I, personally, view going to prison as torture. So, to some of you here, no matter what I do, better not send me to prison. Not if you want to keep a clear conscience.

For those of you who wish to be the lambs, fed to the lions, be my guest. Your sensitivities amuse me.

I, for one, thank God every night for the rugged, clear thinking men and women who are willing to put their lives and comfort on the line under the most extreme circumstances so that the rest of us might engage in these intellectual exercises.

Look around folks, Nature can be very cruel. Survival is rule number one.

Islamic extremism is the enemy we face today. Kindness will not defeat them. I say, look them in the eye, draw the line. If they cross it they pay. And it should be painful.

Thank you. You may be interested to learn that the Bible states, in the original language, that all atheists go to Heaven… eventually. The lake of fire is not vindictive and without end but remedial. It burns away every sin ever committed along with the sinful nature and prepares all mankind for the grace of God in complete and total restoration in sonship to God and perfection. That’s my view because it’s what the Bible in original language states. I always have a heart for atheists who are told they are going to burn in hell for eternity.

How does this relate to torture?? Well, don’t you think that a view of God as an eternal torturer makes people think, “Well, if God tortures - it can’t really be all that wrong to torture people… if it’s “justified”.” Eternal torture (eternal torment) is a false doctrine that instills really, really bad principles in people that they don’t consciously comprehend is part of their weakness in character sometimes. I mean, it’s not necessary to understand God loves and saves all in final restoration to be against torture - but it certainly brings us closer to the true heart of God in understanding grace and God’s love for all people as His children - though some are prodigals. God views all people as His children - even those of diverse religions at this time. God will, from a biblical view in the original language, bring all prodigals home by granting them clear understanding and faith in Himself in salvation in the end. I just think that this view of “us against them” instead of seeing ourselves as all one family born of Adam and one family to be reborn of Christ in due season - creates this tendency to demonize and objectify people and that’s when things get dangerous.

I just don’t expect that the Islamicists, however, can take so gracious a view because their religion doesn’t teach grace rather than law and compulsion and such. However, Christianity is a loving religion - and all weakness towards God’s grace and love for all people is best removed by clarification - so that we can see and know the great love with which God views all mankind - even those who do not believe in Him or those who follow another religion - still God loves them, died for them, and will have ultimate grace and mercy on them in restoration. I think the more Christians know and realize that truth, the less adversarial they will be in positions of power and the greater grace they will have. Abraham Lincoln, I believe, it is promoted he held this view. (Though, honestly, I personally cannot see the war against the South as a “Just War” because I do believe in liberty and the rights of free states to secede. Nonetheless, though I cannot agree with his declaration of war against the South - I still think his character showed a humility that is present when we realize that God does not have “have” and “have nots” in His mind… but rather has all people in His heart in love and will bring all to a place where they truly do believe and desire to spend eternity with Him in love of their own free wills… one day. That, as a Christian faith, to me lends greater grace to all.)

Hyperion… you may be right. I will grant you that - I may be wrong and you may be right. It is challenging for me. If political power can be raised to prosecute - I don’t think I will defend any. After all, I saw soldiers who received higher orders prosecuted… and I did not appreciate how law was applied to them and not others. I will cede to the will of the people. I am having a challenging time, honestly, determining what is “right” and what is “wrong” in relation to prosecution of these crimes. I very strongly believe in human rights - and the need to hold a firm line against torture. I even could not feel strong conviction inside myself when I said it’s too late now. Nixon was impeached and pardoned. The law was upheld, yet the dignity of the office was upheld as well. You may be right and I may be wrong and I will not strenuously debate my position because I do not hold it with inner conviction that I am standing on a firm foundation of justice and right and wrong. I think I’ll pray about it and leave the matter to the Lord. If you raised a strong consensus on the matter, I would not be on an opposite side opposing you on it. That’s all I can say.

Merry Christmas to all.

Grace.

To say that we should consider prosecuting, for example, John Yoo, Douglas Feith, or Donald Rumsfeld because they had a position on the law that later was regarded as unpopular or incorrect strikes me as little more then post de-facto justice.

I believe that the Attorney General of the State of California is engaged in rank violation of his duties under Constitution of his state by making absurd claims that somehow an the amendment passed to bar marriage between two persons of the same sex is somehow invalidate because it “invalidates a previously established right.” However, does this mean that if California, in the unlikely event of a sudden Republican takover should consider attempting to prosecute AG Brown for say, crimes against the state constitution despite the fact he clearly believes his actions are within his ideas, however misguided, of a “living constitution” should function? Of course not, such would be ridiculous.

What I am suggesting is that we must be extremely careful with the idea of proceeding with trials of political appointees for subjects of current of democratic debate in a country for the reason that such actions would quickly become addictive for a party in power, and the party in opposition would soon wish to return the favor. Such things would necessarily lead to rapid destabilization, and the risk of the political violence as partisans become concerned they can no longer operate openly without the risk of oppression from above.

