread.

I approve of the use of limited forms of torture when it is used against a known terrorist when there is probable cause to believe said terrorist has specific information relevent to the safeguard of innocent, civilian life. Further, said techniques are not to be employed unless other methods of obtaining the information has failed. Finally, the methods used are to only include those that do not cause permanant injury, disability or disfigurement. As an aside, I really couldn't give a damn if a terrorist ends up suffering from a mental illness such as PTSD. Just imagine what their surviving victims are going through.

In addition, I would even approve of a warrant system being put in place, meaning that probable cause would have to be demonstrated to a civilian authority prior to techniques being used. That is, so long as we can get past the politics of it.

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?

It is wrong to risk innocent lives because you're squeamish about a technique that could save them. In fact, it is so morally wrong that I consider it depraved, and quite sickening that certain individuals won't accept that sometimes undesirable things need to be done in order to spare innocent lives.

And, I've just decribed "limited" torture.