(1) Terrorist have information that our Intelligence Agencies might be able to use to prevent future terrorist acts.
(2) Torture of terrorist provide valid information.
(3) Therefore, torture is a valid means for obtaining information.

To support this logic tree, he implies that Mark Bowden supports his contention #2. I am not sure what Bowden said which gave PD Shaw the keystone to his logic tree, but as pointed out in my previous comment (April 20, 2009 | 09:00 am), he did say this:

The Geneva Convention makes no distinction: it bans any mistreatment of prisoners. But some nations that are otherwise committed to ending brutality have employed torture lite under what they feel are justifiable circumstances. (My bold and italics, OP)

The “some nations” Bowden refers to is Israel, and a careful read of his article points to the fact that he is not enthralled with this concept of “torture lite”.

It would be interesting to have steve (April 19, 2009 | 10:17 pm) come back, and tell us what he thought of Bowden’s article. I found the article a difficult read because of the graphic description of this type of physical and mental abuse. Bowden is a reporter, presenting both sides of a controversy. If he supported torture, assuredly he would not be presenting the graphic and gut rentching description of how it is performed.

Meanwhile, GM (April 20, 2009 | 12:44 pm) falls into the same sink hole that has captured PD Shaw, to wit:

I don't think we can so quickly throw out any of these techniques without a more reasoned discussion. Terrorism is an attack on liberty that must be confronted.

There is no “reasoned discussion”. Abuse of prisoners is prohibited by the Geneva Convention, and indeed by our Armed Forces.

My first comment in this thread (April 19, 2009 | 12:03 pm) referred to a post and thread started by Alex Knapp. Alex was trying to take a bite out Obama through the devious route of what would be redacted when the torture memos were released. When pressed, he had this to say:

If it can be shown that lawyers in the OLC acted contrary to the codes of professional ethics under which they should follow, then yes, I would support disciplinary action up to and including disbarment. If their actions in crafting executive branch policy is prosecutable under existing Federal laws against torture and ill-treatment of prisoners then yes, I would support their prosecution.

No matter how much you wriggle, it is fish or cut bait time. Steve Joiner has remained silent since initiating this post. But this I can tell you, and this he cannot argue against:

If anybody under his command during Desert Storm had engaged in what these memos approved, they would have been subject to court martial; and if he knowingly hid their behavior, he would have joined them on the docket.>

So, you're arguing that the terrorists are fighting for our liberty?

Unless you're a terrorist you just completely missed the point. This argument was all about you and your self admitted inability to retain bladder control in the face of a threat.

Yes, it's a pity we didn't ask him what he did to Jimmy Hoffa and Judge Crater -- we could've closed those cases.

Re: Bowden's article, I'm seeing the same logical error that's so often repeated on this subject.

Can you sometimes get valid intel from torture? Sure you can.

The issue is whether there are OTHER methods that are BETTER and NOT EVIL. There is no reason to believe that standard interrogation methods would not have worked with KSM, but CIA had no one trained in those methods, and they weren't inclined to listen to any advice from FBI or others.

Abu Ghraib was an extension of this kind of policy.

What kind of shoes do you need to be able to leap that far?

It is noteworthy that you take the work of KSM in your attack on the President. Strange bedfellows

Given the amount of confusion, yeah, we definitely had a scattershot mentaility after 9/11 and any information was 'good information' in that it could be put into a database and see what the computer could find in the way of links. Abu Ghraib was an extension of this kind of policy.

There is definitely a grey area that I am unable to define in which you have a high value target like KSM, who is a dead man walking. I don't think there was any kind of debate on his eventual fate. His time at guantanamo was borrowed time and he could have had some useful information. So, do we put him on trial immediately, then kill him, or do you take some time to attempt to wring some information out of him? I have trouble with that because once you start with one person, where do you set your limits?

And there is still no information about the 2001-2004 years in which this was all going on under cover. I would definitely err on the side of pessimism, if there was truly a value to these techniques, then there would be at least some kind of positive pointing to them.

At any rate, it's going to be more wait and see. Obama is trying to reassure those who were directly involved that they do not risk prosecution and, I assume, to come forward with the pros and cons of what was being done.

I don't think we can so quickly throw out any of these techniques without a more reasoned discussion. Terrorism is an attack on liberty that must be confronted. Spouting platitudes about morality does nothing to confront the issue in an immediate way. It's clear that, in regards to Afghanistan and the border with Pakistan, it's very difficult to mount conventional intelligence operations.

KSM himself has stated that he was waterboarded on five seperate occasions, and of those, all of them were within his first month of captivity. He reported that each session lasted an hour and on each occasion he was subjected to the reatment a number of times. 183 is plauseable, certainly, but let's not play this like he was removed from his cell on 183 occasions for a trip to the pool, huh?

Even there, the numbers don't add up to the guidelines, but that's enough tostart you folks hunting on your own.

Now, can anyone guess why the current administation would want to exaggerate the numbers, here? Hmmm?

In bitsy's world, torture is now a core American value

Caffeine? I doubt it, since caffeine is not known for creating anything resembling the fantasy world you're in. I'll give your comments all they deserve.

(Click)

Oh, to the contrary; That's rather well defined. It's called 'freedom'. The people we're supposed to be fighting, are demonstrably not fighing for that cause, rather being fighters for the removal of our freedom.

Somehow, you coming down on the side opposing freedom for Americans doesn't shock me at all.

The caffeine is kicking in, and I am getting more insight into this statement.

In bitsy's world, torture is now a core American value. Oppose torture, and you are pretty much an enemy of the state. Torture = freedom. Good morning Mr. Orwell...

"give me liberty or give me death."

Afraid chuckes has altered this immortal slogan. His version is "oh please, oh please, don't let Osama hurt me". Our intrepid freedom fighter repeated this slogan many times, at great volume while Cheney was wiping his ass with the constitution.

It's called 'freedom'. The people we're supposed to be fighting, are demonstrabilty not fighing for that cause,

who is doing all this fighting for freedom? Not you skippy. You talk big, and then let others do the fighting. A real patriotic right wing action hero you are.