This would be true for the PTC as well, or interrogators could not necessarily succeed in halting the bombing if they had to wait for the court's decision. Thus it would by force of timing be left to the judgment of one or two, or a few men, not judges, but definitely with after-the-fact reporting, etc.

For lesser timing constraints in a situation, the PTC would be a good thing.

Suppose I did believe the proposition, which is incredible enough, would I do that dastardly deed and with certainty save the millions? The answer is yes, if I could, but only if my daughter consented as well. I most probably could not, it being such a morally objectionable thing! You cannot necessarily carry out what you have decided you would do.

or else what? you'll torture him more?

He will be gagged until permitted to utter a single answer to questions.

How do you separate fact from fiction without independent verification? Verification requires time you do not have in your (incredibly unlikely) scenario.

There you go again! You don't. You are on your own experience and intuition. You succeed or fail right there, at that time.

...that putting in place policies to address them specifically would cause more problems than it would address.

There needn't be policies in place at all up front, except any prohibitions that have been put in place. It is up to the interrogators how far they go, and they must stand inquiry and trial as a result, as I said in an earlier post: since they are the ones that must make the decision and must take the responsibility.

I read up on thwarted bombings in Google. There are quite a few, many from "turning" someone in the chain of terrorists. This is quite close to the TTBS, but possibly with more time available, and fewer potential victims. So the TTBS event is logically not so rare, and not so damned incredible at all. They didn't say exactly how they turned the person, either, which is to be expected.

Ugh's is indeed incredible.

OK, one more time: The subject of an interrogation would not be permitted to say anything except about the subject at hand

or else what? you'll torture him more?

and the torture would continue to the end point.

What is the end point? death? That seems the most likely.

The interrogators would control every word he says, by making him answer only in their prescribed manner.

or else more torture?

Any vile suggestions on his part would be choked off before they were completed.

Would the suggestions have to be more vile than the torture that was being inflicted?

and whatever the subject says must be treated very carefully to separate truth from falsehood and delays.

How do you separate fact from fiction without independent verification? Verification requires time you do not have in your (incredibly unlikely) scenario.

Thus the vile scenario would simply not occur.

What you have said does not negate Ugh's scenario. It does however evade it, just as you accuse him of evading your scenario. Ugh's question is fair game in the hypothetical world you are working in. It amounts to asking how far you would be willing to go. Would you torture or rape the terrorist's wife in front of him to break him? What about his children?
All above scenarios are so incredibly unlikely (Ugh's admittedly moreso) that putting in place policies to address them specifically would cause more problems than it would address.

As a general answer to your unlikely hypothetical along with the others. If someone is willing to commit an atrocity in order to prevent a greater atrocity they should be willing to take the responsibility for their actions. It is possible, though not at all likely, that this would prevent someone not willing to accept those consequences from pursuing actions that could possibly save lives. It is much more likely that creating a loophole will lead to abuses. In any cost benefit analysis one must consider the probabilities of the events in question.
Personally, I don't know that I would be able to stomach torturing anyone though I would be sorely tempted. I don't think anyone can know what they would do in such a situation, we can only know what we hope we would do.

OK, one more time: The subject of an interrogation would not be permitted to say anything except about the subject at hand: i.e. where the bomb is, how much time is left, etc., and the torture would continue to the end point. The interrogators would control every word he says, by making him answer only in their prescribed manner. Any vile suggestions on his part would be choked off before they were completed.

The reasons for this are clear: time is of the essence; torture is the selected means, not barters, trades, or other irrelevant, delaying, or false suggestions from the subject; and whatever the subject says must be treated very carefully to separate truth from falsehood and delays.

Thus the vile scenario would simply not occur.

OK, Ugh, you answer the question I posed. would you torture the TTB subject or not, to attempt to save that million lives?

It is necessary to hold an inquiry into the specific circumstances of a suspicious interrogation, and to indict interrogators that have provably crossed the line. In the trial that follows, they should have every opportunity to justify their actions, including use of positive results of their efforts, the full and unedited recordings of the interrogation itself, and any other information deemed relevant. If the inquiry or trial requires use of highly classified information, the trial must be held in a classified setting, with impartial, cleared judges in attendance.

Grewgills
Yes we must be careful of the slippery slope. However it is a slope that we need to take on. We should keep in mind the dangers in doing so but it can be done.

The flag our fathers and grandfathers raised all over the world thus signifying the end of terror for millions, is now in danger of signifying something entirely different, and while the G A Philips of our world could care less, the rest of us must. We cannot live alone on this planet, at the expense of others, and to the detriment of all.

What kind of dribble is this, I make a joke with some truth in it, so people like me is why our flag is losing its worth or changing?

lets see, how about your j.H. football coach banging your head on a locker every day because your hair is to long, or constintly whipping the back of your legs with a hotwheel track for talking to girls(at lest every other day), lol not to mention the practice, lol made me a little tougher, but I never got my hair cut!

*********We cannot live alone on this planet, at the expense of others, and to the detriment of all.******

Dude this all that liberals do, lol,lol,lol,...............

Try assuming that the right answer is that torture is sometimes warranted, such as in the TTB case....

Then manning illustrates the slippery slope of an official policy allowing torture.

Bill Clinton said it well on MTP,

I think what happens is the honest truth is that Tim Russert, Bill Clinton, people filming this show, if we were the Jack Bauer person and it was six hours to the bomb or whatever, you don’t know what you would do, and you have to—but I think what our policy ought to be is to be uncompromisingly opposed to terror—I mean to torture, and that if you’re the Jack Bauer person, you’ll do whatever you do and you should be prepared to take the consequences. And I think the consequences will be imposed based on what turns out to be the truth...
The more I think about it, and the more I have seen that, if you have any kind of formal exception, people just drive a truck through it, and they’ll say “Well, I thought it was covered by the exception.” I think, I think it’s better not to have one. And if you happen to be the actor in that moment which, as far as I know, has not occurred in my experience or President Bush’s experience since we’ve been really dealing with this terror, but I—you actually had the Jack Bauer moment, we call it, I think you should be prepared to live with the consequences.

Now the question is, in what other circumstances is torture warranted? And, to what degree of torture? If we agree with the assumption, we have admitted that we will sin under a few circumstances, so now it is only a matter of how far and to what degree.

When innocent lives are at stake?

When our troops are at high risk?

When the nation is threatened with subversion, betrayal, or insurrection?

When we catch a spy and need to know what he has compromised?

Never?

Finally, we get to the question posed up front. What are the principal torture methods and how are they classified by degree?

They want a secure America but close their eyes at what it will take to secure it. When something does happens they will scream why didn’t someone protect us.