I will agree with you that torture is not a method we should be using to gain the upper hand on our enemies. But I can't help but consider the realities of life and how moving forward to a better society may not necessarily mean the society that we want. In the end someone will have to sacrifice what and who they are if our goal as humans is to eventually create a society where every human is equal. I don't consider myself a Vulcan, but logic would dictate that it will take a lot of pain and suffering before we (the whole world) can become that which we (the US) claim to represent.

I am sorry to say that while I may not believe in killing as a means to solve problems, I would take a life if it meant the survival of myself, my family, my country and/or my race.

I have to take some insult in that comment quoted. You seem to be implying that we have never been on the path to improve humanity as a whole when the reality is that the US is considered the beacon of human freedom. I think you and everyone else is giving Obama too much credit for something that has been going on for decades in this country. Every penny with give to countries in need, every soldier that dies fighting for the freedom and lives of people from other countries, every technology that we create and share with the rest of the world, every law that protects peoples rights to their religion and beliefs in this country, it all represents a society who's goal is a world where we can all get along. We may not be perfect, but we dam sure have what could be considered the best concept of "the road to improving humanity".

I'm all for no tourture... as soon as our enemies agree to stop as well. But the simple truth is when your men and women are falling on the battlefield (or as civilians) you will do anything in your power to keep it happening to more of them.

you do see the problem that the can make the exactly same point about torture then?

"Why should we stop torturing when the USA does?" "How can you say its bad to torture when your allies torture as well"?

Surely you can answer : "Yah but we are the good guys so we are allowed to torture because its for a greater good." but that is not very convincing.

Don't get me wrong I think that in some situations torture might be somewhat useful but it should always be outlawed so the policeman (just an example), who tortures a kidnapper to get the information where a kidnapped child is, which would die from hunger in the next days, would be punished afterwards for torturing (there are pardons into the jurisdical system which could then lift the punishment if there were good reasons for it but it needs to be outlawed to prevent that it will be used extensively and when not absolutely necessary)

Who else here believes that once Guantanamo is closed all the anti-torture protesters will be satisfied and nobody will think twice about the fact that Jews captured by the terrorists and their sympathisers, in Israel, India, Europe, and elsewhere are regularly tortured and killed?

Who else here thinks that once Guantanomo's prisoners are found innocent and sent back to their home countries they will be executed by those country's regimes because those regimes simply don't have as much patience with possible terrorists as the US do?

Who else here remembers that the "anti-war" protesters started demonstrating against the Lebanon war in 2006 once Israel started shooting back but never in the five years before than when Hizbullah regularly shelled Israel?

And who else here recalls that the "anti-war" protesters speaking up against either war in Iraq were utterly quiet when Saddam invaded Iran, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, when Saddam gased Kurds, and when Saddam slaughtered Shiites?

Considering all the places in the world where people are tortured, both real and imagined and unproven, how did they arrive at the conclusion that Guantanamo must go first?

I have seen the torture chambers in Iraq. I was there. But I haven't seen anyone in the west demonstrate for an end to torture of Kurds.

That's my point entirely, it's never going to stop, they won't and we won't (unofficially). Obama can say what re likes to please his supporters, but when the rubber hits the road, he'll get the info he needs to keep his supporters from harm. Candy just doesn't work as effectively.

Yeah, war protesters are funny that way. I guess it's only a concern if the US does it. Good points all.

Oh, be fair. It's also a concern if Israel does it. Israel doesn't even have to do it. There will be demonstrations anyway.

A hundred pound note lies in the middle of the street. There are four people standing equally far from it: an anti-war protester who just came from a demonstration against Hizbullah's attack on Israel, an anti-torture activist who just came from a protest in front of the embassy of Syria, a UN human rights envoy on his way to the Saudi embassy to talk to them about their treatment of foreign workers, and the Prince of Wales. Who will be at the hundred pound note first?

(Answer: Noone. The first three don't exist and the Prince is perplexed because the word "Hizbullah" was mentioned.)

I agree there are more effective means of data extraction, and that is why I dont really believe that all this talk of tortur is anything more than a red herring.  I doubt the US (colelctively and its intelligence arms) are that stupid.  But just let one terrorist claim it, and then it becomes fact.

And I think the protestors will just find another nit to pick.

