Anyone who claims Saddam didn't have both active WMD programs and actual WMD stockpiles is either so anti-President Bush and the Republicans that they are willing and eager to lie to try to make Pres. Bush look bad, or they haven't been paying attention.

Just in case you've been getting all you "news" from the New York Times and Washington Post, maybe broadening your outlook a bit would help. I suggest "Disinformation" by Richard Miniter. It's clear and concise and destroys myths held by both the liberals and conservatives. Then again, you might be forced to think for yourself, which might be a new experience.

Some might think I'm asking that from the perspective of a "softy" but, that's not it at all. There is a moral component, but beyond that there is the future blowback from your actions. If a man questioned by Americans wakes screaming, will his children grow to love America?

The supporters of "strong questions" focus in on the moment, and think that is all there is. The picture is bigger than that.

BTW, contrast with the German POWs held in the US during WWII who immediately wanted US citizenship after the war. Stuff like that is about the US being a "beacon" for freedom and democracy and winning on both moral and practical levels.

Re. Iran-Contra, my memory is that the guilty had to suffer some shame, and that the President had to take responsibility for a mistake. That hasn't happened on Bush era tortures or wiretaps .. yet.

Declaring “success” on the basis of one incident is logically flawed, isn’t it?

odo doesn't get the point. The point being refuted is that torture is never reliable because

someone who is being tortured will say anything to make the torture stop,

It only takes one success to disprove an unqualified negative.

On “slippery slopes” ... I can only say it was a lot easier to be proud to be an American and a Republican in the Reagan years.

I'm thinking this is selective memory or different age perspective. I'd say the current flaps, at least based on what we know now, are much less aggregious than Iran-Contra. In both cases, I think the administrations were well-intentioned. But Iran-Contra involved a whole lot more willful violation of the law for a whole lot less potential benefit to the nation.

Well, if the purpose of interrogating terrorists is to prove our prowess, then that’s a telling point.

But I thought the point of interrogating captured terrorists was to, y’know, prevent terrorist acts.

I'm not following you here, McGehee. The point of interrogation is to prevent terrorist acts, as well as to punish terrorist crimes. (I assume we will one day wish to execute KSM?)

But the experts on interrogation say that humane methods work as well as, or better than, torture. People who are tortured say what they think will stop the torture. Remember how many witches turned out to be in Europe?

Humane methods also don't debase our moral values.

I think it's impossible to explain America's descent into evil practices like torture other than as (1) revenge for 9/11 and (2) a misguided belief by Cheney et al. that we've been insufficiently "tough" and that torture restores our "toughness."

Cutting a knot certainly undoes it, but that doesn’t prove that you couldn’t have untied it just as well.

Well, if the purpose of interrogating terrorists is to prove our prowess, then that's a telling point.

But I thought the point of interrogating captured terrorists was to, y'know, prevent terrorist acts.

Maybe I'm wrong.

I was thinking of this, on pre-war, but "WMD" only in the sense of "chemical weapons":

The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition.
The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of Qaeda members and others detained as part of American counterterrorism efforts. The Bush administration used Mr. Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda included training in explosives and chemical weapons.

http://volokh.com/posts/1134168811.shtml

On "slippery slopes" ... I can only say it was a lot easier to be proud to be an American and a Republican in the Reagan years.

First, we did not torture any one into admitting Saddam had WMD. The issue was bad intelligence, regardless of continued inspection and monitoring efforts by the international community as a whole.. regardless of information from defectors... regardless of our aerial surveillance efforts... Saddam was believed to have WMD precisely because of his continued interference with these efforts, his continued violation of UN Resolutions, his sabre rattling, and his support for international terror.

Incidentally, it's hypocrisy, not hypocracy. (Although I'm not above a type-o myself- if that's what is was). Maybe you're just so excited about Iraqi demoCRACY that you couldn't help yourself.

Second, the slippery slope argument holds no water. If we applied this to all facets of life, no one would ever do anything! The gruesome fact is this: In war, it is killed or be killed at any cost. We can take the higher ground (i.e. not chopping heads off), but it is still a deadly conflict with deadly consequences.

You don't really believe that if we water-board KSM that tomorrow the Guvmint will be going around knocking on doors and inserting bamboo shoots under fingernails to collect information, do you?

Not particularly. Usually, it only takes once to make a difference.

Yeah. Don't some people suggest that we went to war, in part, because "once" this sort semi-torture gave us bad information on WMDs?

Perhaps you weren’t being told what really went on, eh?

There is a crucial difference between rank hypocracy, and having some of your members fall short of your goals.

When the society believes X, and some guys in government do Y, society hasn't changed. They still believe the same things. They can still demand that government return to the fold.

The question here is where we should put our moral compass, and what standard we set for ourselves as a society. I'd rather not see us start down any slippery slopes ...

NEWS: - NSA Spy Story Could Lead to New Leak Probe - Covert CIA Program Withstands New Furor - Frank: 'Angry' Fight Ahead on Gay Marriage in Massachusetts - Judge Upholds Ban on Christian Prayers in Indiana Legislature - Homeland...