And in any real case of “ticking time bomb” with a really involved terrorist…that terrorist could easily stop the torture by lying…and the event would still occur. The torture fails to elicit the correct information, and the terrorist “wins”…and perhaps makes a strong case for the prosecution of the “failed torturer” as well.

In addition, for someone who really succeeds (or not) after performing such an act there is another recourse that doesn’t enshrine torture itself as a commonplace in our “justice system”. It’s called a pardon or clemency. If a person really acted to save thousands and successfully (or perhaps not) did so…I would think that the available recourse is to have the President place their Administration up to the whims of the electortate, and pardon the individual(s) involved.

In this way it’s acknowleging that the Act is and was a crime, but allowing the benefits to weigh against the actions of that individual under duress.

Ultimately I think that it’s tragic that not one Federal cent has been spent on research into non-invasive and non-pain-inducing alternatives to torture in the interrogation of suspects that might have crucial information. It’s well known that the brain processes knowingly false information differently than information that is thought to be truthful. Such distinctions can be detected by PET and CAT-Scans but only if the individuals are well-treated and NOT under duress or immediate threats.

Torture is about as accurate as the methods used by the Inquisition to get people to say they had sex with demons and devils.

Of course, perhaps Scalia, good believing Roman Catholic that he is, actually believes that the Inquisition was a GOOD THING!

The fact that such techniques are not even being funding, while billions are spent on Gitmo and forcible remission suggests that the whole issue here is not actually protecting the public by obtaining reliable information at all.

And there is precedent for impeachment after resignations.

“I extend myself as much time as I consume.” As long as I’m talking no one can interrupt or ….

This looks like just another media-induced distraction from issues that are actually controversial for real reasons. The American public cannot afford to be wrapped up in discussion of issues that were already solved at Geneva Conventions, which took place at the beginning of the 20th century (torture). Why isn’t election rigging an issue? That seems like a MUCH more worthy topic of political discourse.

PS: Much support for the freepress.net post above.

I had to pull them back up – apparently now we somewhere else.