1) youd have to find a prosecutor to prosecute
2) a jury of 12 random people who would all convict him
3) a president who wouldnt pardon him.

now if the scenario you put forward, as ridiculously unlikely as it is, would actually happen, where would you find a prosectuor, 12 random people, and a president who all beleived this guy should be in jail?

If this scenario ever actually occured, the defense could claim “necessity”, which applies in most cases. In the unlikely event that that defense was unavailble, the jury would likely nullify the verdict anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Wailing chicken littles like TamponDon screaam and scream that we need to make acts legal before anyone can undertake them, but making something illegal and finding 12 people to punish them for that act are two totally different things, and you need both before someone receives punishment…

as others have stated very eloquently, no need to turn centuries of legal jurisprudence on its head to deal with every possibile scenario, jury nullification as it exists in the american legal system works VERY nicely to deal with such improbable events as TamponDon presents us with..

What jury of americans do you think is going to convict an american torturer who actually saves american lives you twit? How about this, we make all torture illegal, and in the RARE, UNLIKELY instance where torture actually prevents an attack, the torturers lawyer can claim the defense of “necessity” and he’ll get off. Yes, necessity is a valid legal defense in most jurisdictions for any crime that doesnt involve intentional killing.

Torture is illegal so that we cant torture people willy nilly looking for weapons that dont exist, like saddams WMD. Its so pyschopaths like your heroes will go to jail if they start torturing everyone they dont like without any justification and any real proof. When those people go in front of a jury, their going to go to jail. When people who save american lives go in front of a jury, its going to be a different story.

Tell me, where in america would you find a jury of 12 people (it requires all 12 members of a jury to convict of a criminal offense) who would find a cia agent guity if his actions foiled the sept 11th attacks? Heck, TP readers are probably more against torture than anyone else in america, and i’ll bet if you picked 12 of us randomly you wouldn’t get all 12 in agreement that a torturer who saved thousands of lives should actually be punished.

Heck, for that matter, where would you even find a prosecutor to prosecute?

Life is almost never, ever, like a episode of 24. Thats what deluded hysterics like yourself dont understand.

Never has, and probably never will.

But that won’t stop the Bush cultists from bringing up that hypothetical scenario to support the torture of detainees, just in case it might, perhaps, probably, potentially, maybe, one day, prevent a ticking-time bomb attack.

In other words, they lie because they have to. There is no basis for their support of torture in the real world.

When, in the entire history of mankind, has torture prevented a ticking-time bomb attack?

What forms of interrogation techniques do you find acceptable if American lives are in imminent risk? Let’s say for example, if the subject knows where a dirty-bomb is hidden in your home town but won’t talk?

“Asked and answered” a long time ago.

You really need new material. As it is, you’re just boring….

Cheers,

Excuse me RHF, but the term “Nazi” was short-form slang for the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei a/k/a “National-Socialist Freedom Movement.”…

Not to mention your German sucks big rocks. “Deutsche Arbeiterpartei” is “German Worker’s Party”.

But just keep trotting out your ignerrence; it does wonders for your “cause” here.

Cheers,

Excuse me RHF, but the term “Nazi” was short-form slang for the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei a/k/a “National-Socialist Freedom Movement.” So perhaps you should be saying, “if it was good enough for the NAZIs, it’s good enough for the MoveOnocrats.”

Oh, that ol’ “Nazis are socialists! It says so in their name!!!” crapola, eh? Don’t you guys hire any new joke-writers every once in a while?

I suppose you’ll also claim that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a democratic country too. That would be about your level of ‘intellectual sophistication’……

Cheers,

Torture is something the Stalinists and Socialist dictators of the world practice. It is not for Americans….

… by definition.

I’d note that the Soviets thought that “stress positions”, “waterboarding” and such were just hunky-dory….

And the European Court of Human RIghts has ruled that “stress positions”, “hooding”, sleep deprivation, etc. are “inhuman treatment” (which happens to be barred by the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3, which bars “CID” [cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment]).

