I'll agree with a "no-fly-list" for Dr. Lecter. Hehe.

The issue ultimately boils down to a single matter:

The preservation of ethics, or the suspension thereof.

Some would argue that ethics ethics impede victory, and I can understand the reasoning of such people. However, I am inclined to disagree with their logic. After all, are not the greatest of wars won throught the use of Pyrric Victory?

Others argue that during war, the preservation of ethics becomes paramount. I am inclined to agree, although to do so is not a simple matter. The most basic of ethics scenarios is being confronted by a moral dilema: to kill one to save many, or to preserve one and let many perish. Cold logic would assume the 'needs of the many' to outweigh the needs of the few, whereas others would advocate the rights of the few. The one true answer is not stated, but instead implied: to lay down one's own life to preserve both the many and the few. That is the fundamental principle of ethics. By default, the preservation of ethics requires personal sacrifice. The question is, are you willing to accept sacrifice? The answer to which is whether to follow the light or the dark. How many are willing? How many moral people do we really have among us? When all grey is black, the world is darkness.

Whoah.... vIsitor managed to find the cloak of perplexing ethical dilemas +14. I've been looking for that for eons.....

I dare say that how we (who discuss this) think about the dilemma at hand matters little, since we have no actual say in the matter, save for voting for the people who we think will act in the way we wish them to.

Besides, I might be wrong, but the reason why those wars were so great might be exactly that they were won through pyrrhic victories, since wars won within short times, with small losses to population and infrastructure were not seen as wars at all.
Someone who's better at history than I am might want to correct me on this.

Sleep deprivation and getting constantly sprayed with cold water. Hehe. Um, I did that in college for kicks.

Next, please.

I was going to say, torture's more along the lines of, say, harming the subject? Shit, cold water? We're doing them a service, cleaning them off and introducing them to the concept of 'shower'.

Heh, Lecter.

Toshiro, those kids were obviously linked not only to Al-Qaida, but to Mahmoud Ahmedinejad as well.

Torture involves mutilation and bodily harm.

Torture is NOT hurting their feelings. They KILL us, why should be not even hurt their feelings?? Makes no sense to me.

Torture is NOT making someone wear underwear on their head.

No matter WHAT our media says.

BTW, Bin Laden said in one of his memo's to his officers...

Half of the war with the US will involve the media.. Looks like they are winning that part, because our media always wants to blame us for everything.

What would FDR have done if the NY Times had leaked the invasion of Normandy? And how would it have turned out? I shudder to think.

break19 how old are you?

Torture involves mutilation and bodily harm.

Torture is NOT hurting their feelings. They KILL us, why should be not even hurt their feelings?? Makes no sense to me.

Torture is NOT making someone wear underwear on their head.

No matter WHAT our media says.

I think a truer statement would be that YOUR DEFINITION of torture will go unchanged, regardless of what the media or anyone else says. Torture, by written definition and common usage, includes extreme mental stress.

Neither 'common usage' nor all written definition support your claim, Whistler. Some groups would agree with you, others would not--whose common usage, then? Some written definitions would include "extreme mental stress" and others would not--which writing, then?

Torture, like terrorist, is a word without a concrete meaning... just like "extreme mental stress."