A Cold Branding Iron

[woodchip]

We are about to understand the full import of Obama's new anti-torture policy. Seem a AQ suspect was captured and the army was going to turn him over to the CIA for questioning. CIA said they didn't want him and gave him back to the army.

So all you fair minded sorts, how now brown cow do you expect us to get the intelligence need to prevent another 9/11 ? With Alfred E's darkly announced posture of prosecuting the decision makers behind the use of \"torture\", who in their right mind will even want to interrogate a prisoner. Might be better not to take any prisoners. After all where would you house them since gitmo is being closed. So I wonder how many potential prisoners will have a welp moment where a soldier forgot his safety was in the off position.

[Octopus]

What does the US do when ever they can't legally do something, because of new laws? Hire someone in another country to do it.

[Kilarin]

If we are as bad as the enemy, what's the point?

[Octopus]

If we are as bad as the enemy, what's the point?

no no no. If we're as bad as our friends, what's the point?

[Will Robinson]

If we are as bad as the enemy, what's the point?

Well considering we were using water boarding as the ultimate torture, reserved for special cases, and the enemy uses cutting off your head with a rusty machete as it's default procedure I have a hard time accepting your question.

[Kilarin]

Well considering we were using water boarding as the ultimate torture, reserved for special cases, and the enemy uses cutting off your head with a rusty machete as it's default procedure I have a hard time accepting your question.

Alright, granted, we are not as depraved as the enemy. I'm still ashamed that my country mistreats prisoners. We have laws against cruel and unusual punishments for child molesters for goodness sakes! But we think its ok to use "mild" forms of torture on terrorist suspects. I simply do NOT understand what's happened to the supposed moral compass of the conservatives.

[Grendel]

As usual. Moral values are very subjective and sort of have an inverse proportionaly relationship w/ distance -- the more distant people are the less moral values are applied to them. This gets worse where a threat is percieved, moral values are going out the window immediately. \"Distance\" here is very relative too and can be applied as inside and outside a group. May have to do w/ how much you have in common w/ the people in question.

[Octopus]

Well considering we were using water boarding as the ultimate torture, reserved for special cases, and the enemy uses cutting off your head with a rusty machete as it's default procedure I have a hard time accepting your question.

Alright, granted, we are not as depraved as the enemy. I'm still ashamed that my country mistreats prisoners. We have laws against cruel and unusual punishments for child molesters for goodness sakes! But we think its ok to use "mild" forms of torture on terrorist suspects. I simply do NOT understand what's happened to the supposed moral compass of the conservatives.

So they invent a machine that breaks into your mind and can download all your thoughts. But doesn’t cause any discomfort. This is what you’re asking for?! Once they figure that out, forget fair trials, dude.

[woodchip]

If we are as bad as the enemy, what's the point?

Would you mind pointing out where we ever were as bad as the enemy. Please, give me one example.

[Sergeant Thorne]

A lot of people like to say we're as bad as the enemy, or that torture is beneath the U.S.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all water-boarding is, is an extreme use of pain/discomfort, combined with fear. No permanent injury, and certainly no death. I don't see what the problem is, except that people who can't handle the realities of war need to stay out of it, and get their idealistic little wrenches away from the gears of a pretty upstanding, well-off, and functioning country.

[Kilarin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all water-boarding is, is an extreme use of pain/discomfort, combined with fear.

As a Christian, can you really support mistreating prisoners? Recognize that these are SUSPECTED terrorist.

[Will Robinson]

...We have laws against cruel and unusual punishments for child molesters for goodness sakes! But we think its ok to use "mild" forms of torture on terrorist suspects..

You left a big flaw in your logic there.

Child molesters that are identified and in custody are no longer a threat to anyone as long as they are held captive.
What do you think the laws regarding their treatment would be if they worked in groups and were routinely captured independently as only one of many molesters operating at large?
Would society have created a different set of rules for interrogating a single member captured of a gang who is actively molesting that societies children?
My instinct tell me there would be a whole set of exceptions on the books! Meagans law is a relevant example of how we want our laws customized to deal with particularly dangerous and/or heinous criminals.