One Japanese officer was charged with war crimes (and convicted) for “waterboarding”.

Cheers,

When his disasterous adm ends, Bush plans to move to Paraguay . . . a little to close . . . but big fences make good neighbors . . . we can get together and build a fence that makes the Great Wall of China look like a curb.

I understand real estate prices, while reasonable, are appreciating there.

“Watching his early colloquy with Leahy just now, I see that Mukasey cites the Prize Cases as authority for the President disregarding a statute — but under the Prize Cases, not only wasn’t Lincoln acting contrary to statute; his conduct was authorized by statute.”

Yeah, but who wants an Attorney General that actually knows the law, anyway?

Cheers,

Human Rights First observes that Mukasey’s statements imply “that forms of coercive interrogation which violate Common Article 3 may be practiced by government agencies, including the C.I.A. ”

However, Bush can simply state that the techniques do NOT violate Common Article 3, because Congress gave Him the authority to reinterpretate the Geneva Convections.

I would dearly like to see the heirarchy of this Administration defend their actions in an International War Crimes Tribunal.

Comment by TCDon — October 18, 2007 @ 2:02 pm

Oh, I dunno. How about:

“An act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.”

That means nothing that breaks the skin, involves stimulating nerves through various means, threats of killing, maiming or injuring friends and family, and so on. If playing chess yielded massive results in WWII, if TALKING to PEOPLE (these are human beings, remember; their actions have real world motivations, not scary “I’m evil, muahahahaha” mustache-twirling fiction) yielded more real-world results than torturing, that is how it should be played.

Point blank, physical harm, and mental THREATS do not work. They yield false results. A tortured individual will admit to anything, say ANYTHING to get out of their situation. Why the hell do you think SO MANY false confessions have been yielded via such means over the centuries. The Inquisition, anyone?

“24″ is NOT THE REAL WORLD, buddy! Real trained militants do not yield valuable information under torture. Untrained men might, or they might be lying through their teeth. You have no way of knowing until you follow-up, and if they were lying, it is not only too late to correct, you’ve gone through with an action that might very well dig you DEEPER in to a hole, what with the whole possibility of going after completely innocent individuals and torturing THEM to follow up on potential false-leads.

Torture is banned for a REASON. It doesn’t work, and you sacrifice the moral high ground the moment you conduct torture.

Great post, JMOHR! Thank you for taking the time to lay that out.

TCDon has been severely bloodied on this one and has slunk back to his basement, to watch his reruns of “24″ and get Cheeto stains all over his keyboard.

I may know a little about this topic. I have been a judge advocate and taught the laws of war to those going into combat. I have been both a military and civilian prosecutor and been involved in a number of interrogations with police and other agencies. So what have I learned about the ticking bomb and torture?

1. When has there ever been a ticking bomb scenario? Not in this war against terrorism. How many have been subjected to torture? Apparently many. How many real plots have been stopped because of these enhanced interrogation tactics? None that have been actually documented.

2. How reliable is information gained by torture? Not very in the view of those who have extensive interrogation experience. Sen. McCain has first hand experience and knew how to respond as a POW.

3. I certainly saw criminal defendants who were facing severe punishment for their own crimes more than willing to rat out any number of innocent people to save their own necks. Why would we expect a terrorist who believes martyrdom to be the highest expression of faith to be weaker?

4. Even enhanced interrogation techniques take time to work. Indeed, you can always get someone to lie immediately by water boarding. However, you only turn the subject into a source by confronting that individual with your superior knowledge and establishing that resistance is futile. Any person trained in resisting interrogation knows to reveal little of the truth as possible. Feedback from the interrogator establishes how much must be given up. One of the big time Al Qaeda operatives succeeded in providing lots of false leads after his interrogation.

5. The Judge Advocate General of each service disagreed with the “enhanced” interrogation standard as being ineffective and placing our troops in danger in future conflicts. The JAG is not an appointment filled by a bleeding heart liberal. This should tell you something.