Principles that are the foundation of consitutional state law seem callous in the face of a personal tragedy like your example describes. But those principles are what make the US for example a free nation and still a beacon of hope and freedom for millions around the world. Unfortunately for this debate, the US is used as an example because of that and the apparent dichotomy of institutions like Gitmo that appear to violate all those principles. Creating the status of noncombatants to avoid calling them POW's exploited a loophole in existing law - it's sleazy.

Honestly, everybody would do whatever it takes to save family and loved ones - but that does not mean it is right or justified. The principles of a constitutional free democratic nation can not be bent for personal reasons or you'll have a state without principles and I doubt that you want that.

Chavez is a dictator that should be taken out - he is just bad for the people and did not learn the lessons of history about socialism and dictatorship.

Does it matter what I think? US citizens have rights and plenty to scream on their behalf if they feel they aren't getting them. What do you think of the man in Florida that raped and killed that little girl? How about the one in South Carolina? You better believe in my eye's they are sub-human. In every one of the pictures they flash of those little girls on TV, I see my young nieces faces and I have little regard for someone who would do such a thing. You don't have to like my definition of these creeps, I'm not bothered. I'd feel the same if you were the sobbing parent on TV mourning the loss of a child, my sympathy is not conditional upon it involving my own family or friends.

Information from water boarding, or any interrogation for that matter, must be verified. It amazes me to no end that people think they ask questions like "Are you a terrorist". Information obtained is cross referenced with other sources. If the story doesn't match, there is a problem. You can arm chair quarterback this topic as much as you like, but without knowing what information is being extracted or how, your point is moot.

But what about his rights? Wouldn't that be sleazy? The rules never seemed to be applied equally, do they?

The double standard I wrote makes me look like a hypocrite, doesn't it. But apparently the powers that be decided to adhere to said principles as Chavez is still around and spouting his nonsense and disappearing opposition politicians and troublesome journalists.

That wasn't my intent. Everyone up holds a double standard of some sort, IMO it's human nature, just like fear, vengeance, loathing and a whole host of emotions than can't be legislated out of the human condition.

Off topic- What does the US is "still a beacon of hope and freedom for millions around the world" crowd think about Obama saying basically that we are going to give these prisoners a trail before we execute them? Just curious. LINK and here  and again.

The flip side of this statement is true as well.  A lot of guilty individuals were captured. A lot of guilty ones were set free and actually returned to attacking the U.S.

Also your reponse to Nitro isn't being a hyprocrite per say.  It just shows that there is broad spectrum to the issue and with most issues one size DOES NOT fit all.

The enemy which has been discussed here: Al-Qaida, does not play by the rules that the West has set up.  They've executed countless innocent (in their eyes though these people were NOT INNOCENT which is a dilemna) U.S. citizens as well as Afghanis, Iraqis, Pakistan (do I need to list more countries like Indonesia).

My point is I don't get why people are putting to so much effort to condemning what the States is doing and not condemning what they are doing.  In fact, a lot of left leaning people have parades for them (at least in Hollywood).

The point of my previous post was not to mock you, Utemia. I apologize if I came across like I was.  Again, one issue can not be solved with broad brush stroke.

I just get frustrated when a blind eye is turned to one issue and on the same issue in a different area it is not.

I wasn't condemning the states per se. It is ridiculous to assume that torture is a widespread practise in the US. I think I praised the US on several occasions instead of criticising it all the time. The essence of this debate is about certain principles  and why they are important and what happens when you get rid of them. Those that do not regard those principles in the same way as we do should not cause our moral values to sink to their levels. Even a child rapist and murderer gets a trial and is not lynched.

I don't know what to do about those countries that ignore human rights and are basically dictatorships where every one word could land you in big trouble. I wish there was a proactive way to change things, but as the war in Afghanistan and border to Pakistan has shown, it isn't a very simple task. In the end, you chose the lesser evil which means doing business with killers and despots. Sooner or later, they will negotiate with the Taleban and call it quits.. honestly, how much longer do you want to stay locked in this unsolvable conflict? If it wasn't for Pakistan and their damn nuclear weapons, it wouldn't really matter what the taleban did or didn't do.

Al-qaida is often attacked in the media and by people all the world of all walks of life.

Can you really say that a a lot of people parade in support of al-qaida?

If the US decided to arrest and waterboard radomn US citizens I bet they would find a lot of guilty people as well, even if they weren't guilty when they entered.

Even the fact we are having this dicussion muddies the waters about 'who is right'.  I support the US and I do not support al-qaida but do you not think that the use of waterboarding might influence people in a way that doesn't benefit the US?  I am anti-them on this and I am pro-US

Did you see news clips of world reaction after 9/11? Here's one LINK and HERE (click on the WMV button, highly recommended) and this isn't 9/11 just some good old hospitality for four Americans. This is not meant to be indicative of all peoples reaction by any means. But put it in contrast to Americans reaction when the shoe is on the other foot. For example: When Israel attacked Gaza, Invaded Iraq (pick which one), when Saddam was hung...how many Americans danced in the street? These are the people that hold their hand out to the US to fill it, while thumbing their nose at us with the other. It doesn't really inspire a lot of empathy. 