[Kilarin]

Child molesters that are identified and in custody are no longer a threat to anyone as long as they are held captive.

They sometimes DO work in groups, and the law still does not allow them to be tortured in order to force them to reveal their compatriots. And if anyone deserves it, they certainly do.

Also, again, please remember, these are SUSPECTS.

[Grendel]

As a Christian, can you really support mistreating prisoners? Recognize that these are SUSPECTED terrorist.

Like I wrote above, moral is relative..

[Spidey]

It’s always easy to take the moral high ground, when one doesn’t have to make those kinds of decisions.

War is not about morality, it’s about survival.

[ccb056]

Well considering we were using water boarding as the ultimate torture, reserved for special cases, and the enemy uses cutting off your head with a rusty machete as it's default procedure I have a hard time accepting your question.

Alright, granted, we are not as depraved as the enemy. I'm still ashamed that my country mistreats prisoners. We have laws against cruel and unusual punishments for child molesters for goodness sakes! But we think its ok to use "mild" forms of torture on terrorist suspects. I simply do NOT understand what's happened to the supposed moral compass of the conservatives.

Child molestors are US citizens and are therefore protected by the 8th Amendment of the Constitution. Terrorists aren't US citizens, are not uniform army, aren't even human as far as im concerned; they arent protected the same way your molestors are.

[Will Robinson]

Child molesters that are identified and in custody are no longer a threat to anyone as long as they are held captive.

They sometimes DO work in groups, and the law still does not allow them to be tortured in order to force them to reveal their compatriots. And if anyone deserves it, they certainly do.

Also, again, please remember, these are SUSPECTS.

Ok, I must have missed all those news stories about groups of child molesters at work. Seems to me if you asked anyone their understanding of the history of child molestation cases they would invariably describe the method of operation as they work alone.

But let me rephrase my point. If child molesters worked in groups often enough for the public to believe when one was found he most definitely would know of others who were about to strike.... and this had been their method of operation for centuries.... the way terrorists operate....then I bet you that we would have a different definition of cruel and unusual interrogation techniques or an all out exception in the law to allow police to use extreme methods to try and locate the other members of the active child molestation group.

Like you said, if any group deserved it they do....or did you not really mean that?
there are plenty of laws and penalties that exclude citizens from keeping their rights. Reasonable search and seizure laws are in force to allow police to temporarily violate your rights if they decide they have a reasonable suspision. Obama voted to allow "illegal wiretapping" etc. etc.

Why do you find it so hard to believe we wouldn't have made sure we could stop a group of child molesters when they hit town?!? water boarding the first one you catch and stop four or five from the info he coughs up....I'm pretty sure if you can find the right to privacy includes abortion then the right to defense includes roughing up an active group of child molesters. Which congressman would have voted against that bill?!? Lol!

[Insurrectionist]

The United States is a party to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which originated in the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and signed by the President Ronald Reagan on April 18, 1988. Ratification by the Senate took place on October 27, 1990. The Senate put forward a number of reservations including:

Restricting the definition of \"cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment\" to the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution
Restricting acts of torture to the following list: \"(1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.\" International law defines torture during an armed conflict as a war crime. It also mandates that any person involved in ordering, allowing and even insuffuciently preventing and prosecuting war crimes is criminally liable under the command responsibility doctrine.

Torture is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 2340. The definition of torture used is as follows:

\"torture\" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
\"severe mental pain or suffering\" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;
In 2004 the Immigration and Nationality Act was amended to make aliens who, whilst abroad, have committed torture, extra-judicial killings, or particularly severe violations of religious freedom, inadmissible to the United States, and therefore deportable.

Although we got the results the nation needed it was still wrong. Now with what is written above people can now make a case that Obama is guilty of not prosecuting war crimes.

Source=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_torture

[Jeff250]

Child molestors are US citizens and are therefore protected by the 8th Amendment of the Constitution.

