'The law re: torture should provide an exception for emergencies of the kind I identified (and you have not addressed). Even the criminal law recognizes "necessity" of this kind -- self-defense, defense of others. I assume this is what the senators are alluding to and, if so, I agree with them.'

Laws may be practical to achieve any number of goals. The rub comes in controlling those responsible for justifiable/just laws. How do you insure that those with ulterior motives who would abuse laws and ignore restrictions which are placed there, so as to to prevent atrocities while they "interrogate?"

The provision inherent in the "necessity" argument permits powerful/authoritarians to make accusatory calls on anyone to achieve nefarious goals leading to inhuman consequences.

Just wanted to say I enjoyed reading your letter on this article, and I agree especially with the points you made about isolation and the breakdown of extended families as contributing factors in the general population's disengagement from the political process.

Kurt Vonnegut recognized this over 30 years ago. He used to say loneliness was our national malaise.

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/04/feinstein/permalink/d04f257efe71e9f38f4a6e5b337b724b.html

I actually found it to be one of her weakest statements. As, really, it was simply a rant response to a rant.

Not true.

First, Pedinska offered a cogent response to art guerrilla's claptrap. Then, she eviscerated his macho posturing by inverting his limp chauvinist platitude.

Personally, (even as a male!) I found her riposte not only decisive in its effectiveness, but also glorious in its defiant femininity.

(A dimwit whose hackneyed attempt at pejorative employs "dickless" and "pussy" is contemptible to begin with - but one who makes said attempt under the veil of online anonymity eclipses contempt, and is literally ridiculous.)

You lend a toothbrush, deodorant, a brush?

You cook kielbasa? Please kill no one in kilt.

P-gal, you need a light blue inaugural gown?

You bring a ballet tutu and dance with poodle.

O Meet a Menagerie: Ringo, Pete, Poodle LuLu.

Lu Lu's a big breed. She has black wagging tail.

Poor Ringo is blond male. They're in great heat.

Maybe to be safe, quiet, bring a relaxed oboist.

People's are wondering about you. Act illiterate.

No bring Jebbie. Act as you dumped a boyfriend.

You sure? Promise. Split logs, and haul the trash?

"Anyone who has one knows that one good pussy can defeat a rather large number of tiny, shriveled, self-important dicks."

I'm having trouble with the logic here. Outside of the issues of logistics concerning how many dicks a pussy may defeat (even in the most ambitious porn projects, I've only ever witnessed two defeated in such a manner, three tops), said anatomical device would only be able to defeat un-shriveled dicks, self-importance and relative measurements notwithstanding.

Now if that doesn't net me an editor's choice star, nothing will!

Probably not, but I won't hold it against you. ;)

I'm not directing this at you -- I know you're basically making this point -- but I couldn't believe how Wyden's spokesperson called me all angry and aggressive about how I had misunderstood and distorted his point, and then when I kept asking what his view was, she kept describing it EXACTLY how I characterized it.

Believe it.. we live in the postrational age. The reaction from Wyden's camp is hardly typical and can be translated from politico-gobbledygook thusly: "You said something negative about us! Stop it!". No matter what they say, that's pretty much all the informational content you're going to get.

What you're advocating is a complete violation of Western justice since the Nuremberg trials. People who believed what you believe were tried and convicted as war criminals. You can dress it up all you want, but anyone who advocates that the law explicitly legalize torture -- as you do -- is advocating about the most morally repugnant act one can think of.

Histrionics. I am not advocating for torture; I am saying that there can be emergency situations where it may be necessary. The Nazis were tried as war criminal because they tried to exterminate the Jews, not for their interrogation techniques. Once again I'll ask for that elusive practical answer: Would you have permitted the torture of one person if it would have prevented the Holocaust?

You wish to remain in the realm of pure and perfect theory. Sorry, but that's not the real world. If you address some concrete scenarios the failure of your reasoning will be plain.

You're confused about how the criminal law works.

I am confused about many things, but how the criminal law works isn't one of them.

I think Feinstein sent a clear signal that she was at best ambiguous about torture when she decided to support Michael Mukasey for AG. She is disgusting, Schumer is disgusting, Pelosi and Reid are disgusting, and you can add Wyden to the list. At this point no one should surprised by any of these creeps.

and ask directly if the 'torture ban' accross all govt. will have the exact same prohibitions as the AFM?

If the current AFM text is lifted directly into legislation, everyone would be on board, no?

Absolutely true, imo. I'd add that there is no way to capitulate in secret. It is simply impossible. Regardless of how carefully crafted a media release may be, clear changes of position can not be obscured.

It will be seen for what it is.

Those who want greater latitude to torture terror suspects in the future overlook the intelligence agencies’ skilled interrogators who contributed to 107 successful terrorist prosecutions in U.S. federal courts without resorting to the use of torture.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/11/30/judging_detainees_on_the_facts/

They also advocate the psychological techniques enshrined in the Army Field Manual which prohibits the use of torture or any kind of physical violence.

Now, the torturers have never given me one example where they got any useful information. Not one. Why not?

Could it be because the tortured person will say any-damn-thing to stop the pain? They will tell you that they personally shot Lincoln if they think you want to hear it.