Okay, so let's review. If we had in custody a terrorist who had planted a dirty bomb in a major American city, and this terrorist knew precisely when it was due to explode, Joan would sacrifice that city just so we wouldn't ruin our terrorist's day with the threat of drowning.

I guess we'd just "reason" with him. Yeah, that would work. But you know what? This dirty bomb thing would never really happen, would it? It's not like they hate us so much that they're willing to die to take out, oh, say, 3,000 Americans along with both World Trade towers. Or say, Washington DC, with a nuclear bomb. Ha! That'll be the day!

Besides, even if our worst nightmare ever came true, thanks to deep thinkers like Joan, we'd all have our priorities in order -- "No waterboarding, Johnny! I kinda like this Islamofacist knucklehead! So stop interrupting us! Can't you see we're playing Scrabble!"

Perhaps I should have prefaced our worst case scenario with the fact that this not-so-hypothetical terrorist is quite proud of planting the dirty bomb and has gleefully admitted it (and why not -- it's his ticket to 72 virgins).

I never made a leap to the new example you cited, YOU did. I was only citing ONE example in which we had ONE proud dirty-bomb planter in our custody who knew for a fact when the bomb would explode and admitted it to our interrogators. So if you'd like to discusss that example, fine. But leaping to another hypotetical because you can't deal with the one cited is rather transparent.

Unfortunately, that's not the way the world works, Nulia. We can't show you something in advance so you can decide whether it's worth it. Because there is no way of knowing what that something will be. This is why the government studies all the hypotheticals in advance, no matter how remote.

At least not forthrightly. Even though you've asked her some damn good ones, including:

"Can you imagine any scenario in which you would support torture? What if we could have tortured one individual and uncovered the 9/11 plot? Do you believe it is ethically permissible to torture one person to save the lives of over 3000?"

I'm afraid your questions are too heady and real-world for Joan or Salon.com, for that matter. They're not really interested in an honest discussion of "what-ifs." In their world, questions such as yours are ridiculous. And anyone who asks them must be at odds with their agenda. Sad but true.

I apologize. Joan DID answer your question(s), Mikes -- AND UNBELIEVABLY SO! I'M SIMPLY AMAZED! EVEN THOUGH IT'S TYPICALlY JOAN -- I'M ABSOLUTELY STUNNED! THIS GOES BEYOND THE UNIMAGINABLE!

YOU ASKED HER: "What if we could have tortured one individual and uncovered the 9/11 plot? Do you (Joan) believe it is ethically permissible to torture one person to save the lives of over 3000?

AND HER ANSWER WAS:"(blah, blah, blah)...there is no scenario in which I'd say it's justified...(blah, blah, blah)"

She would have let 3,000 Americans die to save an Islamofacist terrorist! Now do you see what you're dealing with here at Salon.com, Mikes? It's terrorist "rights" over the mass murder of 3,000 Americans. Yeah, THAT makes sense. My God, how incredibly base. We've really hit bottom here.

Yes, let's avoid living in that pesky post-9/11 world and make ourselves a nice comfortable cocoon to sleep in -- just as Joan has. Everything will be just fine. Z-z-z-z-z-z.

"Do you believe the Geneva Convention should be null and void? Or should other nations be bound by it, whereas America gets a pass?"

For the 47 millionth time, the Geneva Convention applies to soldiers in uniform representing a specific sovereign nation, not terrorists. Which, of course, is why there is a Guantanamo.

As a Republican, I'd like nothing better for our nominee to run against Hillary, since she has the highest negatives ever for a presidential candidate -- and also because only she can rally an opposition party still reeling from 2006. However, her performance in the last debate just may be a harbinger. And that's disappointing.

I think Newt Gingrich saw it as clearly as I did, when he commented:

“Her performance in that debate was so bad, on issues that matter so much, she may not be able to recover from it… This issue of Spitzer trying to give out driver's licenses to people (illegal aliens) at a time when your driver’s license allows you to vote — for her to trap herself into saying that creates a big wound…"

And...

"The fact that she said she’s basically sympathetic with Rangel’s trillion-dollar-tax increase — that’s going to arouse some deep opposition. The huge Democratic tax increase allowed us to win in 1994… Then, I saw in a ticker on Fox News, when Sen. Edwards said nominating her would be ‘a victory for a corruption machine’… it brings back a lot of memories of the Chinese funding scandals of 1996… It takes her winning the nomination from an 80 percent likelihood to a 50 percent. It’s even money."

Time will tell.

This in the news today:

"Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts said Thursday that he intends to oppose the (Attorney General's) nomination, arguing that Mukasey's unwillingness to answer definitively on the legality of the interrogation method that simulates drowning increases chances that it could be used against U.S. troops."

Gee whiz, the hero of Chappaquiddick is now against simulated drowning? I guess he still favors the real thing. Go figure.