Torture

[srkruzich]

So we aren't a nation of laws? We should just chuck it all and whoever is the toughest, the biggest, meanest, should be on top? To heck with the kindergartener on the way to school, the big guy has had a couple of slugs and is in a hurry. If we chuck our own laws in favor of knee jerk reactions to a bunch of terrorists, then they have truly beaten us; right into the ground. We are no better and in fact we are worse; we are hippocrits of the first water. If you don't like our laws, work to change them. We have an avenue for it, and more than one law has been changed because of grassroots movements. But (wink) (wink) violation of those laws doesn't get it. Either we have them and abide by them or we get rid of the law.

The terrorists, and enemies of this country arent concerned with laws.  Secondly when their actions put this nation at risk, the extraordinary measures have to be taken to ensure that they do not succeed.  Like it or not its there its used and its necessary.  Thats why things like this is handled by military and not put up to people to vote on. 

[sixdogsmom]

The military is obligated by the legal system, maybe more stringent than the civilian courts. It is a given that terrorists do not abide by our laws, but if we do not abide by the law, why do we have it?

[srkruzich]

The military is obligated by the legal system, maybe more stringent than the civilian courts. It is a given that terrorists do not abide by our laws, but if we do not abide by the law, why do we have it?

Actually the Military is bound by its own law, and the Constitution.  Civilian law does not have jurisdiction over the military. 

[srkruzich]

The military is obligated by the legal system, maybe more stringent than the civilian courts. It is a given that terrorists do not abide by our laws, but if we do not abide by the law, why do we have it?

You know even the great legal minds of the day acknowlege that the laws cannot agree or cover interrogation techniques.  Its not black and white.  This topicis and always will be in a gray area subject to the needs of the nation.

[sixdogsmom]

The law is grey? 

[flintauqua]

Here's one area where I agree with Steve.  The definition of torture has (and does) differ(ed) depending on what authority, or "convention" you are following.  There is a lot of grey area.  What may have been deemed allowable 50 years ago, may not be today, or allowed, but with stricter constraints.  And the reverse can be true also.  It will never be cut and dry, black or white.  Societal norms morph over time, and from society to society, nation to nation.

Charles

[sixdogsmom]

Then perhaps it is time to make those definitions clear, and regain our self esteem. They waterboarded that Mohammed guy 183 times, and claim it was worth it. Mei Lai anyone?

[srkruzich]

Then perhaps it is time to make those definitions clear, and regain our self esteem. They waterboarded that Mohammed guy 183 times, and claim it was worth it. Mei Lai anyone?

Why would you want to make the definition clear?  We have very real enemies out there that think nothing of killing millions of people if they could just get past the folks that keep us secure.   The other thing is that there are things that go on that the public knows nothing about and rightfully so.  You can't keep a country safe if you tell all that you do to keep it safe.

[jarhead]

sixdog,
I don't think you can even come close to comparing the senseless slaughter of civilians at My Lai and waterboarding someone. One was  murder and the other is (questionable ) torture

[Anmar]

What about rape?  There was a lot of that going on in Abu Ghraib, is that an acceptable means of torture to you Steve?