True, but, as you say, our rights are *protected* by our constitution, not given to us by our constitution. Just because not everyone has a government to protect their rights doesn't mean that we can violate them. Unless the story really is that the origin of our rights is in some piece of paper, in which case we are all fracked...

[Kilarin]

I must have missed all those news stories about groups of child molesters at work.

Google news: "Child Pornography Rings". Well, actually, don't. They aren't nice stories.

If child molesters worked in groups often enough for the public to believe when one was found he most definitely would know of others who were about to strike.... and this had been their method of operation for centuries.... the way terrorists operate....then I bet you that we would have a different definition of cruel and unusual interrogation techniques or an all out exception in the law to allow police to use extreme methods to try and locate the other members of the active child molestation group.

The ends justifies the means huh? What about when it turns out they were wrong?, as they have been several times so far with the terrorism suspects.

Like you said, if any group deserved it they do....or did you not really mean that?

Yes, I did mean it. The whole thing though. *IF* we were going to torture anyone, child molesters top my list. I don't believe we should torture anyone. Even suspected pedophiles.

The United States is a party to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Thanks for the sources.

True, but, as you say, our rights are *protected* by our constitution, not given to us by our constitution. Just because not everyone has a government to protect their rights doesn't mean that we can violate them. Unless the story really is that the origin of our rights is in some piece of paper, in which case we are all fracked...

Amen!

Like I wrote above, moral is relative..

War is not about morality, it's about survival.

If you really believe that morality goes out the window whenever something "more important" is on the line, then you are consistent. Why not torture if it works? But for those of us who do not believe that morality is just a set of "guidelines". For those of us who really believe in a right and wrong, supporting torture because it is "useful" just doesn't make sense.

It's always easy to take the moral high ground, when one doesn't have to make those kinds of decisions.

Agreed. These decisions are harder to make in the heat of the moment. I understand that. What terrifies me is how many in our nation, who are NOT in the heat of the moment, really truly do not give a care what is happening to the prisoners under our control. Have you read the releases about what was authorized? And that's just the prisoners we kept, not the folks we sent overseas to get the hard core torture.

It's easy to say "they are terrorist, they deserve it!" But that position has problems on two fronts.

One: These are suspects. We are making mistakes, picking up people on some random rumor, locking them in a hole and using mild torture on them. oops, sorry for all the mistreatment fellow, guess you weren't a terrorist afterall.

Two: We are supposed to be BETTER than that.

Our enemies didn't adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But every one of us -- every single one of us -- knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them.

I know this doesn't apply to those of you who are moral pragmatist. But I'm still baffled why so many conservative Christians are positively grinning at the concept of anyone named Abdul being beaten, tied in "stress positions", kept naked in 40 degree rooms, locked in boxes with insects, held under water, etc, etc, and so forth.

I know I'm repeating myself, but it still boils down to is this: I'm Christian, and I take quite seriously Christ's injunction: Mat 5:44 Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;.

I can love my enemy, and still kill him, if it is the only way to stop him from hurting someone else. But I don't see how I can love my enemy and waterboard him.

[Spidey]

So what is the alternative to torture?

[Lothar]

for those of us who do not believe that morality is just a set of "guidelines". For those of us who really believe in a right and wrong...

I believe "morality" is not the base but rather is derived. The fundamental thing is "values" -- that is, things that we value. Morals and ethics are simply guidelines for how to protect and uphold those things that we value.

Sometimes, things that we value are in conflict. We value other people, and when one person threatens another our valuation of person A conflicts with our valuation of person B. So we have to figure out what action best values both of them. We have to figure out what means to take to lead to the best overall ends*

Christ commands us to love our enemies. He also commands us to love our neighbors. As you said at the end of your post, you might perhaps be able to love an enemy but still subject him to death to protect others. What is so fundamentally different about subjecting an enemy to pain or stress in order to protect others? Or, as I have started asking others as I've questioned my own pacifist leanings, how does one best uphold BOTH commandments to love in a situation where you believe an enemy to have time-critical information that could be used to protect others?

