Is it fair to say Republican Party has become a party of "water boarders" mostly?

[doodle]

I support Ron Paul but I cannot understand what in the world drives GOP establishment leaders. Dems have their own problems as teleprompter performer plays role of GW Bush splendidly almost.

That is the main explanation I see for this news being the top headline right now on Drudge report of all places:

CNN SHOCK POLL: RON PAUL HAS BEST CHANCE VS OBAMA


Who does best against Obama? Paul. The congressman from Texas, who also ran as a libertarian candidate for president in 1988 and who is well liked by many in the tea party movement, trails the president by only seven points (52 to 45 percent) in a hypothetical general election showdown. Huckabee trails by eight points, with Romney down 11 points to Obama.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/05/cnn-poll-still-no-front-runner-in-the-battle-for-the-gop-nomination/

[doodle]

Why these guys oppose human rights, liberty and are doomed to fail before they fail America completely.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3qJg-xamlc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNf6ubjdYmc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tpC558Mzs8

[Batman]

3 to 2 in favor of torture. Just wait until the rest of the SS shows up. At least Johnson was backing Ron on this one.

[Vessol]

I read that as "surf boarders" at first, not "water boarders"

Too bad :(

That'd be awesome if the Republican Party became the party of Surfboarding.

[Batman]

Coincidentally, I worked in the surfboard industry.

[doodle]

3 to 2 in favor of torture. Just wait until the rest of the SS shows up. At least Johnson was backing Ron on this one.

Yep. Romney was there, show of hands could have been 4 to 2.

[speciallyblend]

the gop will alienate themselves so the party will not be worth taking over!! we need a new party coalition since the cp/lp brandnames are a failure. we need a new coalition with a new party name and brandname since my bet is the gop will f it self!!

[Brett85]

The other three basically just said that they supported it if it was absolutely necessary to keep our country safe. It's not like they just want to waterboard terrorists for the fun of it.

[specsaregood]

The other three basically just said that they supported it if it was absolutely necessary to keep our country safe. It's not like they just want to waterboard terrorists for the fun of it.

Except the problem is you don't know if any information you get from it will save the country until AFTER you have already tortured somebody. Which means, you will end up torturing people with no useful information or "for the fun of it".

[Brett85]

Except the problem is you don't know if any information you get from it will save the country until AFTER you have already tortured somebody. Which means, you will end up torturing people with no useful information or "for the fun of it".

That may be true, but the question was whether they would support waterboarding in ANY situation. That includes a "ticking time bomb situation" where there may be no other choice unfortunately.

[A. Havnes]

You know what fuels these people? The fact that there's too many people who shrug their shoulders and say, "It's just pouring a little water on someone's face? That's not horrible!"

[ghengis86]

That may be true, but the question was whether they would support waterboarding in ANY situation. That includes a "ticking time bomb situation" where there may be no other choice unfortunately.

There's always a choice

[specsaregood]

That may be true, but the question was whether they would support waterboarding in ANY situation. That includes a "ticking time bomb situation" where there may be no other choice unfortunately.

Jack Bauer would be proud. Why don't we just skip the water and go straight to cutting off their willy?

[YumYum]

The other three basically just said that they supported it if it was absolutely necessary to keep our country safe. It's not like they just want to waterboard terrorists for the fun of it.

Our government executed Japanese soldiers at the end of WWII for waterboarding American POW's. We set the standards and enforced them. If we make exceptions to the rules that we established and enforced, our enemies will also make exceptions. That being said, Americans shouldn't cry "foul" when our enemies start torturing our troops who have been captured. That would be horrible, but by us allowing torture, we are putting our troops in harm's way. The GOP has become "The Waterboard Party".

[Brett85]

Our government executed Japanese soldiers at the end of WWII for waterboarding American POW's. We set the standards and enforced them. If we make exceptions to the rules that we established and enforced, our enemies will also make exceptions. That being said, Americans shouldn't cry "foul" when our enemies start torturing our troops who have been captured. That would be horrible, but by us allowing torture, we are putting our troops in harm's way. The GOP has become "The Waterboard Party".

Our soldiers get waterboarded when they go through their basic training. If waterboarding is torture, that means we torture our own soldiers when they go through basic training. Again, it's not something that I or anybody else want to do, but I would rather frighten a terrorist than have millions of dead Americans.

I'm a fan of Ron and agree with him that we should bring all of our troops home from around the world, but this is one issue that I disagree with him on. I don't think anybody here agrees with Ron 100% of the time.

