>Your problem is that your logic is stuck on a procedural due process obsession even in the face of millions of possible deaths.<

Somehow, due process makes a lot more sense to me than torturing some guy who may or may not know where the bomb is until I get a tale that may or may not be gospel.

"If a guy knows where a dirty bomb is hidden that's going to go off in a Marriott, put me in a room with him and I'll find out."

Let's say we torture the hell out of him and there is no dirty bomb. How do we apologize to him~? Let's say he tells us where it is before we torture him, we don't believe him, we torture him until he tells us a story we like, then the bomb goes off right where he originally said~? What reparations could we possibly give him~? Maimonides stated that it's better to let a thousand criminals run loose than to put a single innocent to death. Torture is lethal.

>As a former practicing litigator, yeah, I have been in courts a few times. That's why witness testimony in exchange for something typically requires corroborating evidence to make sure the witness isn't lying just to get something.<

That tears your argument apart at the seams.

>And since you have the individual to be interrogated in custody, the corroborating evidence would be finding the actual bomb.<

Which would turn the reasoning behind the torture into an inherently circular argument. Habeas Corpus was invented to prevent such nonsense.

>> The ticking time bomb scenario is just such a staged sting where the baddies have the explosives on hand. <<

yep. that's the fantasy land argument that seems to have preoccupied the great minds of tribe. if you think that is how the world works, then go for it. as for me, I'm guessing that the good cop/bad cop, rip down and build up is the basis for most interrogations. I'm going to guess that there are a lot of false positives but that doesn't mean what you consider torture is doomed to failure. and that protecting this country from fanatics is going to require things that offend the sensibilities of cows that demand their government protect them from anything and everything while reserving the right to punish them for fulfilling their responsibilities.

shit just is what it is.

Again, a hypothetical just allows people to discuss a baseline issue without the burden of all the minutia that can cause people to get bogged down.

It's an easy question.

Yes or No.

"The problem is that the ticking time bomb scenario is too exaggerated to be true. "

Ah, in other words, life can never possibly provide any situation that is too extreme to fit your absolutist dogma. Good luck to you on that.

"The reasonable documentary evidence to justify the arrest is the bomb threat, but as you said, the corroborating evidence to justify the torture is the bomb"

I didn't say that. I said that the evidence corroborating the information Joe gives us regarding the location of the bomb is actually having the bomb. I said that in response to the question, "Well, how do we know he just doesn't tell us bullshit?" Well, you ask for where the bomb is, he tells you, and so you look. If the bomb isn't there, then he wasn't telling the truth. Duh.

Now, what kind of evidence can justify assuming that the guy has useful information? Gee, maybe the exact same standards that the police use every day to search suspects on the assumption that they have useful information. Statements from them or others. Circumstantial evidence (e.g. bomb making materials and plans in their apartment); eyewitness accounts, etc.

"Problem is that Joe 4channer never had a bomb to begin with, but his torturers won't take that for an answer. "

Sure, it's all as simple as that. People make bullshit claims to committing crimes all the time. The police take some seriously, others not. How do they distinguish? Corroborating evidence. Are there phony claims to terrorist activities? Of course. Are there never any serious claims to terrorist activities? Only if you're delusional.

"This may be the first war in American history in which the constitution has been disregarded almost entirely."

Ridiculous hyperbole. Can the government prohibit speech based on the ideas contained? (violating the 1st amendment) No. Can they prohibit the points of view expressed in the press? (1st amendment) No. Can they establish an official state religion? (1st) No. Can they ban the right to keep and bear arms (2nd)? No. Do they need a court order to search your private accounts in the vast majority of cases? (4th) Yes. Must they pay you for your property if they take it? (5th) Yes. Can they try you twice for the same crime? (5th) No. Are you entitled to an attorney in the vast majority of cases? (6th) Yes. Do citizens have the right to a speedy trial (6th) yes. Can they sentence American citizens to torture? (8th - the Constitution applies to American citizens; the torture cases involve noncitizens) No. Is slavery legally allowed (13th)? No. Can they racially discriminate against you? (14th) No. Do blacks still have the right to vote (15th)? Yes. I could go on and on.

But if overly simplistic bumper sticker slogans are adequate replacements for reality for you, knock yourself out.

"At this point, martial law and extermination camps are more likely than that bomb scenario"

BWAHAHAHA! Yeah, martial law is right around the corner. We were told that since at least 2001. I guess the end of the Bush administration hasn't ended that fantasy.

Let's see, times that martial law has been declared in America in the last century . Zero

Times America has had death camps in the last century. Zero

Times (in just the last 20 years) that people have engaged in terrorist bomb attacks against Americans: Lost count, but let's see a few: 1st attack on the WTC; Oklahoma City; Atlanta Olympics, USS Cole. That's off the top of my head.

Again, if ludicrous bumper sticker slogans are your cup of tea, sorry for throwing reality in your face.


"You only came up with some guy saying he saved lives through torture. It's just a television propaganda piece. "

Right, you refuse to believe any claim of experience that contradicts your dogma. Got it. Silly me to think that you were seriously and sincerely asking for cases.

"In other words, you can't come up with an actual historical situation because history proves torture to be in the moral and ethical low ground."

You mean historical cases that you would believe, which means zero, regardless of what anyone can produce. Got it.

"Arguments from authority are not valid. "

That's false. There are fallacious as well as logically valid appeals to authority. An appeal to authority is only fallacious if there's no inductive reason to assume that the authority's opinion on the matter in question is probative evidence for the matter at hand. For example, appealing to Einstein's opinion on the question of God's existence just because he's Einstein is fallacious since there's no inductive reason to assume that Einstein's opinion on God's existence is probative as to whether God exists or not, since Einstein had no particular or special expertise on the matter. However, appealing to the opinion of a doctor who's an expert on brain cancer when seeking a diagnosis on brain cancer is relevant and not fallacious since we have inductive reason to believe that such an expert is more likely than not to know what he or she's talking about.

Or do you think that getting a doctor's opinion is always fallacious?

Courts all the time rely upon the opinions of experts and authorities on matters about which the experts/authorities are actually expert about, and there's nothing fallacious about it.

Getting someone in the intelligence field who has seen torture used to refer to actual cases where it produced useful information that specifically saved lives obviously was probative evidence to address what you asked for, but apparently you're not inclined to believe any source that disagrees with your assumptions.