In fact, no crime is punished under all circumstances. Prosecutors have a lot of discretion as to which cases to pursue.

I don't want to go too far in defending McArdle. No matter what happened to me or people I love I can't see myself ever "whipping out the toolbox" as she says.

All I'm saying is that, if all hell is breaking loose, and somehow through some bizarre set of circumstances, some government literally does save the planet by torturing a suspect, then he's free to make that argument either to the prosecutors considering an indictment or at trial. "Yes, I cut off the guys finger, but if I didn't do it millions of people would be dead." In my opinion such an event will not occur in my lifetime. There is no "hidden law" (I won't defend her use of that phrase). In fact, our current set of laws covers this scenario quite nicely.

This is in no sense a defense of torture.

Hey, just because we apparently disagree on a very minor subpoint on the subject of torture, don't make me out as some stereo typical Bush supporting right-wing monster. Nothing could be further from the truth, OK?

Gator90, everyone already has "unfettered personal discretion" to do whatever they want if they are willing to face punishment for their actions. Any cop can already torture or even murder any suspect if he's willing to be punished for this.

J T, "dark rooms" was once again McArdle's word word choice, not mine. I don't pretend to know exactly what she meant by that so I won't speculate. My personal belief is that all government interrogations should be videotaped, and that no information gathered from an interrogation that wasn't videotaped should be admisable in court.

GoodCelery!, thanks for the Dadaist interlude, and thanks for eventually getting my name right.

geemoney, I don't "concede" that a ticking timebomb scenario is unrealistic. I ARGUE that it's unrealistic. My point is that we should not write laws around such fantastical scenarios. We don't need special laws that apply only if we're invaded by elephants from outer space, and we don't need special laws to allow torture under ticking time bomb scenarios. Really, my main point here (aside from the fact that Glenn is off base in this particular attack on McArdle) is that the solution to the ridiculous ticking timebomb argument is that the wannabe Jack Bauer can just throw himself on the mercy of the court.

Thomas C, no I don't read McArdle as making such a defense, nor am I in favor of any such thing.

kingfelix07, just because you disagree with the distorted view of my argument that you have created does not mean my argument is incoherent. Also, I never said I was "with McArdle". If you put quotes around something it is pretty misleading (I'd actually call it a lie) if it is not actually a quotation.

Gator90, in the same post that you quote me from, I also said the following: "My personal belief is that all government interrogations should be videotaped, and that no information gathered from an interrogation that wasn't videotaped should be admisable in court." Rail all you want against "hidden rooms", but don't think you're arguing with me when you do so.

Glenn, my point is that you've misconstrued and distorted McArdle's 5-year-old remarks on torture, and I think this whole discussion is a distraction from your point that people like McArdle are idiot enablers of the press corps misplaced focus on stories that don't matter. Nailing her as a liar about her position on torture is a stretch and it is neither here nor there w/r/t your original point.

fleinn, I am not arguing for any such thing. In your selective quotation, you left off the following: "If he saves NYC then no one is going to call for his prosecution. If he's wrong then he'll be treated like any other criminal who violated the law. Such a "system" (if you could call it that) is only common sense." Why would you do this? What is the point of trying to pretend that I'm supporting something that I'm actually trying to argue against?

Gator90, thanks for the comment re: my tone. I do aim to be civil! Seriously, I apologize if I'm not being clear. I think cabdriver and rebmarks made my point much more clearly than I did. Please go back and read rebmarks post on page 10. I agree with what he said completely.

Torture should always be illegal, as rebmarks says. If an individual interrogator believes that a given situation is so extreme that torture is justified (and again, let me note that I don't believe that such a situation will ever arise--the point here is to make a counter argument against those who make the ticking timebomb argument as an excuse for legalized torture), and he or she does what he or she believes to be necessary, then this interrogator must be fully aware that he or she will face the full consequences of his or her actions. That could mean either getting fired, getting sued, spending time in prison, or being prosecuted for crimes against humanity. If the interrogator was actually correct and he or she through some miracle did save the world Jack Bauer style (and again, I don't believe this will ever happen) then the courts or the executive branch can make some sort of ex-post-facto exoneration. "BUT," to quote rebmarks, "THE LAW SHOULD STILL BE THERE, AND THERE SHOULD NEVER BE OFFICIAL IMMUNITY BEFORE THE ACT, OR LAWS PASSED TO ALLOW THEM."

I really hope that clears things up.