WATERBOARDING AND NATIONAL APPROVAL

You've posted nother lucid article, thanks.

It seems to me that the great, unacknowledged dynamic of the whole torture debate is:

Those who now have the upper hand in our gov't are more interested in using power to dominate our people than to defend us.

It's really all about feelings. It does not feel good to live in a world in which you might need to torture a terrorist to save a city. Therefore, that world does not exist. (Isn't that convenient!) This 'frees' the person engaging in the delusion to focus on something that feels much better: 'fundamentally transforming the United States of America'.

As to lawyers, they necessarily function safely inside a system of rules. (Their job description is to circumvent these rules on behalf of paying clients, but that's another discussion.) This system was created, & is maintained, by a war machine. When we step 'outside the wire', where terrorists roam, we leave behind the system & its rules. To fail to realize this is as stupid as thinking that paddling a canoe across a pond on a sunny day is no different than paddling one across the Bering Sea during an Artic storm.

It also seems to me that we could defuse a lot of the rancor if, instead of imposing 2 categories - interrogation & torture - we'd apply 3 - interrogation, intimidation & torture. Interrogation = questions; intimidation adds fear to the questions; torture adds to intimidation actual damage.

Regards,

...we have the "What's Wrong" part down pat.

We analyze for a living, the same as the Heritage Foundation, only on a smaller budget and with far less academic fanfare (which I consider to be our long suite).

But we don't just analyze what is wrong, we analyze what can be done and what needs to be done...and by whom.

But Whom ain't listening, or maybe Whom has gone fishing, or is in hiding, or maybe even dead.

If I could find Whom, I'd slap his face, and offer up a bottle of Mennan Skin Bracer.

Finding Whom and getting him up off his dead, or frightened arse is the only real job before us right now.

Back to work.

The comment I just made was intended for your other comment. Sorry.

My only note to this, from one trained in law, is that the legal community of the Left consider Intimidation to be torture...when it suits their purpose.
Marxist logic, indeed, all socialist logic is indifferent to the legal or the humanitarian aspects of torture. Outside of few low-level bureucrat true believers and dreamers in the UN, and around world campuses, no one actually believes in the inhumanity here. Trust me, the Obamailis would as easily use it against those they perceive to be enemies of the state as GW and Dick Cheney did.
All that will have shifted will have been the definition of enemy...from that of one the culture accepts as an enemy, and that which the political estate consider to be. It has always been this way.
Discerning the difference is no less difficult that discerning the difference between Good and Evil.