[Anti Federalist]

Our soldiers get waterboarded when they go through their basic training. If waterboarding is torture, that means we torture our own soldiers when they go through basic training. Again, it's not something that I or anybody else want to do, but I would rather frighten a terrorist than have millions of dead Americans.

I'm a fan of Ron and agree with him that we should bring all of our troops home from around the world, but this is one issue that I disagree with him on. I don't think anybody here agrees with Ron 100% of the time.

And if the "waterboarding" doesn't yield the results you seek, what are you prepared to endorse next?

[Brett85]

And if the "waterboarding" doesn't yield the results you seek, what are you prepared to endorse next?

If I was President and I authorized actual torture, I would be prepared to suffer the consequences of breaking the law. I'm not saying that torture should be legal, but I would probably sacrifice life in prison for myself if it meant that we could protect the American people.

[belian78]

Oh holy hell... You scare me TC.

Not that I think a 'ticking timebomb' situation is even plausible, but if it were it would be a direct result of our fucked up foreign policy. We correct that, and we won't have to worry about having jack bauer save the day.

[Brett85]

Oh holy hell... You scare me TC.

Not that I think a 'ticking timebomb' situation is even plausible, but if it were it would be a direct result of our fucked up foreign policy. We correct that, and we won't have to worry about having jack bauer save the day.

That may be true. It would be nice if terrorism was no longer a threat. I do agree with you and Ron that we should withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, and we need to quit meddling in their affiars. But I'm just being honest when I say that I care more about the safety of Americans than I do about the welfare of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. My position on that is identical to Pat Buchanan, who is a paleoconservative who many people here like.

[Anti Federalist]

If I was President and I authorized actual torture, I would be prepared to suffer the consequences of breaking the law. I'm not saying that torture should be legal, but I would probably sacrifice life in prison for myself if it meant that we could protect the American people.

So sayeth Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Pinochet and just about every other tin pot dictator over the last century.

Rethink your reasoning here, please.

[Brett85]

So sayeth Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Pinochet and just about every other tin pot dictator over the last century.

Rethink your reasoning here, please.

I've tried to convince myself that I should adopt Ron's position on this issue, but I just can't do it. I just come back to the point that reality trumps any theoretical theory that America is too good to do certain things. But I think I've taken a fairly moderate position on the issue. I don't believe that U.S citizens should ever go through enhanced interrogations. U.S citizens should have the full protections of the United States Constitution. In regards to foreign terrorists, we should do everything possible to get information from them without using coercive interrogation. We should first try the "rapport building" which many experts say can work as well. All I said was simply that mild coercive interrogation techniques should be left on the table in "ticking time bomb situations." That seems to be a moderate, sensible position to me.

[Vessol]

That may be true, but the question was whether they would support waterboarding in ANY situation. That includes a "ticking time bomb situation" where there may be no other choice unfortunately.

Someone's been watching too much '24'.

[Brett85]

Someone's been watching too much '24'.

Ha ha. That used to be my favorite show. It's too bad they won't be making any new seasons.

[fade]

Ha ha. That used to be my favorite show. It's too bad they won't be making any new seasons.

I stopped watching it when they didn't kill Kim Bauer in the first 2 seasons. After that I wanted to kill her myself.

[Brett85]

I stopped watching it when they didn't kill Kim Bauer in the first 2 seasons. After that I wanted to kill her myself.

I liked her in "The Girl Next Door."

[specsaregood]

Our soldiers get waterboarded when they go through their basic training. If waterboarding is torture, that means we torture our own soldiers when they go through basic training. Again, it's not something that I or anybody else want to do, but I would rather frighten a terrorist than have millions of dead Americans.

I'm a fan of Ron and agree with him that we should bring all of our troops home from around the world, but this is one issue that I disagree with him on. I don't think anybody here agrees with Ron 100% of the time.

And while Paul and Mccain disagree on most issues, this is one issue that they both agree upon. I'm no fan of McCain but he does have first hand knowledge on this issue and is against it.

[Mini-Me]

That may be true, but the question was whether they would support waterboarding in ANY situation. That includes a "ticking time bomb situation" where there may be no other choice unfortunately.

