[Soliton]

I’ve talked to people, people who should know what they’re talking about, (at least a wee bit, don’t get alarmed) who say it’s not just a matter of if a dirty bomb goes off in an American city, but when.

I agree. The question is then, to torture or not to torture. If I was a devout Christian, I would say it is never right to torture. That's what I think Huck's position is. The rest are supposedly strict constitutionalists. Since we have an amendment that prohibits torture, we as a nation need to decide if it has to changed. If so, there is a constitutional process for doing it. It is a very hard thing to say, but a hundred dirty bombs aren't worth trashing the constitution. Trashing the constituion is the same as defeat.

[Beagle8U]

“Since we have an amendment that prohibits torture, we as a nation need to decide if it has to changed. If so, there is a constitutional process for doing it. It is a very hard thing to say, but a hundred dirty bombs aren’t worth trashing the constitution. Trashing the constituion is the same as defeat.”

Since they aren’t covered by the constitution or the Geneva convention it doesn’t matter much.

Illegal combatants without uniforms captured on the battlefield can be shot or detained forever, our choice.

Want Gitmo closed? Shoot them all.

[the808bass]

Trashing the constituion is the same as defeat.

I don't think that most people support torture. We do, however, have a wide range of ideas of what constitutes torture. Amnesty International would include playing loud music as torture. How do you define torture?