The bandwagon hysteria of post 9.11 insanity & cowardice, sold to Americans through incessant Rovian propaganda via the media, is epitomized by wbgonne (who no doubt believes he came to his "realistic, practical" views completely on his own, and not by media manipulation and brainwashing).

One the biggest post 9.11 lies was that it was the “worst catastrophe in US history!”, and presented "the worst, most unpredictable threat we’ve ever faced!” The likes of which no one could have ever imagined!!! Accordingly, it should lay waste to all the quaint laws written previously, even laws written when America faced MUCH, MUCH worse threats than 9.11 and a street gang with box cutters.

I’m sure the people who lived through the civil war would be interested to know that the killing of 23,000 people in one day on US soil (Battle of Antietam) was nothing compared to the 3,000 killed on 9.11

All perspective was lost when gutless, weenie, cowards like Bush, Cheney, Rove, et.al, decided to act like their refusal to take terrorist threats seriously prior to 9.11 should result in a complete dismantling of our Constitutional liberties, while (surprise, surprise) empowering them with near dictatorial authority.

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?

In what possible system of logic is that a "practical" question? How would you know the painful abuse of one person would prevent the Holocaust?

You keep proposing these wildly improbable hypotheticals. To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, you keep using this word "practical," and I do not think it means what you think it means.

In the months prior to the election, Obama repeatedly denounced the fact that America conducts torture under the Bush Administration. Those sentiments got lost during his recent interview with 60 Minutes, where he devoted precisely one dumbfounding sentence to the subject of torture:

"I've said repeatedly, America doesn't torture, and I'm gonna make sure we don't torture".

The parsing of this statement yields multiple meanings. Including the message that President-elect Obama has developed a more 'nuanced' perspective on torture as defined, and practiced, by the Bush cabal. Obama's embrace of Brennan is also suggestive of such a shift in tone. In fact, it looks like this WaPo article is laying the groundwork for Obama to walk-back his prior tough stance against torture:

***"Even some senior Democratic lawmakers who are vehement critics of the Bush administration’s interrogation policies seemed reluctant in recent interviews to commit the new administration to following the Army Field Manual in all cases. [As pledged by Obama during the Presidential campaign.] Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who will take over as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in January...indicated that extreme cases might call for flexibility. “I think that you have to use the noncoercive standard to the greatest extent possible,” she said, raising the possibility that an imminent terrorist threat might require special measures."***

A made-to-measure "extreme case" and "terrorist threat" just came to the pols, and the public, two days ago: in the form of a newly minted Congressional Report, The World at Risk. It predicts a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013.

Clearly, this new report can, and will, be used to perpetuate the 'Global War on Terror'. At the same time, it gives the Dems a 'pragmatic' rationale to make allowances for Bush's "enhanced interrogation" techniques. And, worse than that, it allows the Dems to give Bush extra cover by suggesting that some of those techniques may 'need' to be used in an Obama Administration.

Let's hope that critical voices in the netroots will keep up the pressure for follow-through on campaign promises.

You keep proposing these wildly improbable hypotheticals.

In the mine run of situations, in fact, in nearly EVERY situation I am absolutely opposed to torture to extract information. HOWEVER: Sometimes "wildly impractical hypotheticals" become real. That is my point.

First, Pedinska offered a cogent response to art guerrilla's claptrap.

Absolutely. Complete agreement.

Then, she eviscerated his macho posturing by inverting his limp chauvinist platitude.

I thought her cogent response more effective.

(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.)

Complete agreement as well.

Would you have permitted the torture of one person if it would have prevented the Holocaust?

A. Well, would you permit pogo sticks on the moon if gravity didn't exist?

B. Would you have killed a pair of Unicorns with your bare hands if it allowed all the other animals to get on the Arc?

C. Would you have eaten a turd if it prevented Bush from attacking Iraq?

I must interrupt. I was enjoying the read, but I have to interject.

If someone kidnapped my family and intended to kill them, if I caught someone else who knew where they were but wouldn't say, would I torture the captured person if that was the only way to get the information? I would.

As others pointed out the legal consequences (you can kill someone, but you will have to pay the consequences, even if it was in self-defense), heru-ur finally pointed out that you have no real way of knowing if the information you get is any damn good. Therefore, no, I would not; not just because I don't have the constitution for it, but because the cost is too high for such a low rate of return.

Bush/Cheney assumed that 9/11 ushered in an era of PERMANENT EMERGENCY

Seems to me they manufactured much of these 'emergencies' and so-called threats. Never mind the group who think they engineered the entire 9/11 fiasco which is looking more feasible with every ugly disclosure.

Would you have permitted the torture of one person if it would have prevented the Holocaust?

This is a ridiculous question. But, no. I wouldn't, because this is about principles. As I said earlier, if you are not willing to die for them, what's the point?

You wish to remain in the realm of pure and perfect theory. Sorry, but that's not the real world.

Nonsense. See above. It's about principles. You either have them, live by them, die by them, or you don't.