What Ron Paul needs to do is go out with guns blazing and talk about what carte blanche has done: It's not just about waterboarding. It's using razorblades on a guy's penis. It's sending people to Uzbekistan to be raped with broken bottles. It's threatening to crush their child's testicles. It's anally raping teenage children (I forget if that was in front of their parents or not). It's siccing dogs on naked prisoners, who have been specifically trained to attack the genitals. It's murder. These things aren't even done in "ticking time bomb" situations, of which we are aware of NONE. They aren't even done against proven terrorists. Instead, these things are done routinely as a matter of course to people who "might" know something (or just for kicks), because there is absolutely no oversight, and this is the inevitable result of giving the CIA immunity for "enhanced interrogation." Enhanced, my ass!


I've tried to convince myself that I should adopt Ron's position on this issue, but I just can't do it. I just come back to the point that reality trumps any theoretical theory that America is too good to do certain things. But I think I've taken a fairly moderate position on the issue. I don't believe that U.S citizens should ever go through enhanced interrogations. U.S citizens should have the full protections of the United States Constitution. In regards to foreign terrorists, we should do everything possible to get information from them without using coercive interrogation. We should first try the "rapport building" which many experts say can work as well. All I said was simply that mild coercive interrogation techniques should be left on the table in "ticking time bomb situations." That seems to be a moderate, sensible position to me.

Who defines "mild?" Whose discretion is used to determine "ticking time bomb" situations, which have never actually happened AFAIK? The kind of people who get into CIA torture positions are NOT people with consciences like you and me. Who is in charge of making sure this is not abused? So far, abuse is the rule rather than the exception. I say, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

I say, NEVER give a priori immunity for torture. If a desperate CIA agent wants to go rogue and do what he must to stop a hypothetical ticking time bomb situation, he can go ahead and do it, and a jury will determine whether he made the right call at his trial. That way there's at least accountability!

[Anti Federalist]

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.


What Ron Paul needs to do is go out with guns blazing and talk about carte blanche has done: It's not just about waterboarding. It's using razorblades on a guy's penis. It's sending people to Uzbekistan to be raped with broken bottles. It's threatening to crush their child's testicles. It's anally raping teenage children (I forget if that was in front of their parents or not). It's siccing dogs on naked prisoners, who have been specifically trained to attack the genitals. It's murder. These things aren't even done in "ticking time bomb" situations, of which we are aware of NONE. They aren't even done against proven terrorists. Instead, these things are done routinely as a matter of course to people who "might" know something (or just for kicks), because there is absolutely no oversight, and this is the inevitable result of giving the CIA immunity for "enhanced interrogation." Enhanced, my ass!



Who defines "mild?" Whose discretion is used to determine "ticking time bomb" situations, which have never actually happened AFAIK? The kind of people who get into CIA torture positions are NOT people with consciences like you and me. Who is in charge of making sure this is not abused? So far, abuse is the rule rather than the exception. I say, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

I say, NEVER give a priori immunity for torture. If a desperate CIA agent wants to go rogue and do what he must to stop a hypothetical ticking time bomb situation, he can go ahead and do it, and a jury will determine whether he made the right call at his trial. That way there's at least accountability!

[doodle]

That may be true, but the question was whether they would support waterboarding in ANY situation. That includes a "ticking time bomb situation" where there may be no other choice unfortunately.

In such a "ticking time bomb situation" as you put it, if waterboarding does not get any info from a suspected suspect, would you support following enhanced torture techniques also to make the country safe:

- unmuzzled dogs on use after forced nudity, fake electric shocks, nude humanballs, sexual assaults and other enhenced tactics used ta Abu Ghraib

If above also does not yield any info from suspect,

- electroc shocks, pulling nails, cutting small body parts or use of electric drills on detainees as some British trained interrogators are accused of using in Iraq

If goal is to defend the country, what's wrong with these tactics used in Iraq.

[specsaregood]

In such a "ticking time bomb situation" as you put it, if waterboarding does not get any info from a suspected suspect, would you support following enhanced torture techniques also to make the country safe:

- unmuzzled dogs on use after forced nudity, fake electric shocks, nude humanballs, sexual assaults and other enhenced tactics used ta Abu Ghraib

If above also does not yield any info from suspect,

- electroc shocks, pulling nails, cutting small body parts or use of electric drills on detainees as some British trained interrogators are accused of using in Iraq

If goal is to defend the country, what's wrong with these tactics used in Iraq.

Forget all that. If the suspect is a male, go right to threatening to cut off their tallywhacker.
And if that doesnt' work, cut it off and tell em you aren't gonna reattach it until they tell you what you want to hear....oh wait maybe thats the downside....