You're referencing fantasy like it is fact. Take away 90% of American's TV and cell phones for 72 hours and their tell you whatever you want to know. The other 10% will rat just to make a deal. Wire taps are effective because most people can't shut their mouths and keep a secret.

For very few rare cases where it can lead to aquiring life saving intelligence, yes.

Example 1: A man was caught on tape kidnapping a little girl. He is caught, but the girl is nowhere to be found. He admits to having kidnapped and raped her and goads the police with "you will never find her in time". Torturing such a person can lead to her location, and finding her "in time".

Example 2: A man is arrested for terrorist activity, he admits to having placed bombs with a timer set to go off at a certain time, he will not reveal their exact location. Torture could reveal those and save lives.

You don't see any difference? either you are liar or a moron. Torturing a confession out of someone and intelligence out of someone are entirely different. "I am a terrorist" and "I have set a car bomb in this intersection in a blue sedan with this licence plate set to go off at this time" are completely different. The first is unverifiable and could be false. The latter you can send someone to verify if true or false confession AND it will save lives if it is true.

There are a lot of things that violate those values, torture is not one of them.

Freedom... So prison and the death penalty are fine, but torture suddenly violates freedom?

How is justice violated by torture? Justice stands for "revenge", torture is the epitome of justice. I actually oppose justice because it focuses on punishing instead of protecting. Justice for example, means no second chances, and I believe in second chances.

Equality... If torture is applied without preference to gender, race or creed... based solely on a person's actions (ex: committing acts of terrorism) than equality is not compromised.

Now don't get me wrong... torture violates a LOT of things... Freedom, justice and equality are not those things.

The end indeed does not always justify the means, it rarely does, but in this case it does. How far will you go for you conviction? how many people you will sentence to die because you were too squeamish to do what had to be done to save them from murderous scum.

And you still make the assumptions that sleep deprevation, rock music, and a military training technique (water boarding) are torture.

Real torture is when the CJB broke all your fingers with a hammer. Where rats were set to eat out your eyes and tongue, where hot pokers were put in your eyes and ears, where knives were inserted into various orfices... Real torture breaks your body...

You did say a lot of left leaning people in hollywood.  That kind of accusation against the left wing in the USA does need evidence to back it up - film clips of complety different people doesn't really help.

So breaking the mind isn#t torture?  Driving people insane (not that I am saying waterboarding did that to these people) isn't torture?

torturing people because the US police think they might have information?  Living in a country were people who are tortured to get information that the police thinks they might have is not a country I would like to live in.

Taltamir, you discredit yourself with what you are saying.

Torture violates human dignity, the basis of human rights. I won't bore you with the detals as human rights is probably a leftist slogan for you that has no meaning. Captial punishment - well that is a debate on its own. I oppose it because the legal system can not guarantee that it convicts the guilty person. There are too many examples where innocent people sat on deathrow or were executed. You can not reverse an execution. How does the statistic of innocent persons convicted or killed have to be for you to make that acceptable? 1 in 100, 1 in 500, 1 in 1000 is OK? That would still mean that the government convicted / executed an innocent person.

Please go into the prisons in Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Iran etc. and tell the prisoners there that torture does not violate justice. It is a principle for you, yeah? A principle is valid universally, not just in selct circumstances. That means that you find it in accordance witih justice what happens there. You and good old Beria would have been best of buddies.

Only a fool would disregard the potential dangers and implications for existing law that come along with downplaying torture as a justified tool to save lifes and protect the innocent. You probably think it was just some liberal leftist pansies that made those laws that forbid it and that are now clamoring and condmning the practise. I can assure you that it has nothing to do with political ideology.

And the argument that if its good enough for your soldiers, it is good enough for terrorists is null and void. Now if it were true that the US military used practices like that on a daily basis on all its members, for example if a soldiers were awol or late and were "questioned" about the reason using that method, or flogged for disobeying an order etc. - IF that were true then you could make the argument that if its good enough for your own guys, it is well good enough for terrorist suspects. Preparing someone for the worst case scenario, being captured and tortured, is hardly in the other category. And not everybody who volunteers to join SF can endure the mental strain. The dropout rate in training is very high, or so I read. The book was about the SAS and is credible.

Not MIGHT, CERTAIN to have information and lives are at stakes.

While I agree that in theory torturing could be justified, the problem is trusting the government with such power. I don't trust them for a second with much less significant things, like taxes and healthcare. So I certainly do not trust them with deciding when "torture is justified because lives are at stake".

