You’re wrong about the Geneva Convention. Soldiers who fight out of uniform, terrorists, spies, as well as those who commit atrocities can be summarily executed.

The last word? Great. Your positions are intellectually crepuscular. This conversation ceased in its usefulness because of your ignorance on things like the Geneva Convention and proclivity for hair-splitting.

Whereas the whole world may seem black and white to me, you want to nuance everything into grayness. Nothing gets accomplished with hair-splitting indecision.

The world is gray. If you find it easier to ignore that fact, suit yourself.

What does nuance have to do with indecision? Throw me in any situation you please and I’ll make a decision. But you have to actually describe the situation. I’m not 14; I’m not going to make blanket statements about vague situations.

It’s up to you to prove that I’m wrong in that an enemy terrorist can be killed summarily. If you can do that to them, then waterboarding and imprisonment is certainly a lesser punishment.

Summarily killing a detainee is not permissible. If you’re content to go through your life mistaken, so be it.

As for your remark on the Founding Fathers, you’ve forgotten your history. Do you honestly think that a group which included a large number of slave owners would ever object to waterboarding the likes of KSM? If you do, then you’re guilty of historical revisionism.

Again, you’re not accurately comprehending my words. My statement about the Founders was in regards to your understanding of rights, not specifically to KSM. I’m not going to speculate about what they would do if they were alive today. The important thing to know about the Founders is that they were on the leading edge of an intellectual movement and they created the first, albeit imperfect, implementation of those ideas.

The this conversation ceased to be useful many posts ago. Have the last word if you like.

It’s up to you to prove that I’m wrong in that an enemy terrorist can be killed summarily. If you can do that to them, then waterboarding and imprisonment is certainly a lesser punishment.

As for your remark on the Founding Fathers, you’ve forgotten your history. Do you honestly think that a group which included a large number of slave owners would ever object to waterboarding the likes of KSM? If you do, then you’re guilty of historical revisionism.

They conceal this information in things called “books”, in case you’re interested. Poor, little boy.

The Rule of Law, eh?

So, if that’s so important to you, then why advocate that foreign terrorists be treated as criminals, with all rights of due process?

It depends on how they came to be classified as “foreign terrorists”. There are some situations that merit treatment as a POW or Enemy Combatant and others where criminal charges (either military or domestic) are more appropriate.

The devil is in the details and you never seem interested in discussing them. It seems the whole world is black and white to you.

Why do that when we can treat them as the Geneva Convention says we can, which is basically as if they have no rights at all? Technically speaking, not only could we waterboard people like KSM, we could quarter him like a deer on pay-per-view and display the parts on the Capitol steps, since we’re allowed to execute him on the spot.

I suggest you re-read the treaty. Your comprehension of it seems incorrect.

What’s the point in gifting them anything under the Bill of Rights? Why contrive rights for foreign terrorists who don’t have any- some sentimental nonsense about all human life being special?

You make the common mistake of thinking our rights come from our government. You’re wrong. The sound you just heard was our Founders rolling in their graves. I suggest you brush up on 18th century philosophy.

Andrerw McCarthy was right when he said the Left won’t be satisfied until soldiers are mirandizing them on the battlefield.

Laughable strawman. Bad monkey.

The Rule of Law, eh?

So, if that’s so important to you, then why advocate that foreign terrorists be treated as criminals, with all rights of due process?

Why do that when we can treat them as the Geneva Convention says we can, which is basically as if they have no rights at all? Technically speaking, not only could we waterboard people like KSM, we could quarter him like a deer on pay-per-view and display the parts on the Capitol steps, since we’re allowed to execute him on the spot.

What’s the point in gifting them anything under the Bill of Rights? Why contrive rights for foreign terrorists who don’t have any- some sentimental nonsense about all human life being special?

Andrerw McCarthy was right when he said the Left won’t be satisfied until soldiers are mirandizing them on the battlefield.

I already did. Another scenario would be the 9/11 hijacking.

Nowhere near specific enough for these purposes. Is it 9/10 or 9/12? 9/1? What do we know about the person in custody? What do we suspect? Any corroborating intel? What do we know about the plot? What do we suspect?

With any luck, if he isn’t waterboarded and made to talk, one of the operations in progress is in your home town and not mine.

So be it. If I were afraid to die, I wouldn’t get in my car every day. There are many things more deadly than al Qaeda and I don’t piss on the rule of law for them either.

Sure. We always have time for that.

You have time for that right now. If you think the only way to be safe is to give the President absolute power via the War Powers clause, amend the Constitution to say so. Otherwise, you have to respect the balance of power laid down by our founders or admit that you don’t give a crap about the rule of law.

you should worry about the fact that your ideology trumps your common sense.

My common sense tells me that if you give politicians an inch, they’ll take a mile. That’s why the law, which already gives them a ton of latitude, must be held above the men.

A democracy where the men can suspend the rule of law at will is no democracy at all.

Like I said earlier, if you don’t even understand that, there’s no point in talking further.

I already did. Another scenario would be the 9/11 hijacking.

I’ve heard and considered that meme before. Usually it’s stated as “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” In fact, I think there was even a book.

It’s blatantly fallacious. It was designed to be amended. If you think certain portions of it no longer apply in this world, feel free to amend it.

Sure. We always have time for that. In short, you would rather, if someone like OBL were captured alive in the mountains, bring him all the way back and put him on trial because, hey, he has rights, instead of waterboard him and find out what operations are already in progress. With any luck, if he isn’t waterboarded and made to talk, one of the operations in progress is in your home town and not mine.

Instead of worrying about any memes, you should worry about the fact that your ideology trumps your common sense. Holding your hands over your ears and closing your eyes while chanting “due process” really is insane.

Are all such decisions to be made primarily by a cost/benefit analysis? If so, who does the analysis and makes that decision?

The same people who decide to go to war in the first place, wouldn’t you think? Or do you think a national referendum should have decided something like the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Another dumb question on your part.

Not ever, no. But it does work, and it works quickly, unlike any technique you would endorse. Keep in mind that suicide bombers, nerve gas, and portable nukes, the ticking bomb scenario much more relevant now than before.

Ok, so we’re back in the real world with a laundry list of interrogation techniques varying success rates (and speeds), fallability, and unintended consequences.

Feel free to propose a specific scenario where you think it would be a good idea to use a technique that is generally considered to be immoral by civilized nations.

Here’s something you should think about for a while: The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.

I’ve heard and considered that meme before. Usually it’s stated as “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” In fact, I think there was even a book.

It’s blatantly fallacious. It was designed to be amended. If you think certain portions of it no longer apply in this world, feel free to amend it.

What I can’t stand is people who speak glowingly of the Constitution, our Founders, and our rule of law, yet simultaneously reserve the right to disregard the core of our legal system whenever they feel it’s convenient.

So you really should purge that meme from your brain. You can argue that the Constitution doesn’t apply to certain persons if you’d like, but if you honestly think it can be arbitrarily suspended, we have nothing further to discuss.

As for your question, I would nuke a place if the benefits outweighed the costs.

Are all such decisions to be made primarily by a cost/benefit analysis? If so, who does the analysis and makes that decision?

That’s about the dumbest question I’ve seen you ask.

Intentionally so. I was trying to rival comment #3.