[speciallyblend]

if it is legal and not torture?? shouldn't we find republicans who support waterboarding and offer to waterboard them for 15 minutes. Then ask their opinion after the waterboarding! Seems like a legal way to debate the issue no???

[Brett85]

It's not just about waterboarding. It's using razorblades on a guy's penis. It's sending people to Uzbekistan to be raped with broken bottles. It's threatening to crush their child's testicles. It's anally raping teenage children (I forget if that was in front of their parents or not). It's siccing dogs on naked prisoners, who have been specifically trained to attack the genitals. It's murder.

It shouldn't be legal to do any of those things, but I wasn't aware that those things had ever been done on prisoners. Do you have a link?

[Brett85]

In such a "ticking time bomb situation" as you put it, if waterboarding does not get any info from a suspected suspect, would you support following enhanced torture techniques also to make the country safe:

- unmuzzled dogs on use after forced nudity, fake electric shocks, nude humanballs, sexual assaults and other enhenced tactics used ta Abu Ghraib

If above also does not yield any info from suspect,

- electroc shocks, pulling nails, cutting small body parts or use of electric drills on detainees as some British trained interrogators are accused of using in Iraq

If goal is to defend the country, what's wrong with these tactics used in Iraq.

Like I said in an earlier post, those things should be illegal. But if I was President and I authorized torture in a "ticking time bomb" type situation, I would accept responsibility for my actions and serve jail time if I had to. I would let a jury decide whether I deserved to go to jail for that.

[doodle]

Like I said in an earlier post, those things should be illegal. But if I was President and I authorized torture in a "ticking time bomb" type situation, I would accept responsibility for my actions and serve jail time if I had to. I would let a jury decide whether I deserved to go to jail for that.

You seems to be suggesting that a CIA contractor or interrogator in Iraq or some other place with a "ticking time bomb" should be required to call Washignton and secure Presidential approval before using enhanced torture techniques? What if a liberal wuss is POTUS at the time, should the interrogation contractor or soldier carrying out the interrogation of suspected suspect risk country or American lives and not deploy torture on their own and face the jury later?

You did not answer the question though, if someone produced evidence that using illegal electric shocks or pulling nails or cutting body parts can save American lives and diffuse ticking bombs, will you put laws above safety of Americans in such a scenario?

[Humanae Libertas]

I think you're all jumping the gun on Traditional Conservative's view on water boarding. I don't agree with it, but it is a much more sensible approach then the one we have now where we just waterboard to find out who ate the last doughnut. Just my 2 cents.

[LibertyEagle]

Our soldiers get waterboarded when they go through their basic training. If waterboarding is torture, that means we torture our own soldiers when they go through basic training. Again, it's not something that I or anybody else want to do, but I would rather frighten a terrorist than have millions of dead Americans.

I'm a fan of Ron and agree with him that we should bring all of our troops home from around the world, but this is one issue that I disagree with him on. I don't think anybody here agrees with Ron 100% of the time.

Who determines if someone is a terrorist? The President?

What happens when they put that label on you?

By then, it will be too late.

We were established as a nation of laws for a reason. Every person is to have their day in court. If we so easily disregard that because the torture is happening to someone else, we have lost all sense of the liberty and morality for which our country used to stand. In addition to common sense.

[Anti Federalist]

I owe you a rep

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.


Who determines if someone is a terrorist? The President?

What happens when they put that label on you?

By then, it will be too late.

We were established as a nation of laws for a reason. Every person is to have their day in court. If we so easily disregard that because the torture is happening to someone else, we have lost all sense of the liberty and morality for which our country used to stand. In addition to common sense.

[emazur]

I don't believe that U.S citizens should ever go through enhanced interrogations. U.S citizens should have the full protections of the United States Constitution.

How about U.S. citizens who are arrested abroad? If the foreign authorities thought an American committed a crime serious enough to warrant torture and actually went through with it, I suppose you would have no problem with that? If you did have a problem, you should be able to understand why other people, foreign or domestic, would oppose torture in America.

[Brett85]

Who determines if someone is a terrorist? The President?

What happens when they put that label on you?

By then, it will be too late.

We were established as a nation of laws for a reason. Every person is to have their day in court. If we so easily disregard that because the torture is happening to someone else, we have lost all sense of the liberty and morality for which our country used to stand. In addition to common sense.

I said before that American citizens should have full Constitutional rights.

[Brett85]

How about U.S. citizens who are arrested abroad? If the foreign authorities thought an American committed a crime serious enough to warrant torture and actually went through with it, I suppose you would have no problem with that? If you did have a problem, you should be able to understand why other people, foreign or domestic, would oppose torture in America.

