So your position is that every decision a CIC makes, he should have to get in front of a committee or jury and answer questions and justify his actions?

Just how ridiculous do you want to get with that? If he flies on AirForce 1, should he have to justify the expense in front of a committee?

If he is notified of an incoming ballistic missile, should he first assemble a committee and see if they will all support him if he takes an action to prevent it? would he have to justify the expense of launching an anti-ballistic missile?

If terrorists capture an airliner and point it toward the Empire State building, does he have to assemble a committee to see if they will support him if he orders it to be intercepted? Wouldn’t want to ‘torture’ those poor terrorists by killing them, would we?

Both the constitution and Congress have given the President the authority to do what he feels is necessary to defend American citizens. It does not say that he will have to go before a committee and defend his actions. His actions are justified solely on the basis that ‘he took the action he thought was necessary to defend Americans’. No other justification is necessary. That’s what the polling place if for.

and yes, I knew your post was just above mine, I took that quote from your post. You didn’t answer why you feel like it is okay for you to defend your family, but it’s not okay with you for the President (who is empowered to do so) to defend your family for you.

Look, I know you want to continue to make an ass of yourself, but please attempt to use one grain of brainpower so that your ignorance and stupidity will not be so obvious. i.e.; quit being a typical liberal.

Have a good day.

Right now. Anyone who knew about this and did nothing to stop it is liable and should be investigated. However, as I said earlier in this very thread:

“I fully believe that we will never get true investigations into the “torture regime”, precisely because the top leadership of both parties were fully aware of what was going on. Pelosi, Rockefeller, possibly Reid – they all knew what was going on, and raised no significant objections.”

I realize this may be difficult for some of you to grasp, but I don’t mindlessly defend politicians just because they have a (D) after their name. My loyalty isn’t to a political party – it’s to what’s best for the country.

So what’s your take on Senators and Representatives who know about it, approve of it, and actually supply funds to do it–but only as long as it’s to their political advantage to do so, and then proceed to pretend that they’re shocked, SHOCKED?

By my (admittedly layman’s) understanding of the law, if performing those interrogations was criminal, then the Senators and Representatives who did not immediately report the interrogations to the DoJ are guilty of misprision of a felony at a minimum, if not of being an outright accessory (depending on when they were notified and/or whether they assisted in the commission of the felony or felonies in question).

So when can we expect to see you and conman loudly calling for Daschle, Reid, Clinton, Leahy, Rockefeller, Pelosi, and the rest of (to use William Gaines’ immortal line) “the usual gang of idiots” getting indicted?

That is honestly a very reasonable argument. If there is a decision made to use “enhanced interrogation techniques” on a suspect, and that is approved by “the CIC/POTUS only (with knowledge by the Chairs of the Senate Intelligence Committee of the reason to do it, and the information obtained)” – then I’m probably okay with it.

Nonetheless, that doesn’t preclude latter investigations into whether or not the CIC/POTUS made a decision under those circumstances that was illegal. As I’ve said: let him get in front of a Congressional committe, or a jury, or whatever, and argue it. If the facts are on his side – great. If not – then he should be considering those facts when he makes that decision in the first place.

“But you would put limits on what other people could do to protect their families? what? a double standard?”

You do realize that my comment is right above yours, right? You know that people need to use one mouse click to see the full content?

“But I also realize that I could be punished if I cross a certain line. I love my family enough to risk that punishment.”

If those “other people” love their family (or their country) enough to risk that punishment – then let them go ahead and do so. Let them get in front of a jury, or a congressional committee, and explain why they did what they did.

If they don’t – if they are too cowardly to face the repurcussions of their actions, or if they don’t truly believe that what they are doing is right and just – then no, I don’t believe the US government should be actively trying to protect those sadistic cowards.

Let’s not confuse the facts. There is no doubt that waterboarding has saved thousands of lives. The CIA head has testified to that, ex-CIA agents (even those opposed to waterboarding) have stated that, the Administration has stated that, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, The Bojinka Plot, etc.

