Phil: The author of the article I quoted argued that U.S. courts would reject the torture of U.S. citizens, and that the Bush administration's legal justification of torture did not adequately exclude this possibility.
The web site also has this point: "To be fair to the program's proponents, many successful intelligence cases are accompanied by rival claims about credit, arguments about which agent or which source provided the key information. That is natural and healthy. And sometimes both sides can be right: a successful stream can have many tributaries."
So what would Lit-Ideas members do?(1) Waterboard under conditions of imminent threat? Try other methods first, then waterboard? (2) Abandon all coercive tactics? (Brits on the list may reflect on the brutalization of IRA members in prison.) (3) Use pharmaceutically-enhanced interrogations? Is that torture? (4) Allow national intelligence agencies to do whatever they feel they need to do?
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