After they committed the act of torture, they should be held accountable to a jury. I said that if I were President and ever authorized torture, I would accept responsibility and go before a jury. I don't believe that acts of torture should be legal.

[Brett85]

You seems to be suggesting that a CIA contractor or interrogator in Iraq or some other place with a "ticking time bomb" should be required to call Washignton and secure Presidential approval before using enhanced torture techniques? What if a liberal wuss is POTUS at the time, should the interrogation contractor or soldier carrying out the interrogation of suspected suspect risk country or American lives and not deploy torture on their own and face the jury later?

You did not answer the question though, if someone produced evidence that using illegal electric shocks or pulling nails or cutting body parts can save American lives and diffuse ticking bombs, will you put laws above safety of Americans in such a scenario?

I would do whatever it took to stop the attack from occurring, and I would then accept responsibility for what I did, even if it meant going to prison for life. As I said, acts of torture should be illegal, and we do have laws against torture. I'm not proposing that we abolish our laws against torture.

[doodle]

I said before that American citizens should have full Constitutional rights.

So someone like Timothy McVeigh should not be waterboarded or tortured if he had been arrested/was being intorrogated for plotting something that could risk many lives?

[demolama]

Been watching tweets and facebook feedback from time to time throughout the day today... same message of "Ron Paul not supporting waterboarding means I can't support him" constantly comes out. its actually quite sad how many people support torture.


And no our soldiers do not get water boarded as a part of their basic training. Only those in special ops who go through SERE school do.\

As Beccaria wrote in his book On Crimes and Punishments torture does not do anything but allow the physically strongest to last longer and get away free even if he was guilty. The weakest, however, will tell the interrogator whatever he wants to just end the torture.

[Brett85]

So someone like Timothy McVeigh should not be waterboarded or tortured if he had been arrested/was being intorrogated for plotting something that could risk many lives?

Right. I wouldn't support torturing U.S citizens and trashing the Constitution under any circumstances.

[doodle]

It seems like there are too many libertarians and only one "Traditional Conservative" making it very uneven playing field of arguments, so TC should be applauded just for that fact also even if we strongly disagree. But TC your view provides a very important insight into thinking that is very common outside libertarian/liberal hubs and especially among "conservatives" at large in America. It's unfortunate that we have only handful such voices here in discussions and too many overly libertarian minded anti-torture, pro liberties for all humans type folks here :)

[Brett85]

Been watching tweets and facebook feedback from time to time throughout the day today... same message of "Ron Paul not supporting waterboarding means I can't support him" constantly comes out. its actually quite sad how many people support torture.

That's unfortunate. I disagree with him on this issue, but I would still vote for him regardless.

[pcosmar]

That the issue is even a question is very wrong.

That it is considered even marginally acceptable is disturbing.

[showpan]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mini-Me again.



Who determines if someone is a terrorist? The President?
.

Who determines who would be detained in the first place. Many of the detainees were targeted simply because someone told a troop patrol that they were a terrorist. It could have been a disgruntled neighbor, a cheating spouse, someone who didn't like you, etc, etc. Many of the accused who have never actually been accused of anything were snatched and grabbed because someone (anyone) could simply and anonymously tell a US soldier that you were a terrorist. The ones who were finally released could not go back to their homes because they were labeled as one of them. Their homes were ransacked and robbed, their wives and children were raped. Their lives were completely destroyed. Many of the ‘Enemy Combatants" were also just pissed off folks who had their homes and families killed by missiles and cluster bombs. If this happened to me, I wouldn't stop until I had taken revenge on as many as I possibly could. And I wouldn't do the whole suicide thing either....The blow back from this crap will haunt us for years to come. Much of the whole world sees us now as a two headed snake.

REPORT ON GUANTANAMO DETAINEES
A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data
http://law.shu.edu/publications/guantanamoReports/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf

[doodle]

Right. I wouldn't support torturing U.S citizens and trashing the Constitution under any circumstances.

Not even in the "ticking time bomb" situation?

If so, you would be putting a piece of paper above safety of very large number of Americans. On the surface this stance seems bit inconsistent.

As much as I disagree with Obama's stances, he's consistent on assuming poer for assassinations of US citizens or non-US citizens without a trial if Obama declares them terrorist.

[demolama]

damn you Jack Bauer!

[georgiaboy]

I owe you a rep

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.


Who determines if someone is a terrorist? The President?

What happens when they put that label on you?

