Replies

"The traditional way to do that is to have the rules and the laws in place to protect human rights and if law enforcement or the military feels so strongly then they break the law."

In other words, you are fine with all of this as long as you can hang the military for "breaking the rules". Makes it go down easier for you, does it?

The military should be fully protected in such matters. Using them as scapegoats is not acceptable.

"In other words, you are fine with all of this as long as you can hang the military for "breaking the rules". Makes it go down easier for you, does it?

The military should be fully protected in such matters. Using them as scapegoats is not acceptable."

The problem is that torture is about as un-Christian and un-American as you can get. But there are circumstances when the alternatives are worse. How do you make sure that it is only used in those once in a decade situations?

No jury is going to convict a cop who beats up a suspect who then tells the cop where a victim is buried alive. That means cops have to be extremely careful about who they torture - and that is a good thing.

You do understand that this is already army code, yes? I find it kind of hard to believe that we are arguing about whether torture should be legal.

I am strict construction constitutionalist -the founding fathers clearly didn't want this sort of behavior because they knew it would be abused.

Much is made of the fact that these are not soldiers we are fighting. Well the Geneva convention cover people who take up arms against an invader whether in uniform or not.

So the troops are already obligated to not torture.

This bill mainly protects the troops from verbal orders to engage in torture.