wrote in message
...
On 31 Dec 2007 14:55:17 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:t68fn3lev2rqn8gtb2e18kpi0b77gp1icr@
4ax.com:

Take, for example, the
recent coverage of the ex-CIA agent's information - he states plainly
that it is effective, but he considers it "torture" and is opposed to it
being done. But many or most of those (but importantly, not all)
opposed to "torture" claim that "torture" isn't effective or reliable as
a method of gaining information.


Fine-- if an agent believes that a "24"-like scenario is occurring, where
thousands could be saved if nastiness is performed, let him proceed
knowing
that he could go to jail for a long time.

He or she would be doing just that if they are proceeding under their
own authority.

Let him know he needs to look
his citizens in the eye and say "I tortured someone to save you,"

Er...no...

and wonder if they'll understand.

What they might or might not "understand" is not an issue.

Let him wonder if he'll be pardoned or not.

No.

Let him wonder if he'll be tried in an international court.

Absolutely, positively no way, no how.

Perhaps with all this in mind, that agent (or possibly "contractor", which
is even more disgusting) would be in the proper frame of mind to make the
decision about whether to torture a fellow human being.

No, if anyone faced with using extreme methods of interrogation isn't
personally and internally conflicted about doing it, regardless of
external repercussions or lack thereof, they aren't suited to be using
such methods because they are not capable of fully understanding the
gravity of what they are doing. If I were put in the position of being
a "sign-off" to give authorization to waterboard someone, I would not
allow anyone who I wasn't personally convinced was uneasy with even the
request and who would proceed with internal conflict and extreme
trepidation to so much as be in the room while the technique was used.
This isn't something for amateurs to be ****ing around with, a subject
for cavalier attitudes or certainty of position (for or against), and it
damned sure is not something for sadists to use to get their jollies.

Well, you need not concern yourself overmuch with any of the amateurs here
****ing around with any of this stuff. We are all content to leave it to
our own one and only obvious professional. For that matter, we amateurs
won't be ****ing around with much of anything so long as you are here to
explain it all to us in your typically clear and unequivocal manner.


Imbecile.

Wolfgang