I think we can all agree to disagree.

Very true, this is one of those issues where people have opinions that run deep into their sense of morality.  I think ultimately these types of topics are almost exactly like those perspective drawings where you might think the stairs lead one way but if you cross your eyes they lead another way instead! 

That's the problem with people these days. A hundred years ago there would have been no moral question. Back then, the prisoners in guantanamo bay would have been questioned and then executed. Period.

It's not idealism in the rhetorical sense. It's an ideal, sure. But it's a realistic one. We can choose our behavior. We choose to torture or not to torture.

From John Winthrop to Presidents Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush and every president in between says that we should be an example to others (in one way or another), that we are the greatest, a people of ideals.

By the US using waterboarding we are then saying that that is our example.

Will the United States still exist? Yes, of course it will. It will just be doing evil things. The idea of the United States started as a way to eliminate Tyranny.

Well, United States of America will just become Republic of United States of America :)

You gained 2 words from it, that's a good thing.

I will not comment on Holder's qualifications, but I will comment that this change in mindset is both wonderful and welcome. The US can no longer tolerate unscrupulous practices such as waterboarding.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I think this is again a fallacious proposition.  It's not a case of evil or no evil.  I see it as a case of the lesser of two evils.  By choosing not to torture you condemn people to die, by choosing to do it, you can save lives.  Either choice is evil to me, even in the scenario where you're rushing left or right to save one of two lives I would say the person is left with a no-win proposition because either way they are choosing death for one person, or at worst making no choice and both die.  But in the case of an imbalance of say 500 to 1, or 5 million to 1, you can certainly say one decision is better than another.

That's really what it boils down to for me, the one true or false proposition of would you choose to save the 1 person or the 5 million people?  You're correct to avoid answering because there is only one answer, you save the 5 million people, but to actually say that concedes the point that many lives have more value than a few lives.  Is that callous to say? Yes, but it is true.  Should you try to acheive both?  Absolutely, I am all for an effective alternative if anyone has one.

The reason I think it was idealistic is because I don't think it is possible, let alone reasonable, for a nation to be guilty of no evil.  And not from a "well they do it so we can too" perspective, just intrinsicly the choices a country makes will leave it choosing between the lesser of two evils like this situation.  It's idealistic to think a country can completely avoid it, life has catch 22 situations, because it isn't fair.  The question is whether you do the best you can and walk the straightest path your "moral compass" (hate that phrase actually) sets for you.  I think waterboarding is that straightest path and I think allowing people to die through inaction is the more evil path of the two paths.

I was fumbling around the Constitution and I happened to find this:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Oh yeah, that's the Eighth Amendment!

Ask anybody who has been waterboarded if they think it is cruel. If all the people who are for waterboarding are willing to be waterboarded themselves for twenty minutes, then I say it is just fine. I don't think it is a stretch of the imagination to say that simulating drowning is unusual either.

This isn't just a "lesser of two evils" issue. This is a constitutional issue that should be discussed in terms of are we willing to redefine what cruel and unusual punishment has historically been held to mean by the Supreme Court. The Constitution pretty plainly states that there shall be no "cruel and unusual punishments" inflicted, and a long history of case law supports that the government will enforce that provision to curb executive authority.

But I guess conservatives have no problem legislating from the bench when they don't like what the Constitution says. Its just so downright annoying when it prevents you from doing what you would like to do!

And if waterboarding isn't cruel and unusual, why shouldn't we be able to use it in police stations on regular people? I mean its not cruel and unusual right? Why shouldn't we use it on everyone who won't confess to their crimes?

Akuma, perhaps I'm wrong but I was under the impression that the eighth amendment, and the constitution in general, doesn't apply to those who are not US citizens. Otherwise they would be vulnerable to prosecution for treason under Article 3 Section 3. I could be wrong but I believe it is Article 3 Section 2 specifically which enumerates the parties to which the power of the judicial branch apply.

Either way the point is made moot because we are not discussing a punishment. We are discussing interrogation methodology. Punishment comes later.

For good measure, some examples of what they meant by cruel and unusual punishment as listed by the Supreme Court:  drawing and quartering, public dissecting, burning alive, or disemboweling.

None of those are even remotely comparable to waterboarding.

In all seriousness, there are times in all of our lives where we have to make really tough decisions.


The hypothetical states it as if the suspect is surely guilty and the information gained from torture will definitely save the lives.

Someone else killing 1 or hundreds of civilians is not me committing evil.
Me torturing someone who may or may not know anything is also evil.

We are fighting for American ideals, according to our current leadership, so we should take every precaution to make sure those ideals are worth fighting for.

"America is a Nation with a mission - and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace - a peace founded upon the DIGNITY and rights of every man and woman. " - George W. Bush