Couldn't agree more,Bryan. Let's try sending them to bed one night without dinner. That'll loosen them thar tongues!

Neo:

If you sent them to bed with a seductress, you might actually get results ... that how it's usually done.

... torture me, baby ...

Torture is wrong, any way you cut it.

Who Would Jesus Torture?

LOL.

Bryan,

OK, now. In the scenario that you mentioned (a captured terrorist with knowledge of an impending nuclear attack), what would you support? Or even, if the authorities had arrested one of the 9/11 terrorists on 9/10 and there was strong suspicion that he was involved in a terrorist plot planned to occur on the following day, what would you have the authorities do? Let's also say members of your family worked in the World Trade Towers. Would you be satisified when the towers came down, knowing that the authorities did their best to get information, and rest well that no torture was used? This is a realistic scenario, Bryan, so don't dodge the question as unrealistic.

Oak Ridge Runner- you are making the assumption that torture actually works.

It is widely accepted within the intelligence community that it does not.

"Publishing crazies and dubious talents such as Sowell and Cal Thomas does nothing to enlighten the public discourse."

How about ""Publishing crazies and dubious talents such as Molly Ivins and Rosemary Roberts does nothing to enlighten the public discourse."

Uhh, Mr. Chitwood your argument resting on nothing more than an analogy to a radioactive catfish shows your dubious talents in writing. I think you have no business providing a counter argument to an accomplished writer like Sowell. Compare your paycheck to his to affirm this.

Unfortunately, the scenario of capturing a terrorist with accurate information regarding an impending terrorist attack is no valid argument for the use of torture.

What do you think will happen, in the highly unlikely case such a thing were to happen? Would the captive hold out long enough for the attack to occur? Or would he "break down" and tell everything he knew just to make the torture stop? Or would he hold out long enough to make it look like he was about to break and then give misleading information? If you were a fanatic in that situation, what would you do?

And what happens when we pick up and torture people who are innocent? You going to give them a check to pay them for their trouble? Say, "Sorry, but bad things just happen to good people... try having different-colored skin next time"?

I guess George Carlin was right... we are just barely out of the jungle, in evolutionary terms. Unfortunately, our brains haven't developed enough to make us all that superior to animals. Even now, we seem to vastly prefer acting savagely toward our enemies... even those of us who talk about love and peace this time of year. Sheesh!

Denzien,

I make no assumptions about torture whatsoever. I was posing a realistic question to Bryan to test his veracity on the subject of handling of terrorists. I'm aware that some say that torture does not work, but I am also aware that some says it does. Where is your evidence that it is widely accepted as not working? In any event, my question still stands. What methods are acceptable in the event of impending disaster as I asked? What's you answer, if torture doesn't work and is unacceptable to our society, then are you prepared to accept a terrorist disaster as unpreventable with its consequences?

nemo0037,

OK, now what would you be willing to do to prevent a terrorist attack? Let's all agree that torture is anamalistic and doesn't work. Now, what do we do?

Oak Ridge Runner,

First off it's Brian, not Bryan.

Secondly, no. I don't believe torture under ANY circumstances is a good idea. There is too much room for torturing innocent people and so forth, not to mention it being illegal and immoral. Torture as a tool usually only gets false or innacurate information anyway.

Torture is a tool for barbarians, not a civilized people.

oakridge runner--

What would I do if members of my family were working in the Twin Towers? I don't know either.
But what we can't use is "situational ethics" or
"ad hominem" arguments.

We need sound standards/ethics in place so that when situations like this present themselves, we have a rational basis on which to act.

No one wants to die or see loved ones die either. But are there situations in which we must bite the bullet.

Moral relativism or situational ethics based on emotions or "everything" is relative (probably to what I want) is really tricky business. If we all did that--what a kettle of fish!!

You know what we need to do? We need to leave the interrogation of the ragheads to the professionals. It is they who are trained to extract the information needed, not all the armchair quarterback bloggers here.

Ragheads, huh? That's intelligent.

I highly recommend reading John McCain's piece on torture in Newsweek from Nov. 21:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10019179/site/newsweek/

A couple of things here. First "Typekey" sucks, and I have a hard time believing that it really adds much "security" to this blog. I typed in a reply to Oak Ridge Runner, and I got the most gosh-awful mess of a web page back that I've ever seen, thanks in part I expect to your bloody security. Pfeh!

Second... Brian Harper, I think if you'll look. Oak Ridge Runner was most likely replying to Bryan Chitwood (the original writer) instead of you. Just in case you wanted to know.

Finally: I'll try to reply to ORR again...

"OK, now what would you be willing to do to prevent a terrorist attack? Let's all agree that torture is anamalistic and doesn't work. Now, what do we do?"

First off, I would think that many of the common-sense recommendations of the 9/11 panel would go a long way toward prevention. Data sharing and more reasonable handling of data shared between agencies, for instance. If the FBI, CIA and other agencies had pooled their information and analyzed it properly, Atta and most of the rest of his gang would have either been caught before hand or never let into the country to begin with.