(I acknowledge the "convict"/"suspect" issue, or more generally the uncertainty as to whether someone is an enemy who has information that could be used to protect others. This is not an argument against torture or any other use of force; it is, rather, an argument for being careful and selective in its application.)




* "The ends justify the means" is often an excuse for completely ignoring certain negative ends because there happen to be some positive ends. This is the wrong approach. The right approach is to weigh all of the ends, including harm done to enemies and any changes to your own character that might be caused by an action, and decide on the best overall course of action based on the WHOLE set of ends.

[Will Robinson]

...
I can love my enemy, and still kill him, if it is the only way to stop him from hurting someone else. But I don't see how I can love my enemy and waterboard him.

I find this position to be naive.

On a basic level it makes no sense unless you think your religion teaches you to only quickly kill with as little pain as possible an enemy and if you can't drop him dead in a timely manner then you shouldn't kill him at all.
I think you're confusing the sportsmans rules for deer hunting with stopping an imminent threat.

but on a more detailed level I can't possibly improve on Lothars explanation of the proper way to apply the ends justify the means.
And I never suggested we use torture-phishing to gather info for a case. I believe I used the example of having caught a child molester...not a suspected child molester but one you know to be a child molester...if they worked in groups and you caught one knowing the others were at work in your neighborhood you can bet the interrogation techniques would be more 'flexible' than those for drug dealers or car thieves. It's not a stretch of the imagination to think that, we have plenty of history as I alluded to, to suggest we would have done so.

I don't know how you think you are doing any good if you would kill someone to stop him from attacking a child but you wouldn't scare him to stop three of his fellow attackers from doing the same thing?!?
again I'm talking about the situations when you know you have a guilty party in custody not just rounding up the usual suspects in a sweep of the local porn shop....

I promise you this, if I was on a jury trying a cop for water boarding a known attacker who had good reason to believe the attacker held info that would stop other attacks from taking place I would work my fellow jurors hard to turn out a not guilty verdict. And if I then died and found myself in front of the Pearly Gates and St. Peter asked me to list my failures that event wouldn't be on it....

[Spidey]

No, actually his Religion teaches “Thou shall not kill”.

Unless SDA have ditched the Ten Commandments. Which would be ironic considering the Ten Commandments are the fundamental laws of that sect.

[woodchip]

Well all this discussion about the rather benign info gathering technique termed water boarding is rather light weight. What Obama has to realize that, if he goes forth with this, when his term is over and a real conservative religious christen president is elected what will be the repercussions?
Right out the chute (no pun intended) is Obama's approval of late term abortions. You know, where a fully formed individual is born perfectly normal and ready to begin to his life on earth and then has a foreign object pushed into its brain and terminated. All of you that act as though water boarding is some hideous ass treatment seem to ignore or even tacitly approve the torture and down right barbaric form of termination of the most innocent of lives. Or perhaps you are just ignorant of what late term implies.
So the problem Obama may open himself up for is a charge of murder by not preventing late term abortions. The whole country seems fixated with the treatment of the three, repeat three, terrorists who were water boarded. Yet no where do I see anything about the torture of individuals newly born, or the barbaric manner of their demise. I would sincerely suggest those of you pontificating on the nuances of what torture may or not be, those of you more concerned with the value of a committed terrorist killer's state of mind while being coerced for information, might start looking at where the real disgrace lies in our western culture and start getting your priorities right. If infanticide is a legal and acceptable practice, then those of you getting all emo over splashing water on some murderer's face are really a sad representation of what America has become and need to reevaluate your own morality.

[flip]

BAM. Major ownage.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Excellent point.

[Grendel]

[..] Obama's approval of late term abortions. [..]
So the problem Obama may open himself up for is a charge of murder by not preventing late term abortions.

Having an opinion gets you a murder charge ? What about the supreme court judges that set the legal frame for abortions ?

Nice try, not very subtle tho.

[woodchip]

[..] Obama's approval of late term abortions. [..]
So the problem Obama may open himself up for is a charge of murder by not preventing late term abortions.

