You have really gone around the bend. You are condoning torture. I thought you were Americans that believed in the Constitution, the one that reads "No cruel nor unusual punishment".

Three reasons I don't support the McCain ban:

1) In order for the THREAT of torture to be an effective motivator, one must...must absolutely believe that one is subject to torture. For example, the agonizing screams of pain from the tape recorder in the next cell must be believed to be effective.

2) The notion that our service members will NOT be tortured because we ban the same is not proven, or not believable.

3) The idea that the US is diminished in global stature by NOT banning torture completely ignores the continued opinion polls which show we are not trusted anyway. And, amongst our actual, real-world allies (Israel, the UK commonwealth, the Kurds, certain former Eastern bloc nations, etc), one can easily believe they either use torture themselves or don't give a rip.

Nice headline.

"Torture of Terrorists Supported"

"... least on rare occasions.... "

This poll shouldn't surprise any of us. I don't know of anyone that is concerned about the comfort of our captured enemy...except John Mcain.
I guess he has a right to have an opinion about this subject because as a POW his captors obviously beat him in the head resulting in brain damage.
If I went deaf and were not able to hear the actual words of Mcain, I would still know that he's a RINO (Republican in name only). How would I know this? Because I can't turn on my TV or radio without having to suffer through the never-ending Mcain campaign!
Does anyone think that this boob would get so much air time if he actually promoted America?! Maybe he's mad at America because we didn't rescue him from HIS captors quick enough. Well, John, maybe that's because that other John (Kerry) hindered our military just as he does now! He's STILL calling our brave brothers and sisters "terrorists"!
Just this morning another America hater, Don "Please think I'm hip" Imus, asked Mcain if he would consider asking Howard "I forgot to take my medication" Dean, to step down as the DNC Grand Dragon. Who would have thought that Mcain said "no"?
Another question that Imus asked was "Do you still think about running for President"? Mcain: "Every morning".
I thought Mcain was against torture. Why does he have to keep torturing the Republican party? John, please, JUST GO AWAY!

Torture: Safe, legal and rare. Okay, I stole that but I'll reiterate that in the case of gathering time sensitive intelligence that averts terror attacks any means that does not cause permanent disfigurement and that actually WORKS should be fine and dandy for "unlawful combatants". Those aren't scare quotes, that is a term of art coined by the Geneva Conventions. All that said, we have not seen ONE documented case of torture yet. If a civilian prison guard beats up a prisoner just for yuks, is that torture? No, it is an assault under cover of authority, it is illegal and when discovered, it is prosecuted just as have been many cases in the military. To date I think there are seven convictions with jail time in Abu Graihb so it is not policy, obviously and properly, to engage even in those famous activities during which, of coursem NO ONE was physically harmed at all. Waterboarding is not torture. It is strictly a psychological technique and causes no more damage to the subject than when a toddler holds his breath as an act of defiance.

"Waterboarding is not torture."

Is it assault?

Torture DOES work.

It works by getting information from people who would otherwise not give it.

But mostly it works by being an option, one that every captive is aware of. Merely knowing that it is on the table as a possibility adds great pressure. Conversely, knowing that it is totally forbidden means that prisoners can blithely refuse to answer any questions at all, secure in the protection offered to them by fuzzy-headed (though well-meaning) liberals who would rather have their neighbors firebombed, to choose between burning and leaping 1000 feet to their deaths.

What Christian and others of his ilk do not get is that when torture is used, it is used to obtain information that will protect him and others like him. It is not entertainment. It is not used casually. And as far as that goes, it is not even clearly defined. Many on the left define 'torture' as anything that makes a captive uncomfortable, or is 'demeaning' or, God help us, 'insensitive'. I believe that everyone who objects to the use of torture, or who claims that what we have done IS torture, should be required to view the videos taken in the torture rooms of Sadaam Hussein. Then we could ask a question: If waterboarding one of the torturers would have resulted in information that would have saved those being tortured, would you support it? I'm betting the answer would be a strong yes. Because the objections are based on a combination of ignorance and a longing for a shortcut to the higher moral ground, one that does not involve any true responsibility for the outcome.