That doesn't mean that theoretically it is never justified. I said before it was morally justifiable, not that we should give the police the power to torture people...

Justice itself is a violation of human rights, since it is about state instituted revenge instead of protecting people and rehabilitation.

The only time torture violates justice (state run revenge) is when an innocent is being tortured.

PS. Good thing waterboarding, bad music (played loudly by someone else when you are trying to sleep?), and sleep depravations are not real torture. I wish I could volunteer to be water boarded so I could say I have tried all three.

Please explain how justice violates human rights. It seems that you have a very warped idea about what those things mean. Justice is not about state instituted revenge but rather about compensating those who were wronged and ensuring that the laws are respected - and most of the time, lawsuits are civil lawsuits where it is about finding a settlement, compensation or agreement between two parties, and not revenge. FYI, punishment and revenge are not synonyms.

When you say

I wouldn't want to live in a country where you designed the laws and rules for society. You would feel right at home in dictatorships because what you propose as acceptable norms would inevitably end in one. Despite you not trusting the government - it must me painful for you trying to reconcile the dychotomie as they are polar opposites.

Wow, splicing two seperate fragments of sentences into one new sentence I didn't actually say... good going there utemia; you win at internet debate.

Also, how about you give me your definition of the word "justice".

Also, how about actually giving some explanation or justification to any of your positions, that goes beyond "you are an evil evil person who is like hitler and mao and stalin".

I wasn't splicing together a new sentence, just quoting two of yours from your previous post.

I can't easily give you a definition of justice - it is complex and I wouldn't do the issue justice (pun nonintended). It is not as easy as eye for an eye. What is justice - that question isn't simple.

I never said you were an evil person, just that your proposed principles or lack thereof would lead down a very dangerous road and are amazingly similar to previous and contemporary dictatorships. You know what they say about the road to hell being paved with good intentions? Torture for the good it brings like saving lives paves that road. It is not by chance that the US legal system does not allow torture as an investigative method and condemns the practise of it in other nations. The reason for that is that torture violates core ethical principles that are the basis of the constitution like human dignity and human rights. It is unconstitutional  - those reasons are justification enough for me.

Unless you want to alter the constitution while you're at it and redefine human rights and dignity..but be aware that if you do, you will have an dictatorship or opressive regime or any other name you want to call it. On one side, you essentially are for the use of opressive methods to preserve freedom or whatever value you regard as most important (if there ever was a contradiction, this is it) and on the other you don't trust the government with that power. Luckily, there is no reconciling the both unless you want to outsource and privatise that sector.. *ugh* that would be one devil to unleash

So... you can't even define it and you tell me that my perception of it is "skewed"?

The saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is one of those pointless BS sayings.

My proposed principle of what? I said flat out that we shouldn't give the government the power to do so, but that it is morally justifiable. Your contention that maybe somehow those famous dictators started small and were corrupted by power is ludicrous. People who are corrupt PRETEND to be nice until they get power. When given absolute power to abuse people in nazi germany, some have abused, others put their lives at risk by hiding people in their homes.

The only argument that can be made about the constitutionality of torture is the "no cruel and unusual punishment" clause. Not "the ethical principles".

We are already in a pretty oppressive regime, just not oppressive in this particular way, yet. I still don't see why it is so difficult for you to grasp that I consider something morally acceptable yet not a power that should be granted to the government; despite having said so many times. Yet you still insist that I somehow suggest that the USA police start regularly torturing suspects. You are using a strawman arugment here. It is "taltamir believes cops should torture suspects; taltamir believes the power of torture is too great to grant to the government; therefore taltamir is self contradictory". Strawman. What I am saying is that: "while totally justifiable morally under very rare and very specific circumstances, it is too dangerous a power to grant; therefore they should not be allowed to do so." Entirely consistent.

Enemy combatants are a whole different thing... Enemy combatants are not "suspects", they are not citizens, and they are not held by the police. And they are not even being REALLY tortured.

And here is another issue, you say that terrorists are not POW but civilians... they are enemies, and they are combatants. Hence enemy combatants. Not belonging to an official military of an internationally recognized country doesn't make you unPOWable.

What exactly does "guilty" constitute of? Having been to a terrorist training camp? Being an associate of the Taleban, hating the US, being in the vicinity of terrorist aka guilt by association or what?

Even some innocent released ex-detainees turned to fight against the US after being released - but can you blame them? What would you do if someone incarcerated you for a few years without a trial, interrogated and questioned you nonstop only to say "oops, sorry, have a nice rest of your life, no hard feelings alrighty" I'd be royally pissed off at whomever did it, and so would you. The problem is that if you realize that releasing them would be really dangerous because of how pissed off they are about what was done to them - what do you do? Keep them locked up until they die of old age? Find someone to undo the damage.. it is no wonder that it is so difficult to find places that would take those detainees in. They were innocent of being a terrorist and now they might be one when released so you can't just release them - and that clashes with every judicial principle.