Is it torture? There seems to be a debate about it. In my reading about the history of waterboarding…..there have been varying tactics and degrees of waterboarding throughout history…..some of which could be considered torture….the later methods would not be considered torture.

My own conclusion is that if it is good enough to use on our own best and brightest special forces in training excercises….it is good enough to use on cold blooded killers who want to kill Americans. And, if a Fox News reporter can demonstrate waterboarding live on tv (with no harm done)…..it is not torture.

But, that is just my opinion. And neither you nor I have all the information we need to make a full judgement. So, I have no problems with our government debating the issue and coming up with guidelines for our military and CIA to follow that are legal and don’t include torture (permanent physical or mental damage) by whatever definition they can agree upon. Then we all have to live with that decision as a country. We will probably continue to tweak many of our policies and procedures over the next decade (back and forth) and through several presidencies until we arrive at a place we are all comfortable with. I think Bush has done an excellent job in those beginning phases to lay the foundation.

However, regardless of what our field policies are……I still think if we have a top known terrorist, and reason to suspect he has knowledge of current plots that will kill thousands of people…..coerced interrogation methods (not torture) should be allowed as a tool (not banned)……and the authority to do so should come at the top level by the CIC/POTUS only (with knowledge by the Chairs of the Senate Intelligence Committee of the reason to do it, and the information obtained).

Time will tell what Obama does. He has yet to be in that position of making a decision that may save thousands of lives or not.

There are no limits to what I would do to protect my family.

But you would put limits on what other people could do to protect their families? what? a double standard?

Yup – what conman said: I would do whatever it would take to protect my family.

And if I did something illegal, I would expect to be arrested and hauled into court, where I could explain myself.

As I’ve said several times – you all really don’t know who the enemy is. I’m not saying that I would never, ever expect a CIA agent to engage in torture. (I’m not even saying there are some bastards out there who might deserve it.)

The problem comes when it is explicity endorsed by the government of this country. If some Jack Bauer-wannabe decides to stab a guy in the eardrum with a ball point pen because he thinks it’ll get him info – well, okay. I’m not inviting that guy to my house for drinks – but okay, he did what he thought was needed. I just want him to do know that what he’s doing is illegal – and I certainly don’t want it to be an endorsed policy of my own government. I mean – at what point do we stop being any better than the KGB in their heyday?

And you better be damn sure that, if his actions were uncovered, I would expect him to be arrested, or at the very least investigated by Congress. If he can prove that his actions saved lives – great, give him a slap on the wrist and let him go. Otherwise, he should expect to do hard time.

There are no limits to what I would do to protect my family. But I also realize that I could be punished if I cross a certain line. I love my family enough to risk that punishment.

You mean, as opposed to your theory: Just blame the Democrats?

No, my theory is to hold the president in office primarily accountable for the events that happen on their watch. I don’t blame Nixon/Ford for the problems Carter encountered under his presidency. I don’t blame Bush I for the problems that occured on Clinton’s watch. Same goes for the GOP presidents. Leadership is about taking accountability for events that occur under your watch.

Your theory is to blame everything on the Democrats and provide excuses for all of the Republican failures. Why would Americans want to elect Republicans when they apparently can’t do anything to reverse the Democratic policies and all they do is make excuses for their own failings?

I’ll answer your question – and then explain why it has no relevancy to the issue at hand. The answer to both questions is no, in particular the second question related to my family. I think I already covered the reasons why in response to Redteam’s hypothetical.

The reason why your question is irrelevant is that our country cannot adopt policies based on such hypotheticals. There are a lot of really bad things I would be willing to do in order to protect my family. But that doesn’t mean that we want to legalize all of the bad deeds I or you would be willing to do to save our families. Let me ask you this – would you be willing to kill a terrorist or any other human being in order to save your families lives? I would in a heartbeat, but that doesn’t mean that I think we should adopt policies that legalize killing people in an interrogation.

Our country has faced many enemies in its history that were far more dangerous that Al Qaeda without resorting to torture.