I believe that the CIA is working to infiltrate al Qaeda. I expect it's one of the hardest things they've ever tried, but that has to be a vital part of the mission. Anything they get using secrecy would be more reliable than anything they get using torture.

Finally, keeping these people completely under wraps is counter productive. If we really have evidence to convict, they should be tried in public proceedings and placed in prisons, where the world public can see real evidence that we in fact live according to laws and international standards of civilized behavior. Until we end the seclusion of detainees, we obviously play into the hands of those who want to recruit fighters, who claim that we are beasts.

John McCain is not a trained interrogator, he is a politican,therefore he is as unqualified as I am to give advice on the subject. Don't tell me he learned how to interrogate people in vietnam either.He didn't. And yes, I said raghead.

neocon---"leave the interrogation to the professionals", you say. I'm a little more than an armchair quarterback which means that I can buy senior discounted coffee at McDonalds. The professionals, you say, private islands, won't sign the new POW standards, great prescriptions for interrogations (dogs, nude women, uncomfortable positions, lack of sleep, lots of lights and the list goes on), got the world wondering again about what our real national character is. I think that we armchair quarterbacks have some real substance.

Who did you say your favorite quarterback is?

"nude women,uncomfortable positions,lack of sleep".... hmmmm. Sounds a lot like JDR's torture.
"Got the world wondering again about what our real national character is". Why are you so concerned about what the world thinks of us? We have never been on anyone's favorite nations list except when they need $$ or assistance from us militarily.(exception here to GB and a very few others) And we have all seen the tape of the young american getting his head sawed off- so much for the theory of how we will be treated in return if one of 'ours' is captured.
I stand by my statment of letting the pros handle them. (ragheads)

Very good points, Bryan, Brian, JoeJoe, Denzien, Nemo0037, and Kristen. Had a busy day and no time to comment so thanks to you.

"John McCain is not a trained interrogator, he is a politican,therefore he is as unqualified as I am to give advice on the subject."

I find it interesting that you are so ignorant on this part of the subject. John McCain is eminently qualified to speak on the subject or torture, since he suffered for years being tortured by the North Vietnamese. You'd do well to read what he has to say before you start trusting the words of "professional torturers."

John McCain may have been tortured by the nva but that does not qualify him to tell the people in charge of interrogating the ragheads how to do their job. His main concern is getting elected president. If you think he gives a whip about how these prisoners are treated, then it is you showing your ignorance(and gullibility)my friend. He is playing the middle ground on the torture issue in order to attract the 'nemo0037' vote.

I know what he has to say on the subject. He is running for office and is trying to appeal to as broad as group as possible. His liberal stance got him nowhere last election and it will carry him nowhere in the upcomming one either.imo,of course.

WHERE IS THE PERSONAL ATTACK POLICE WHEN IT IS LIBERALS DOING THE PERSONAL ATTACKING????

Oak Ridge Runner- you are making the assumption that torture actually works
It is widely accepted within the intelligence community that it does not.Posted by: Denzien

The description of torture has been so twisted by the media to suit their twist for a sensational story that most people do not even know what constitutes torture per se.
What has been shown and described in the media, of naked bodies stacked together in a pyramid,prisoners hooded, being taunted by dogs, extreme light, loud music, placed in uncomfortable positions with no actual physical harm being inflicted, are not torture. This is a form of coersive interrogation. It is used to break the will on the individual being questioned and to weaken the resolve. It is used to create doubt, fear, and an inability to conceptualize the question being asked before answering. This works and has worked for many years. Nothing is 100% however.
The following is a description of torture!
Torture is being placed in a "tiger cage" which in some cases is about 3ft X 4ft if you happen to be lucky. Torture is being hauled through a village where people can strick you with sticks, stone you, throw scalding water on you, prod you with sticks in places that need not describing here. Torture is being dragged through the jungle with broken bones and threatned with death if you slow down. Torture is being fed one hand full of rice a day if you are lucky and if luckier some type of fish for a bit of flavor.Occassionaly you get some broth over the rice and if your are lucky it might have a roach or bug cooked in it. (a feast when hungry).... being deprived of water during the trek. Being hung by your wrist or by your ankles and beaten with rods/electrical wire,choked, having water poured down your throat , being locked in a hole for days with no facilities for sanitation. Now folks that is torture. No terrorist/insurrgent during this war has been subjected to that kind of treatment at Abu G or Gitmo. There they have had clean quarters, fed as well as our own military, and had access to all the aminities of a clean encampment.
Where was the media and all the whiners and protesters when our people were undergoing this type of treatment. Why was there no outcry then. Could it be that it was not politically expedient or a politically opportune time 30plus years ago. Could it be that no one really wanted to report what happened. Where was the ACLU calling for immediate trials?For that matter where was the same bunch calling for immediate release of American captives who were killed by the terrorist only a year of so ago? Where were members of congress calling for investigations by the international Red Cross, Where was Amensty International?
When any can offer an answer then I will be open to a possible change in what constitutes torture.
As for John McCain, the man should know what constitutes torture but then again he is running for President and any definition that gets attention is politically expedient for him. He should of all people be ashamed to even allow this twisting to continue, but again, being President is more important than telling the whole truth.