You asked for a credible source and I gave it. If you have some evidence that the source is not credible I'd apreciate that.  

"He who who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

This is not about a trial. The comment was to demonstrate to Jen M some of the traits that radical Moslems exhibit, such as killing female family members who bring dishonor on the family. It is called "honor killings" and is quite widely practiced in many places in the Moslem world.

Tell you what. You keep on worrying about people who kill their 16 year old daughters and people we know who are terrorists....

And I will continue to worry about the 16 year old daughters and the victims of the terrorists.

Also remember I have said that you must also believe that our cause is just.

Now, if you have those two things and if the situation is time sensitive then all necessary measures must be taken to break the terrorist and obtain the information.

In other words, the actions taken must be equal to the need for the information in all respects.

I have no idea as to what you mean when you ask:

Do you think that your moral reasoning and framework should be held superior to arguably equally sound reasoning that is based on a different moral foundation? Or are you just putting forth your proposition as one view worthy of consideration?

First, I don't see this as a "debate." If you claim that it is morally acceptable, and I don't think you do, to let people die rather than take all necessary steps to obtain information that could save them... then I believe you are just wrong. I further believe that most people who make such claims are really engaged in sophistry for some other reason. Usually political and usually to try and make themselves feel superior.

et al - If the shoe fits, wear it.

And I do not believe there is an argument that can overcome my position.

I do believe that there are some CO's who are sincere. They are welcome to their beliefs. But I cut them no slack if their actions are harmful to the group.

I think that we already have the right to take what actions we find necessary. If some country or the UN has difficulties then my position is, "So?"

I have no golden rule book on this. In my opinion we are talking about things that must be approved of by the President. Is there a slippery slope involved? Yes.

Why not go all the way and declare the Gen Con obsolete now that 9/11 has....drumroll.... Changed Everything (except the need for more tax cuts for the wealthy)?

Not all apologists on these here boards are so forthcoming as you, oh basement channeller of Jack Bauer, have the potential to be.  Like the Prez, they like to say "we don't torture" even as they defend its use with euphemisms.

Clearly, neither morality nor logic are stong suits for you.  Keep the path towards honesty if you wish to avoid the trifecta.

Asking a question that assumes certain facts for the sake of argument DNE obfuscation!

Agreed. Though it can have that effect. And clearly I'm quite wary of having one situation confused with another in the broader discussion. Looks like I assumed intent where I shouldn't have.

My hypothetical tees up an important issue: can torture ever be morally justified?

Agreed, it is important. To me, its primary value is to say that it's not as simple (for everyone) as just saying, in effect, "torture bad". And to the extent that that was the intent of your post, I support that message, because I don't think it's that simple.

However, people with differing ethical systems can reasonably come up with different (and controversial) responses, including torture should not be conducted in any circumstance. Such people, in a moral discussion, should contend with the potential consequences you bring up.

but it's a sine qua non for conceiving a reasonable policy.

I agree that such circumstances should be considered in the process of establishing policy. But if you mean to say that a policy is by definition unreasonable if it does not allow for certain methods of severe interrogation/torture under certain circumstances, then I disagree.

But using a variation of the 'ticking time bomb' scenario to try and frame discussion around torture is largely disingenuous.

"?!"

Not sure if you're questioning my characterization of your approach, but ultimately, you led with:

[D]o you think that letting 1,000 innocent people be killed is an acceptable trade-off for avoiding the onus of subjecting a terrorist kingpin to coercion?

That was the basis for my characterization.

###

So make them define what they actually mean. Don't accept the "UN laws, treaties, etc." they like to toss out as a substitute for actually thinking and writing down something they'll have to look at a year from now.

You may note that there has been almost no comment about Dear Leader Pelosi and other Democrats who have known about what was happening for around 5 years now and never said a word. The reason is that many here have used them as moral guides and examples to beat up the opposition.. Now, with their leaders shown to be hypocrites, they have no where to hide.

It is how you use the words to construct a scenario   that makes it hypothetical.