. . . you seem to think that torturing innocent people until they've lost their marbles is OK, because it's not <insert something "they" do here>. The argument is completely bogus.
Captured Al-Qaeda
jihadis like Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah are not
innocent people, nor have I seen anyone advocate waterboarding
innocent people, making
this line of argument completely bogus.
As to the circumstances . . . war
is hell . . . and if anyone can provide information on how a country -
any country - ever WON a major shooting war without doing
some bad things, I'd like to hear it.
Again...do you trust the Government that gives you such fine Organizations as the BATFE, TSA, ICE, and the like to make such fine distinctions between a few known terrorists and suspected terrorists? How long until they decide anyone questioning the government is siding with the Terrorists....oh, thats right...GWB already used such language. YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US
Is what he said.
You're operating under the assumption that the government, the same government that coldn't see 9/11 coming, that couldn't catch a 6'9" raghead, that screwed up the occupation of Iraq, that can't seem to shut down the Taliban....the assumption that that same, inept government will never arrest any innocent people. Nor that they will ever torture innocent people.
Even if we caught OBL in the flesh, I'd demand that he not be tortured. He should be tried for his crimes.
Alot of people agreed with Stalin, Hitler, PolPot, Lenin, Hussein, and Bin Laden. That doesn't make them right, nor does it make you right.
So you're saying our moral standards of what we will and will not do, are set by someone else's actions? IOW, as long as our actions aren't as egregious as theirs, everything's a-ok? This kind of 'sliding-scale relative morality makes sense to you?
Its the slippery slope. First we only torture them a little bit. Then we miss the warning signs of another attack, so we torture a little more. But hey, nobody got beheaded with a rusty Machette......