We must retain the existence of torture, the possibility that it can and might be used. Without that possibility, the terrorists can act at will, without fear.

Almiranta, one more thing should be added to your response to Chris is that what we are talking about is not punishment. Like when a cop shoots someone in the line of duty, that is not punishment. Some will remember our Revered Leftwing Citizens wanted to ban hollow point bullets for law enforcement on "cruel and unusual" grounds. Handcuffs can cause some severe injuries if improperly used but being handcuffed is not punishment under the law. For those who perpetually bark about alleged illegalities, you might learn what you are talking about first.

I thought you were Americans that believed in the Constitution, the one that reads "No cruel nor unusual punishment".

LOL, CW. Since when is anyone on your side concerned about trampling on the Constitution? Show me in the Constitution where it says that the prohibitions of the 8th Amendment apply to non-citizens, enemy combatants or terrorists and/or present proof that we have used torture against an American citizen. I had a much longer response planned, but Almiranta (great post, BTW) and Megapotamus pretty much said it all. What's 100 times more frightening to me than maintaining torture as an option, is the possibility that those who share your views will ever again be in charge of the security of this country.

Here's the true defintion of cruel and unusual punishment...

Anesthesia is given, then they are drug out by their feet and a probe is inserted into their skull..

The description is of a partial birth abortion and is widely supported by democrats as a right..

If this isn't torture..what is???

"Here's the true defintion of cruel and unusual punishment..."

According to thomas, its only punishment after conviction. That jerk.

"Anesthesia is given, then they are drug out by their feet and a probe is inserted into their skull..

The description is of a partial birth abortion and is widely supported by democrats as a right..

Q. If this isn't torture..what is???

A. In the minds of the looney left it represents:
"a woman's constitutional right to choose"

"Waterboarding is not torture."

Is it assault?

Posted by: shortz at December 7, 2005 10:28 AM

The acts involved in waterboarding sure would be if there is no underlying warrant. In case you didn't know, this is a requirement, like a search requires in the civilian realm. Actually, this would be assault and battery since they are laying hands on the individual in question. And hanging is murder without the underlying legal prescriptions. M'kay? What's the point?

Posted by: Almiranta at December 7, 2005 10:45 AM

Well said, Almiranta.

"The acts involved in waterboarding sure would be if there is no underlying warrant. "

Waterboarding is done pursuant to a warrant? who knew.

If you are suffocating, cannot breathe, and believe you will die, it is torture. If a CIA officer breaks in 14 seconds, it is torture. And, even if it were truly arguable that it was not torture, it is not useful, because a terrorist will implicate anybody for the fear of death and asphyxiation to stop. And once you got that coerced "confession" or "intelligence" you would have no way of knowing whether it is truth or BS, and if, as is more than likely, it IS BS, then that "information" will lead you to bring in some poor schmuck, who you will then waterboard, and who will then implicate himself and name some other poor guy who didn't do anything. This is not just speculation: this was precisely how we got our "intelligence" about the nonexistent Iraq/Al Qaeda connection, as this article discusses:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/politics/09intel.html?ex=1291784400&en=13ec2069ef8fa0d6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Brief excerpt:

"The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials. The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition.

The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of Qaeda members and others detained as part of American counterterrorism efforts. The Bush administration used Mr. Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda included training in explosives and chemical weapons.

The fact that Mr. Libi recanted after the American invasion of Iraq and that intelligence based on his remarks was withdrawn by the C.I.A. in March 2004 has been public for more than a year. But American officials had not previously acknowledged either that Mr. Libi made the false statements in foreign custody or that Mr. Libi contended that his statements had been coerced."

So the short story is: if you want to coerce propoganda "confessions" and get intelligence that you know to be faulty, waterboarding torture is for YOU!

Reverse torture seems to work. Air conditioning with good rock music, makes people like the USA.
ipods should be standard issue for prisoners. If that does not work use 78 virgins.