CCC, Smuncey, You Gotta Read This.

If torture had no value to interrogators, in terms of extracting information from people being interrogated, then torture would not ever be used. There would be no pressure to resort to such techniques, if they were consistently ineffective.

The true objection to torture should arise from the moral stain associated with the act of torturing someone. It should not be an objection to the technique on the basis of it being ineffective. Trying to claim that torture never produces useful information is a kind of moral cowardice. A person who truly objects to the use of torture should be able to confidently state that they would reject torture, EVEN IF the information gained through torture is useful and saves lives.

This presents a problem of course for people who claim to reject all these "enhanced interrogation techniques". It's a no-brainer to reject these techniques when you rely on the crutch that they don't produce useful information. It's a lot harder to reject them, because of their immoral nature, if they actually produce information that saves lives.

Take away the Dubai Deal and the Immagration Deal and I beleive Bush has done a heck of a job.  If anyone needs to be arrested, it's Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi for Treason.  Heck, you could throw Hillary, Obama, Gore and about 90% of Congress on that list too while we're at it......

Steven P Munsey A+, MCP, IASO Orange Park | Green Cove Springs munsey13@comcast.net

Smuncey,

Not bad for a bit of circular reasoning.  But then, for a second, I forgot you're one of the 30%.  Silly me.  I am a bit surprised at you though.  I would have thought you would want to emulate your idol by saying, "You're doing a heck of a job, Bushie."  It did seem appropriate & consistant. 

Also, I see that you are consistant by titling your post, "Real torture."  It seems that the trend among you people is to use the word, "real," when you disagree with something or someone who doesn't fit exactly with your definition, which may or may not agree with others' definitions even within your own political sphere.  Interesting.  Yet oh so consistant.  And typical.  JATFUR.

RichK

Smuncey,

Please forgive me.  I forgot one thing.  I've been going back & forth with the "Truck Nutz blog & the gray cells are laughing too hard to concentrate.

As to your suggestion @ Reid & Pelosi.  There are really good reasons for them not getting arrested.

!.  They did not commit a crime.

2.  Since #1 was absent, they didn't have to lie @ it.

3.  Since # 1 was absent, they couldn't get caught at anything illegal.

4.  Since # 1 was absent, they had to admit to nothing.

See how that works?  It wasn't  that difficult now, was it?  Yes, yes, I know.  Facts, logic,  reality & reasoning can be such a burden.  but we do have to live, thrive & survive, don't we?  JATFUR.

RichK

UR - FYI - Let justice be served - Arrest Nancy and Harry! 

Section 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal
of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States,
or attempts to do so - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years, or both.
(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy
shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).
(c) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(d) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as within the United States.

Steven P Munsey A+, MCP, IASO Orange Park | Green Cove Springs munsey13@comcast.net

smunsey;

I don't like these jerks any more than many others. I'm getting to the point that I'm not wild about W either. However, here is the MAJOR problem with your argument.

You and anyone else can call it what you want but we are NOT 'at war'. Only congress can declare war, and the last time I checked they have not done so since WWII.

Mike Heemer http://24.23.126.8/ Petition for choice (5 or 7) in Nov.

Finder,

Mike, you've got a quicker trigger finger on the key board than I .  Thanks for the back up.  It brings up one more point.  If their actions were illegal, then the Justice Department, such as it is, apparently took no notice of their "heinous" crime.  Gee.  I wonder why?

In the last paragraph of my reply titled, "I Forgot," I listed a few items.  I forgot to mention good research. 

Bush & all the others can call it war.  For all practical purposes, it is.  Unfortunately, the law, that wild & crazy thing, says differently.  Or, as Cartman might say, "The Bastards."  Once again, thanks Mike. Sorry Smuncey.  I guess it's just not your day.  JATFUR.

RichK