On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:23:27 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:48:13 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

It was not and should not be about "policy" decisions. Torture is
torture
is
NOT a policy decision.

Certainly it is, just like a lot of other questionable things
governments do during wars.
Do I have to remind you of WWII, the "good" war?
If the US had lost that war the whole government would have been in
the Hague on war crimes charges.
Usually we just sacrifice some subordinate like Calley (in Vietnam)
but wars encourage atrocities by their very nature.
If there is another 9-11 size attack the American public will want
interrogation techniques like the last 10 minutes of Braveheart in the
hopes of preventing it from happening again.
Unfortunately for Cheney, he is more unpopular that Atta right now in
some circles.


Cheney is by almost any definition a criminal. He approved of torture,
which
is against US and international law. Same with Rumsfeld.

WWII was about national survival and we did some terrible things, which
probably are unjustifiable. One of the worst was the Japanese internment
camps.

There are no "good" wars. There are wars that must be fought and those
that
are opt-out.


The "torture" we are talking about happened a few months after 9-11
and it was considered to be acceptable.
Did you ever watch "GI Jane". That was it.


It was never considered acceptable under US or international law.

I'm not going to base my philosophy of life or a legal argument on a movie.

Why not? Worked pretty well for Ronny Raygun!