By then, it will be too late.

We were established as a nation of laws for a reason. Every person is to have their day in court. If we so easily disregard that because the torture is happening to someone else, we have lost all sense of the liberty and morality for which our country used to stand. In addition to common sense.

taken care of. well, if substitutionary reps count :) [no mysterious mod-interventionism here ;)]

Let the laws be as strict as possible in this arena, and let the chips fall accordingly. The United States of America was founded on too precious a set of standards, God-honoring standards, for this to be handled loosely.

TC, I like and respect you a lot here, and it's with no small amount of difficulty that I must side against you on this topic.

1 Paul 20:12

[Brett85]

Not even in the "ticking time bomb" situation?

If so, you would be putting a piece of paper above safety of very large number of Americans. On the surface this stance seems bit inconsistent.

As much as I disagree with Obama's stances, he's consistent on assuming poer for assassinations of US citizens or non-US citizens without a trial if Obama declares them terrorist.

Yeah, that's true. I guess in a situation like that I would just pray to God that the attack was botched.

[Mini-Me]

It shouldn't be legal to do any of those things, but I wasn't aware that those things had ever been done on prisoners. Do you have a link?

To learn about torturers cutting a man's penis with razor blades, look up the name "Binyam Mohamed." He's a UK citizen, and you'll find a large number of links about his story. Here's one. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/20/torture-claims-binyam-mohamed)

There's an RPF's thread on rendition to Uzbekistan and broken bottle rape here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?217692-CIA-sent-people-to-be-%E2%80%98raped-with-broken-bottles%E2%80%99&highlight=uzbekistan). Here's an earlier article on whistleblower Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/jul/15/foreignpolicy.uk). A lot of articles will come up if you run a search, many quoting an article that appeared on RawStory (but is no longer there). Here's just one (http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-uk-ambassador-us-sent-detainee). It's a biased source of course, but the MSM mostly doesn't touch this stuff; it's impolitic enough to remain obscure.

jmdrake has a good post here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?51797-Ron-Paul-and-Water-Boarding&p=586242&viewfull=1#post586242) with several relevant links, including references to John Yoo's defense of crushing children's testicles for information from their parents.

Whistleblower Seymour Hersh came out in 2004 about children being raped at Abu Ghraib and the Pentagon having videos. A quick search came up with this link (http://www.boingboing.net/2004/07/15/hersh_children_raped.html), but there's a lot more floating out there. Back then, most people acted like he was full of shit; he was vindicated when a Pentagon sergeant in charge of the investigation confirmed several of his allegations and confirmed that the contents of the Pentagon tapes are extremely unconscionable. (Sadly, I cannot find that confirmation of this anymore. I keep trying to find an older post of mine containing a bunch of relevant links - including better ones - but I'm having trouble. Someone else may have more luck finding this confirmation or other relevant links. This should probably be enough to get you started though.)

Each story might not have impeccable credibility taken alone, but the pattern of stories paints a pretty clear picture of what's actually going on. In any case, the "ticking time bomb" scenario is the one people always use to justify torture, yet it's also the one instance where the subject will be most likely to:
a.) hold out just long enough so that the bomb goes off, or
b.) tell interrogators whatever they want to hear long enough for the torture to stop and for the bomb to go off.
In other words, the most desperate, time-limited scenario is the one scenario where torture is least likely to work. However, this single scenario is constantly being used as an excuse for secret prisons and "enhanced interrogation." If nothing else, the government has shown absolutely no indication that it can be trusted with discretion over "enhanced interrogations," let alone the complete unaccountability that secrecy brings.

Also, keep this in mind: Even if torture and "enhanced interrogation" are deemed 100% illegal, nobody will realistically follow the law in a "ticking time bomb" situation anyway. If it came down to it, you and I know that any agent who actually cared about stopping an attack would risk going rogue to do it. You already indicated that you'd do the same, after all. Forgiving someone afterwards is just a whole lot safer than giving immunity up front. In other words, there is literally nothing to lose by keeping it illegal by default, establishing transparency and accountability, and trying interrogators by jury after the fact for "exceptions." The only thing that banning torture will do is stop it from being routine and completely out of control.

[doodle]

Yeah, that's true. I guess in a situation like that I would just pray to God that the attack was botched.

Interesting, you seem to believe that God has the power to botch such plots. Perhaps for Religion section someday, that would also be an interesting discussion.

[doodle]

Someone's been watching too much '24'.

Or Bill O'Reilly on Fox.