Having an opinion gets you a murder charge ? What about the supreme court judges that set the legal frame for abortions ?

Nice try, not very subtle tho.

Ummm...attys who gave a "opinion" on torture will be open for human rights charges under the Obama admins.:

"Defenders of the Justice Department lawyers who wrote the memos argue that a legal opinion, even if incorrect, shouldn't be a basis for prosecution."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1240442 ... lenews_wsj

Nice attempt on trying to redirect. Perhaps you should try posting at MSNBC.

[Grendel]

Ummm...attys who gave a "opinion" on torture will be open for human rights charges under the Obama admins.:

"Defenders of the Justice Department lawyers who wrote the memos argue that a legal opinion, even if incorrect, shouldn't be a basis for prosecution."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1240442 ... lenews_wsj

You missed some text there:

The antitorture statute sets a relatively high standard for prosecutors to meet, particularly when it comes to proving intent. Top officials could argue they relied on the legal memos that authorized the tactics and outlined how specific techniques in question wouldn't cause severe pain and suffering.

[..]
Mr. Obama has said it is up to Attorney General Eric Holder to decide whether prosecutions are warranted.

(Makes me wonder what made the authors of those legal memos experts in pain and suffering caused by torture. Experience ?)

Nice attempt on trying to redirect. Perhaps you should try posting at MSNBC.

*Shrug* You started a fog screen by citing abortion (pretty cheap trying to get emotional responses BTW). Sorry for cutting through.

[Jeff250]

Lothar the consequentialist? I'm a little surprised.

If rights only exist insofar as they are approximations for some actual good, which here we are saying is value satisfaction, then we must deny that they are natural and that they are inalienable. Is that something that you are comfortable doing? I don't think that I can do that.

...abortion...

If you gave this honest analysis, then you would see that your point is symmetric: If liberals are inconsistent for being deontological (rule-based) regarding torture and consequentialist regarding abortion, then the reverse is true for conservatives for being consequentialist regarding torture and deontological regarding abortion.

Of course, there are more than a few relevant differences between the abortion and torture issues to make things messy enough so that neither side need be inconsistent, but I think you already knew that...

[woodchip]

Nice attempt on trying to redirect. Perhaps you should try posting at MSNBC.

*Shrug* You started a fog screen by citing abortion (pretty cheap trying to get emotional responses BTW). Sorry for cutting through.

Sorry that you only see fog.

[Kilarin]

Sorry for the length, it's been a busy day.

So what is the alternative to torture?

The military has long supported interrogation methods that do not abuse the prisoner. The studies and evidence point to these methods being far more effective. BUT, I really think thats a side point. I'm opposed to torture, not because I think other methods are effective, but because I think its wrong, even if it IS effective.

The right approach is to weigh all of the ends, including harm done to enemies and any changes to your own character that might be caused by an action, and decide on the best overall course of action based on the WHOLE set of ends.

"Changes to your own character" seems a pretty serious one when it comes to torture.

What is so fundamentally different about subjecting an enemy to pain or stress in order to protect others?

It's the difference between using necessary force to stop an active aggressor, and deliberately causing pain in a helpless prisoner in the hopes that it MIGHT lead to useful information.

Or, as I have started asking others as I've questioned my own pacifist leanings, how does one best uphold BOTH commandments to love in a situation where you believe an enemy to have time-critical information that could be used to protect others?

If the reason/excuse for using torture is that "the enemy has time-critical information that could be used to protect others". Why does this apply only to terrorist? It seems in war it would apply on a regular basis. Terrorist are a tiny threat compared to the civilian lives lost in a war. And yet, civilized nations have condemned torture for quite some time. We prosecuted the Japanese and Nazi's for it. We vilified the Viet Cong and Koreans for it. We signed treaties promising that we would never torture. We looked on any nation that stooped to torture with disdain and disgust. Even though every one of these nation certainly had the excuse that the enemy probably had time critical information that might save lives.