It is a situation that hasn't really happend before, or not that Im aware of it. Obama has problems to close Guantanamo down, and isn't really a surprise. Solving that problem isn't exactly easy.

They went right back to being a member of the taliban and planning and executing attacks against the USA.

Oh yes, the mean ol american made them turn terrorists. They were innocent the whole time, but a short stint in gitmo after which they were released totally convinced them that the thing to do is buy themselves a 1 way ticket back in there...[/sarcasm]

And if gitmo is so bad as you say, why are they risking getting put back in there?

Also there hasn't been a single case of an innocent being released only to turn terrorist AFTERWARDS as a result of their incarceration. But if you live in lala fantasy lib land you assume that everyone who joined right back in the fight against the USA after being released is one of those.

I guess less than 1% of them being waterboarded and the rest being asked nicely to cooperate is such a harrowing experience as to turn any innocent person into a terrorist. Because it is a well known fact that trauma makes you a BETTER fighter instead of a nervous wreck[/sarcasm]

Oh so they were innocent... good to know that every single enemy POW the USA collects is just an innocent victim of the evil ol USA. Nope, not a single genuine capture there.[/sarcasm]

Also... incarcerated without trial... laugh out loud. Really now, you realize that is not how it works for POWs, anywhere in the entire world... in fact you can count on a single hand the number of countries where citizens are protected from incarceration without trial (but still not from being a POW). I have actually known torture victims, REAL torture that is. Rock music and sleep deprivation would have been oh so nice.

Utemia, your post betrays your convictions. You are convinced they were innocents and that the horrible USA made them turn terrorist via torture.

What does that mean? it means you actually believe terrorism is a justified reasonable response for a person to being abused; and that abuse and suffering are the ONLY thing that can make someone into a terrorist. You couldn't be further from the truth.

Nobody turns into a terrorist from being abused. You think to yourself "what would make me become such a monster", you actually come up with something and then you conclude that this must be what they suffered through; or you assume that they suffered through something worse then you can even imagine. Because you can't imagine any reason to do what they do OTHER than suffering unbeleivable horror.

What you fail to understand is that not all cultures are the same, not all religions are the same, and not all people are the same. That a deeply religious person will do things that might be abbhorrant or simply senseless to people of a different religion or atheists like me (are you one too?). You need only look at some of the more "bizzare" (to us) things that people do in the name of their religion that the left always preaches is normal and we should accept and tolerate. Or even look at the things that religious people do that the left preaches are evil and senseless... like their views on abortion and homosexuality.

They are terrorists because their imam told them that this is the will of GOD. Not because they suffered something so horrible as to turn them into terrorists. They likely had a good safe life with no real suffering and were then sparked up into a holy zeal... kinda like during the crusades where knights with a cushy life decided to go to war for god, or in any of the many many other times people have done it.

By your convoluted logic, christians oppose abortion and homosexuality because they must have suffered through some horrible torture by the hands of an evil organization which made them turn into "monsters" (in your view). Since it is utterly impossible for you to see a well adjusted person with a good life doing something you consider abhorrent because of their religious convictions.

While a "significant portion" is rooted in principles, the majority is of different design.

A significant portion of the things the constitution sets up are done so because of balances of power and limiting potential for abuse by would be tyrants. Every aspect of the USA government is intentionally divided in inefficient manner called seperation of power and balance of powers to protect against misuse. We don't have two houses of congress and a balance between executive, judiciary, and legislative because it is more MORALLY RIGHT to do so. We have such things in place because they are more prudent if you are trying to prevent abuse.

If the founding fathers were as concerned with "the morality of freedom" they would have seen fit to ban slavery.

Yeah yeah go on  and mock me.. You can be sarcastic all you want, the problem is real enough or there wouldn't be detainees still locked up of which no conncetion to any terrorist activity was proven. That makes them innocent of what they were accused of and they were locked up without a trial and they were explicitly NOT pow's and granted any rights besides fresh air and food.

I didn't deny genuine captures - don't put words in my mouth.

I don't live in a lib fantasy lala land as you so poetically called it lol nor did I say that everybody that was released was turned into a terrorist by the US.

I was looking for the right terminology concerning your question what my definition of justice would be - it is rooted in jurisprudence. It is also part of a philosophical discipline. The reason I cannot give you an answer is that  both are complex. What is law, what is the relationship between law and justice, relationship between justice and other socials norms like morals, the reason laws are valid, how laws developed, what content they should have.. I have not occupied myself with those questions - I did not study law nor that particular philosophy. I wasn't trying to skip out of answering, but the fact is that there is a whole theoretical philosophical and ethicak background to that question that I am aware of and that I would want to recognize and since I am not a student, it is impossible for me to do that without research and study.