The entire Communist prison camp/torture/mass execution system was explained by the Soviets as a long, involved process of doing bad in order to do good.

Osama bin Laden regards his terrorism as doing bad (mass murder) to do good (spread Islam). Saying that "more good will come later than the bad I'm doing right now" is a very treacherous argument.

Yes I guess it would be if you have problems morally equating everyting. Surely it would help to have some context, last time I checked the CIA wasn't burying families alive because they were innocent Democrats.

Secondly, the spread of Islam in most parts of the world has equated to pitiful human rights for woman, gays, and the disabled, so in an of itself its not a sign for good. (especially if your a sympathetic liberal)

I don't see why there is any confusion on this issue. The basis of all rights is the agreement to respect the equal rights of others. Those who act entirely outside this system (i.e., terrorists) of mutual respect of rights voluntarily surrender the rights they would otherwise have. This includes the Geneva Convention, which protects only those who wage war according to the norms outlined in that document. Thus, if we feel like shooting terrorists in the head, we can do so without remorse or injustice, for in the savage world of the terrorists, all recourse to violence is equally legitimate (Hobbes, Leviathan).

SparcVark, I respect your point, but I think your analogy is too broad. History's greatest monsters did what they did because they thought they were serving a greater good.

Not all bad actions and good motivators are created equally. The question is, what level of " bad" should we permit to reach a "good"?

Regarding levels of bad, Ace's example of a murder to obtain information and save lies can be juxtaposed with a case from late 2003/early 2004 wherein an LTC fired his weapon at a captive in order to reveal the locations of IEDs. The LTC got into trouble, but I believe he was ultimately let go, if not vindicated by the military. You might disagree with one or both of those interrogation techniques, but you need to explain where the government and the military need to draw the line.

SparcVark is correct; that sort of argument is very dangerous. I think there are definite lines the US should not cross, particularly the one between coersion and outright torture.

With that being said, if Thomas' government was not bound to Protocol I of the Geneva convention, he did not break the law. Rather, combatants who aren't wearing uniforms can be considered spies and shot on sight. So, what he did wasn't illegal, and considering the circumstances -- they were running out of time -- I wouldn't call it unethical.

But you're talking about an extreme situation called the Ticking Bomb scenario. I would not consider shooting a prisoner in the head the right thing to do under most circumstances.

And as a side note; US pilots and fliers are put through what is called Resistance Training, which is where they go to spend a few days at a simulated POW camp. They go through such torture as:

-- Sleep deprivation
-- Being stuffed in a cramped box
-- Getting stripped naked and having sacks placed over their heads
-- Having a towel placed around their necks and getting shaken (their "shakers" hit them in the chest with both fists as they're being shook)
-- Being forced to listen to loud music
-- Long and tiresome interrogation

Even with just these "mild" tactics, these soldiers get broken...and they know it's all fake to boot. So, I don't think it's necessary to go so far as to inflict serious physical injury to get people to talk, and I sure don't think we need to resort to the same torture and murder our enemies engage in because we ARE better than that.

Later,
bbeck

Hate to break it to you bbeck by Johnny the GI Joe has a different breaking point than Abdul the Raging Pschyopathic Terrorist hell bent on the United States distruction. A fanantic acts quite differntly than a citizen soldier under interrogation, especially when its for real.

Torture works, and the harsher it is, the quicker and better the results. When someone believes their death will send them straight to heaven and 72 VRIGINS, it stiffens their spine. I still like the very simple "Rinse and Repeat" method of holding Mohammed's head in a dirty toilet for awhile to see how much shit and urine he's willing to inhale for those 72 VIRGINS.

Hate to break it to you, Gibson, but you're stating the obvious.

Granted it would be more difficult to break a zealot than a private, but not all terrorists are certifiably insane, and let's not underestimate the resolve of the average American soldier.

I don't think we need to become monsters in order to defeat a bunch of monsters. There must be limits to what we will subject prisoners to, even terrorists.

Later,
bbeck

Putting underwear on someone's head is not torture. I got no problem with what "Thomas" did.

There will be one more great annihilation like that of the World Trade Center, and then we will no longer trifle as to whether one should torture terrorists. For either we will no longer have a federal government and the question will be moot; or we will still have a federal government and we will elect only avowed torturers.

Consider that to torture by choice is better than to torture by necessity. For where there is choice there can be moderation and mercy, but when you have been reduced to necessity, you will be absolutely merciless through that necessity which animates you.

The gas (or glue) in a bag cinches to the head, we called that 'playing Mr. Spaceman.' LMAO

Gibson, until it is genuinely tested, the zealot's ability to resist is purely guesswork. Some wouldbe tough guys discover they're pretty weak when things get real. There is only one way to find that out.

This is the same question, on a larger scale that faces all civilised societies when faced with all violent criminals, I believe that thoughometer coined it, they leave the protective system and should be on their own, in England the system protects criminals over victims, it has failed. The brutality on the streets is worse than brutality to criminals, they are sub human.

I guess Vince Flynn read that article too because his hero, Mitch Rapp, used that very technique in Memorial Day. Funny thing -- it worked there too. It's called getting the job done in the face of incessant criticsm from the sorry fools who have no f-ing idea that their ass is being saved.

I think Mr. Spock covered this Sparc Vark. I believe it was something like "the greatest good" " The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or one" , Star Trek II The Wrath of the Khan. Any trekkies want to correct me on that?