I acknowledge the "convict"/"suspect" issue, or more generally the uncertainty as to whether someone is an enemy who has information that could be used to protect others. This is not an argument against torture or any other use of force; it is, rather, an argument for being careful and selective in its application.

But this has two issues. 1: You can NEVER screen out all errors, mistakes WILL be made. 2: Who do you trust with this decision? Not the judicial system I assume. Do you really trust the "powers that be" not to abuse this power? Can a world of fallen being be trusted with the power to torture?

Some further questions:

What guidelines would you set? Who gets beaten/waterboarded and who gets treated decently?

Once you've begun to allow torture "light", where do you draw the line at intensity? Are the current (ok, previous) CIA guidelines acceptable? Do you object to our policy of sending prisoners out-of-country to receive more serious torture in countries where it is legal? And if thats ok, why not just do it here?

On a basic level it makes no sense unless you think your religion teaches you to only quickly kill with as little pain as possible an enemy and if you can't drop him dead in a timely manner then you shouldn't kill him at all.

Drop the italicized section and I'll agree.

I'm talking about the situations when you know you have a guilty party in custody not just rounding up the usual suspects in a sweep of the local porn shop....

Again, as I asked Lothar, how do you KNOW you have the guilty party? The court system?, a release from a judge?, a military tribunal?, the word of the president? Or, as you seem to be promoting, any police officers opinion of the moment? All of these are vulnerable to error. And, just like with the courts and warrants, and CERTAINLY with police officers opinions, they WILL be abused.

No, actually his Religion teaches "Thou shall not kill".

"Thou shalt not Murder" is a better translation. See: Ex 20:13 and the word Ratsach

Unless SDA have ditched the Ten Commandments.

Hardly! We even keep the fourth.

Which would be ironic considering the Ten Commandments are the fundamental laws of that sect.

Depends on what you mean by "fundamental". We believe they are the guideline for how God wants us to live our lives. The "instruction manual" for humanity. In that sense they are certainly fundamental. But the "fundamental" element of salvation is grace. We keep the commandments BECAUSE we are saved, not to be saved.

I don't mean to sidetrack us, but this is Important: please do NOT hold all Adventist responsible for MY particular points of view. Just like with any church, there is a lot of variety of opinion. And not everything I believe or espouse is perfectly in line with the SDA Church. The official fundamental beliefs of the Adventist church are detailed here.

The opinions expressed are my own.

I would sincerely suggest those of you pontificating on the nuances of what torture may or not be, those of you more concerned with the value of a committed terrorist killer's state of mind while being coerced for information, might start looking at where the real disgrace lies in our western culture and start getting your priorities right. If infanticide is a legal and acceptable practice, then those of you getting all emo over splashing water on some murderer's face are really a sad representation of what America has become and need to reevaluate your own morality.

Except that I've stood solidly against both. Repeatedly. And because murdering an infant is wrong, doesn't mean torturing an enemy isn't. I think Jeff250 has some good points on this one.

[Spidey]

So what is the alternative to torture?

The military has long supported interrogation methods that do not abuse the prisoner. The studies and evidence point to these methods being far more effective. BUT, I really think thats a side point. I'm opposed to torture, not because I think other methods are effective, but because I think its wrong, even if it IS effective.

Fair enuf

……………………………….

Murder, Kill, Slay…all seems to mean the same thing in Biblical times. That link you gave also seems to confirm this.

Which begs the question…what was the word for Justifiable killing. (the killing that God allows)

Because I believe, if God wrote “kill” he meant “kill” period! And the words of Christ seem to verify this, such as “turn the other cheek” IE: killing is wrong…period. And there are some pacifist Christians who I know believe that.

[Duper]

in the Levitical Law there was a very Distinct difference. God escused what we call \"man slaughter\"; an accidental killing. There was restution to be made, but leanancy was provided in these cases. Murder on the other hand was not. It's further described as \"laying in wait\".

Remember that the Levitical law was written for governing the individual, not the nation. That is to say it wasn't meant to be applied on a national scale. Isreal was directed and judged by God Himself through His prophets.