The way I see "we are our own worst enemies" seems to describe the average American quite well. I still find it hard to believe that some people actually believed we would bomb schools and hospitals in Iraq when the war first started with out a car for the injured in the hospitals and the children in the schools. It almost makes me sick to think these are the same people we share social security numbers with.

I never understood those accusations. What would be the point of bombing schools and hospitals???

The big question is where do we put the incorrigibles?

That question has already been answered. We ship them back to their countries of origin where they will be executed for terrorism/treason/getting caught/handling goats/whatever.

That part was never a problem for the protesters. Out of sight - out of mind.

I’m sorry if you regard that as an insult, but I am unable to bring myself to believe that the reason we have entered into wars and struggles is solely for the purpose of brining freedom to those countries we attack (free market’s perhaps, but that isn’t necessarily freedom).

How many times has the word freedom be used as an excuse? Hitler and Stalin themselves would use words such as freedom and liberation. I’m not saying for a minute that we are perpetrating anything along the lines of those animals, but I’d just like to point out that there are reasons, beyond giving people living in foreign lands more freedom and us all getting along, that our troops are dieing out there, money being spent and torture used.

It’s easy to believe we are on the moral high ground, because we are told daily that we are. Maybe if you were a Russian citizen you wouldn’t be of the same opinion with regards to the United States and you certainly look at Russia in a different light.

Ask Palatines why they won’t embrace democracy and they’ll tell you they did and that they chose Hamas and then ask an Israeli what they think of that political party heh.

I’m not going to be naive enough to assume that once Gauntanamo is closed that the west will all of a sudden free of such practices however as I said previously it would be a step in the right direction. Then when we do come to approach the people who are doing this to the Jews then their first reproach won’t be “Hypocrite, you do the same in Gauntanamo!”.

While the plight of people in the Middle East is something of great concern to me, I fail to see how this specific incident relates to the topic of torture.

Well firstly I was never anti-war (this time around), I believe what he did to his own people meant he had to go, that being said there are plenty other dictators around the world that are just as bad and many of whom we have been more than friendly with. I’m merely disappointed that it probably wasn’t the real reason for going in.

It is exactly that willingness that you mention there of how Saddam was curiously useful at times (invading Iran) and yet demonized later when he wasn’t (attacking Kuwait, because they were selling oil on the cheap). This highlights my previous point to CharlesCS of how we are not doing things for freedom and liberty, but for personal greed.

Well because it’s the most notorious in the west, it has been highlighted. It also belongs to the west, how can we ask others to clean up when we are just as dirty?

Purely politics isn’t it; we want to see Turkey and Iraq on board, so we let them commit atrocities (or more to the point the media isn’t as keen to report their actions to our society), just like we managed to overlook Stalin during word war 2 and Saddam during his invasion of Iran, politics at its worse. It shouldn’t be overlooked and I can only hope it won’t be, but while we have Guantanamo we can’t turn around to either and tell them to stop.

Well again I don’t see how this has anything to do with torture, but my own government (considered I suspect just a liberal as any) invented “strategic bombing”, the intention to demoralize a country from the air and grinding the country to a halt. Now this obviously wasn’t the case in Iraq, it wasn’t a war of attrition and such actions were not deemed necessary, but I’d just like to provide you with an example of just how low the west has been willing to go (let’s not talk about Vietnam and India). It’s disheartening to believe that we would do such a thing and I don’t believe we have ever done so, but I’d like to provide you with two films to watch.  One is called Charlie Wilson’s War and the other is called 9^th Company or (9 pota), the first is an American film portraying events in Afganistan during the 1980’s during the Soviet/Afgan war the other is a Russian film portraying events during the same time period.

The American film shows Russian choppers annihilating innocent afgan civilians and towns (no doubt including hospital and schools), the Russian film shows the same thing, but before it happens a Russian squad is in the town and is attacked by children with AK-47’s. Two viewpoints, whose right? What happened?

I don’t think I could bring myself to believe that people who represent us could purposely harm innocents, yet at the same time, I wouldn’t be naive enough to outright dismiss it.

I didn't say it would be over. I said the protests would end.

The hyprocrite is the person who actually believes that what the Americans do to terrorists is morally equivalent to what the terrorists do to Jewish civilians and children.

And NOONE will stop torturing innocents just because the US are no longer accused of torturing the guilty. So what's the point here?

Scotteh, can you edit your comment? The formatting issue appears to start after the words "tell them to stop".

Mickey Moore has room - I say let him keep them.  And anyone else that wants to take pity on their party.