Torture? NO, but lets have an honest discussion about it

what if a known sex offender lives in a neighborhood where a girl has just gone missing and time is of the essence, should we torture this person to save the girls life?

How do you know the known sex offender you are strapping to the waterboard is responsible for the current disappearance? What about other explanations (she fell down a hole) or other perps (a perv from a different area targeted this neighborhood becasue he knew that the known sex offender you are strapping to the waterboard would be the automatic suspect, thereby providing him with excellent coverage).

You torture your suspect for a while and eventually he confesses, just to make the torture stop, knowing that the confession is not going to be admissible in court and therefore while he cannot be convicted he will be getting many millions of dollars from his lawsuit against the city. He tells you some BS and you spend more police time and resources chasing down that BS....meanwhile, "time is of the essence", and you are wasting it.

of being a petty dictator, but those are supported by his theory of the Unitary Executive (first pioneered under Nixon) and his continued refusal to state which branch of government the Vice President actually exists in (he waffles, so that he doesn't need to go to subpoenas and other Legislative Constraints on Executive Overreach). 

Did you get a chance to read that link that I posted? it documents the medical evidence of torture on eleven prisoners, the long term physical and mental damage as well.

We have documented evidence that an interrogator was formally reprimanded for showing empathy towards one of the prisoners. The interrogator later committed suicide. I think that says a lot about how much we were trying to mitigate damage, doesn't it?

We have had over a hundred prisoners die in our care, at least a third of which are considered possible homicides. I find it incredible to think that 30 people might have died through prisoner abuse or "interrogation techniques"... but when so many suspicious deaths occur... well, where there's smoke there's fire, and I wouldn't be surprised if we murdered a few, judging by that link I posted in the other diary, where it chronicles severe physical beatings on prisoners.

And you're right, these things should be structured.

All the CIA interrogators and the higher-ups have concluded, multiple times, that "tea and crumpets" gives more accurate and actionable information, with fewer distracting lies.

I'm not 100% against torture, though I do believe it's a crime. I also believe it should be tried as a last resort... But I also believe that anyone who does torture should go to jail, and possibly be killed. It's an extreme act, and it deserves extreme consequences -- for the good of our country, and it's reputation.

We pay the CIA to do our dirty work. We pay them to make difficult decisions -- such as when it's worth it to put your life on the line, for actionable data and to preserve your country's good name.

at a minimum, the OLC memos were unconscionable distortions of current case law and legislative law, not to mention international treaties!

the OLC memos did not authorize Abu's waterboarding for 80+ times in one month! So someone clearly exceeded the legal opinion that they were supposed to be acting under...

at a maximum, there was an extreme amount of Arm Twisting from key cabinet officials, in order to get those memos.

I want to get to the bottom of this... even if that means trying the previous President of the United States for Treason (which, I'll admit, is just not going to happen -- i'm not even trying to say that there's a case for that. but if that's what legally should occur, under our rule of law, that's what I want to happen.)

These prosecutions had BETTER go somewhere, or we will be called to account by international treaty laws, and possibly in the International Criminal Court. The United States signs treaties, and they'd better keep the treaties they sign...

I have full faith and confidence in our justice system, and in our ability to call to account the relevant perpetrators of crimes.

I believe I recently saw a historical example of US soldiers being prosecuted and imprisoned for waterboarding a prisoner.

Let's face it. If American soldiers were waterboarded in captivity, there would be no hesitation to properly call it torture. The only hesitation we have now is because of who would be held accountable.

If Pelosi considers it to be torture and did nothing to expose or stop it, why shouldn't she be hauled before a judge?

In these situations the briefings that members of Congress receive are informational only (their advice or consent is not sought) and they are top-secret classified (they cannot even be discussed with members of the Congressman's staff).  So what is it, exactly, that Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid - the minority leaders at the time - could have done?

Are you criticizing them for not leaking the information to the NYT?

And - swear on a bible - had they done so in 2002 or 2003, you would not have demanded their immediate execution for treason?

"...no U.S. law then outlawed waterboarding"  I'll let the Justice Department decide that, not the Chicago Sun.

I've never argued that Pelosi, Reid and any other Dems who explictly or tacitly approved or allowed a U.S. torture program shouldn't be hauled before a judge.  I think this is where the Right will hang themselves on this: by assuming this is just some kind of partisan witch hunt, they feel compelled to defend Bush officials and the techniques themselves out of partisan loyalty.  This is not a partisan issue for anyone I know who feels strongly about it.  The clamor for investigation and follow-up action as required by law would be as motivated if it had been discovered that Obama's administration engaged in it. 

"And where would the finger-pointing stop?"  Wherever it leads.  This seems to insinuate that if, gasp!, the investigation points to wrongdoing at the top, well, surely, we shouldn't pursue an investigation?!  Um, no.  That's a breathtaking assertion on its face, that the possibility some high-level officials may be implicated is in itself reason to forego an investigation.

I mean, *really*, is leaving dozens of people physical and psychological wrecks truly torture if there is no law expressly prohibiting such behavior? Some would say that many of the people in Guantanamo were clean of any terrorist activity, but hey, what's a bit of maiming between friends, right? The fact that 30 people died in Gitmo is certainly interesting, and warrants further investigation, but the important part here is whether their interrogators knew they were doing something wrong.

I agree with your second point. I just don't understand how the "moral majority" could be so flippant on how we treat our captives. I'm angry with the previous administration in the same way that I am angry with people who want to make abortion more prevalent; I don't understand why this isn't more common.