[thegamerslink]

So, stated another way, you do believe in using torture in extraordinary circumstances.

That would put you in perfect agreement with Bush, myself and thegamerslink. So what is your imagined beef?

I know he seems to be arguing in circles.

Apparently my post #51

Statements like that are what made me interject. Although we are closely following the Geneva Convention in most every aspect of our treatment of prisoners of conflict. I have to say there must in extreme situations be exceptions to every rule. And you are attempting to imply that no one should be labeled a terrorist until they are proven to be one. My question is, when do you prove that a person is a terrorist? Do you prove it after you follow the paper trail left behind after they kill 3,000+ unsuspecting American citizens, or after they blow up the double decker bus in downtown London....or do you wait until after Parliment or Congress has been partially or completely assaulted be it by planes, bombs, or anthrax etc......Or do you label them as a terrorist when you follow the paper trail to them before the actual act has taken place, or follow the trail through multiple contacts and multiple other methods and start to piece it all together before the actual act has taken place? When do you label them a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer?

There are unavoidable casualties, if given the choice I choose the casualty of a very few individuals debatable rights versus the casualty of thousands if not in this day and age 10's or 100's of thousands of innocent people wouldn't you? I mean especially if you were one of those innocent people that were part of the plan to be killed. Or your wife, son, daughter, mother, father? Think about it...really think about it, just don't spout off some mumbo jumbo BS about how it's all a made up government conspiracy that doesn't really exist just to give them the ability to get more oil or something type statement.

was initially the most offensive statement towards SITA and what got him all stirred up I think.

If you would go back and read my statements you would clearly without question see, that at no time did I even come close to proposing an incident like you just did below.

But that's all very abstract isn't it. Let's simplify a little. A couple are in an airport. A security guard hears the hijab wearing woman whisper something to her partner. The guard thinks he heard the word bomb mentioned. What do you as the interrogator do, use water boarding to immediately establish a potential threat to the airport?

Actually just look at the quote I placed above of my own words from post #51 the one that you initially took so much offense to. You don't just pick someone up off the streets and immediately start water boarding them. I believe I have said that before, perhaps you should go back and instead of counting my words and trying to be such a pompous ass. Actually read them, and if you need, get a dictionary and thesaurus out when you do so you can actually understand the words in front of you.

And one more quote

The ethical dilema:, I have been told by those that work under me or in my or other governments that this person poses a risk, I have been presented evidence that makes a convincing case to not only me but also to a line of others there is more than possibility of this individuals involvement or knowledge of past or future acts, do I follow my oath to uphold the Constitution of The United States and the Geneva Convention, neither of which were written with this situation or time in mind, or do I uphold the oath to protect my country and it's citizens. In this particular instance I can't clearly see how to do both. What would you do? You are trying to make a legal matter out of something that clearly does not exist in the terms you are trying to make out.....if a person gets water boarded or whatever...and it's later found out that the information leading to his guilt implication were false or untrue then you acted in good faith......however if you just picked up an individual off the street and had no reason to suspect or imply that they were a terrorist or involved with terrorists and knowingly held and water boarded this individual just because you could, then a crime is knowingly comitted and those involved should/would be prosecuted all the way up the chain including the President, but only according to the knowledge they had of the act. You can't charge the top of the totem pole for a person at the bottom that goes against orders or operational procedures set in place to prevent such things.

This is from post #53 another post that you clearly either didn't read or understand. It states the ethical and moral dilema that thank God you aren't in charge of deciding as I fear many of us would be dead or forcibly Muslims right now if you were. But hidden in that statement is a procedure that pre-determines the amount of guilt before the acts of heavy persuasive questioning and torture. They simply don't go through a civilian court of law before it, as they shouldn't as they aren't citizens. (I'm making that as a in most cases statement) Don't want to start another argument or confusion here. In most cases they are not U.S. citizens and are declared enemy combatants, making it a military issue. If it were a domestic issue then we'd be having an entirely different conversation as the CIA shouldn't/couldn't be involved with it any how.