Now, perhaps you would like to explain how Christianity is not a religion of peace? How far back do you want to go? 15th century? 10th century? 8th century? How about modern Christianity? Seen many Christians flying planes into tall buildings lately?

You say you have never read anything that leads you to believe that “torture” (since you consider waterboarding torture) works. Explain then KSM. Why is it that after he was waterboarded he gave up intelligence that proved to be 90% accurate? Or do you discount him out of convenience?

Obviously, you do not understand radical Islam as you seem to be operating from a moral compass they do not subscribe to. You, like most liberals, judge a society by your own accepted societal norms. Perhaps you should read a little more about Islam, and where the radicalism comes from. You say that you don’t care that they don’t subscribe to your guidelines of morality. I say that if you don’t understand the enemy, you cannot defeat them.

You think I am a bad person because I don’t give a damn about the terrorists, their supposed “civil” rights, and know that if they had the chance, they would happily remove my head from my neck. I think you are a fool. Guess that levels the playing field.

You stick to your guns. I will continue to support those who load theirs.

What is it you don’t understand about radical Islam?

Nothing. I understand it well.

Are you still buying into that whole “Religion of Peace” thing?

Meh. As much as I buy into Christianity being a “Religion of Peace”.

Do you really think that the Jolly Jihadists subscribe to your guidelines on “morality”?

No. And furthermore, I don’t care.

Can you show that even one person’s life has been spared since we announced we will no longer waterboard anyone in our custody?

This question is nonsense.

I can promise you that if you had one clue as to the mindset of the jihadists,

I understand the mindset. Just like any fundamentalist religious faction that thinks it’s doing Gods work, It’s not that hard to grasp.

you would understand that any capulation on our part (including the suspension of tough interrogation techniques) is thought of as a weakness on our part and should be exploited.

Nothing, nothing I have ever read has proved that torture actually works. NOTHING. You think I care about some terrorist being waterboarded, which, by the way IS torture? No, I don’t care. Torture results in lies mixed with truth. Torture results in mediocre to bad intelligence that wastes time and money. Wasting time and money costs lives. If torture produced anything of value that couldn’t have been achieved by non evil means, then I’d be all for it, but it doesn’t.

Instead, it is an evil, morrally corrupt, time and money wasting practice that results in bad intelligence and false allegations. It’s something that I don’t want my country to be a part of because there are other, more effective ways of getting BETTER information.

The universal ticking time bomb scenario does not apply. It’s designed as a back door to give people a way condoning evil while feeling good about it. Congratulations.

Your argument is silly.

It is amazing to me that people here say they would do anything to protect their own children, yet will take the moral high ground when it comes to protecting thousand of other people’s children just so they can feel good about themselves.

What is it you don’t understand about radical Islam? Are you still buying into that whole “Religion of Peace” thing? Do you really think that the Jolly Jihadists subscribe to your guidelines on “morality”? Can you show that even one person’s life has been spared since we announced we will no longer waterboard anyone in our custody? I can promise you that if you had one clue as to the mindset of the jihadists, you would understand that any capulation on our part (including the suspension of tough interrogation techniques) is thought of as a weakness on our part and should be exploited.

No, I don’t think we should “torture”. No cutting off limbs or hands. No streching racks, cigarette put out in eyes, hanging from hoodks. But if subjecting the jihadists to Madonna music at a high decible level, and pouring water over their faces to make them think they are going to drown saves even one innocent American life, pass me the watering can.

Feel free to take the “moral” high ground. There are those who are willing to abandon theirs to protect you and prevent a tall building from falling down around you.

But the justification for war is another topic- this one is about the criminal liability of torture administrators. Lets debate the former another day.

I prefer waterboarded terrorists over dead family members, so I’m going to have to side with the interrogators. Keep in mind that, although they were subjected to extreme discomfort, NONE of those guys died or suffered permanent disabilities. So as long as the motives of the interrogators wasn’t to get their jollies off, I see no crime.

Sorry about all the caps- I don’t know how to insert bold or italics.

Hell, why not just do that? The United States hereby declares a War on Evil! It will be perpetual war, and any time we want to spend money on something we’ll put it under the all encompassing umbrella of the War on Evil. Thus, if taxpayers should ever demand some accountability, we’ll just say we need to spend your money as part of the War on Evil. They’ll fold in a heartbeat because hey, who wants to be known for interfering with the War on Evil?

It’s a propaganda tool designed specifically to fool people. It is as ridiculous as the supposed War on Drugs. The War on Drugs is a complete and utter failure that wastes billions of taxpayer dollars. So too is the War on Terror. A war without end with a black gaping tax dollar money pit bigger than all the rest.

Of course there are evil people who want to kill us. Of course we should find them and kill them. But doing so under financial rubber stamp of the “War on Terror” is a disservice to the American tax payer, not to mention a virtual green light for the destruction of personal liberties.