[Spidey]

So then we can kill those who wish to kill us, as long as it’s by accident?

BTW, that link groups “accidental” along with the rest.

[woodchip]

So, while you are focusing on a terrorist and how he is being treated, have you factored in reverse torture?
On other words you have a guy who know is laughing at you and says in 30 days something very bad is going to happen. Of course we can no longer do anything to extract the information and in 30 days a large explosion occurs at Disney World killing and maiming thousands of people a large percentage of which are children. So where is the outcry against the torture committed against the victims? Where is the consideration of the mental torture of the victims family members?
I think you really have to stand back and place yourself in the position of being the one who decides how you will extract the information from a person from a known terrorist organization that has already succeeded on 9/ll to blow up something. When it becomes public that you were the one that could of prevented the Disney tragedy, how will you answer the phone calls from all those who suffered. How will you look when the harsh eye of the news camera is on you, filling the worlds TV screens with your image as the person who had the power to prevent the bombing? Will you say with a smug look on your face that torture is wrong even though it would have saved the lives of all those children (screen pans to images of a dead child in the arms of a bleeding and remorse stricken father). Will you pontificate that America is above abusing prisoners (screen pans to a what was once a pretty teen girl whose face is now horribly scarred from bomb shrapnel)?
Go on, keep having your salon discussion as to why using interrogation techniques that work and only using the techniques on a very select few is wrong.
This is all very much like reversing a line in the old Bruisers, \"The Lunatic\": You may be wrong but you may be right.
If this scenario ever does play out, heaven help whoever was responsible for preventing the info from being gathered.

[Will Robinson]

...

I'm talking about the situations when you know you have a guilty party in custody not just rounding up the usual suspects in a sweep of the local porn shop....

Again, as I asked Lothar, how do you KNOW you have the guilty party?..

Remember, the analogy I created was comparing the few Islamic fundamentalist suspects that were water boarded with the hypothetical scenario of the capture of a child molester and the point was if child molesters worked in groups like al Queda did, and catching one didn't mean the imminent threat was over, then you could expect even in domestic American law enforcement you would probably see exceptions to the rules to accommodate the urgency of the situation.
So when they caught Khalid shake your muhammed with tons of evidence that he masterminded the Sept 11 attacks they knew he was guilty. You want me to spell out the domestic child molester equivalent of that? You catch a guy with pictures of himself raping a child...
Bing! He gets interrogated under different rules because time is of the essence to find the other members of his group still out there.

The whole scenario was not to suggest we actually need our police to start water boarding suspects because I reject the idea that child molesters work in groups.
The point was that you tried to equate the threat of child molesters with al Queda terrorists:

We have laws against cruel and unusual punishments for child molesters for goodness sakes! But we think its ok to use "mild" forms of torture on terrorist suspects.

My response to that was to illustrate that if the two threats really were the same then you would not see civil rights granted to al Queda you would see child molesters caught in the act treated to water boarding!
You tried to invoke our humane nature as proof water boarding is wrong and I pointed out our pragmatic defensive nature is the way we turn when the heat is on.

[Tunnelcat]

When we use ends that justify the means, we become as evil as our enemies. So do we stoop to their level or retain or moral authority.

I'm waiting for Hannity to take up Olbermann's offer of paying a thousand dollars for each second that Hannity can take being waterboarded. But to be fair, he has to have it done over 200 times in a month and have no safe signal stops to really know what the experience is like.

[Will Robinson]

When we use ends that justify the means, we become as evil as our enemies. So do we stoop to their level or retain or moral authority...

Every law we have is a means to an end and we have agreed they are justified. That doesn't make us evil. It is the motive for the means we use, the end we seek, that determines if we are evil.

As to the value of moral authority, when you are trying to exercise your authority outside of your jurisdiction, like an infidel expecting a Muslim to respect him because you don't use the same methods on an enemy that the Muslim does you don't necessarily earn the moral high ground. Over there you may just earn the reputation of being weak, uncommitted to your goal and stupid for thinking you have gained when in fact you have lost.