Anon wrote:

"Would you torture an 18 year old American girl because you thought she was part of a plot to blow up New York city? Whatever your answer to that question, that should be your position on foreign terrorists as well."

First, it depends on your definition of the word torture. I don't consider waterboarding torture, altho I think an excellent case could be made that ripping fingers off is ;-). Secondly, in answer to your question, I would do *whatever* it took to extract the relevant info from that American girl. So, yes. My position is innocent vs non-innocent, not to elevate Americans as some sort of super-race. But also understand that I'm not an internationalist. I'm a patriot and I put the interests of my home first (unless we were invading countries for evil reasons, e.g.; then I'd have to protest and oppose; again, innocent vs non-innocent, right vs wrong).

Dehler wrote:

"First of all I get tired of hearing the religious right complain whenever atheists,agnostics or spiritualist take a position of any kind,especially in light of history where they were killed in the most horrific way imaginable simply for not being in line."

So were Christians killed in the most horrific ways and in fact, they still are to this day. Religious persecution doesn't seem to know any particular ideology. But if your idea of unity is for me to shut up about my religious beliefs, then yours is a totalitarian and intolerant mindset. That's all I was referring to. I'm not going to say that Christians, those on my side of the fence, don't drop the ball sometimes, too. But AS a Christian, I just get a little tired of non-believers complaining about divisiveness because I have the audacity to express my beliefs, especially when I'm criticizing no one in the process. That's just anti-religious bigotry.

"Second I know way too many people that simply do not dare to utter the words they are tempted to say when describing their religius beliefs. they simply cannot say atheist or agnostic in case they are wrong so they dance around it. That makes them a mark in your traditionalist column."

Not by me. I don't care. I just want them on the side of the country and the principles upon which it was founded. We needn't agree on everything. Only immature people need to fight when having a mere disagreement of opinion. A mature, civilized society can have disagreements and still walk down the street together the next day. And in fact many "traditionalists" have welcomed the conservativish agnostic in these fora, something you seemed to have overlooked. I have a couple of atheistic -- but conservative -- friends/associates, and we get along quite well.

"I am a centrist, I feel that either extreme is bad and very bad for this country. Don't look to closely at the ACLU or even worse the southern poverty law center, these groups are so far left they are falling off the edge,..."

Good. I agree with you here.

"...don't be fooled into thinking they are any less extreme than a lot of right wing groups and I am talking about alot more mainstrem than militia groups. Fundamentalist christian groups would love to be driving the bus."

So mainstream Christians are now extremists like the ACLU. Wow. That spells danger for me if that becomes some sort of official position of the gov't., and it shows that you have a really skewed view of people like me. You don't want me driving that bus, but I have to believe that YOU'D like to be behind that wheel yourself because you actually see yourself as a moderate. This just shows me how far this country has come over the last 50 years or so. The 60s started it, this shift to lunatic left positions where somehow, mainstream Christianity is somehow NOW a danger to society. This position of yours seems to indicate that we haven't shifted further to the right, but rather people like you have shifted further to the left. Hence, a type of ideological doppler shift has taken place. You're further in left territory, hence further away than before, and so like in physics, you see me as redder, so to speak, than I actually am. We on the conservative side really haven't changed our beliefs that much. It is the left that has become more extreme. Just look at some of the Dems in Congress. It seems that the Dem party, overall, has become more extreme and so less tolerant of people like me.

Ugh... I really didnt feel like getting swept into any debates and the usual, unending back & forth that's so characteristic of these kinds of forums. I was probably less than wise to get involved. With all that I got going on in my life right now, there are so many other things I'd rather be doing than to try to explain why it is we need to do whatever is necessary to protect American lives. Maybe the ripping the fingers off thing is wrong. That could turn out to be a slippery slope. I'd hate to see that become our regular, knee-jerk technique. But I'm just not of the opinion that Habib caught on the battlefield is entitled to the same protections that an American citizen is entitled to. I think that is both dangerous and foolish. If waterboarding -- which causes no physical damage except to maybe make the guy pee in his pants -- is employed because all else has failed, then I say that's war and that's what you gotta do. Waterboarding -- and ONLY waterboarding -- stopped a massive repeat of 9/11 in, I think it was the summer of 2006. 10 planes leaving, I believe, Heathrow Airport were targeted for hijacking and for slamming into American skyscrapers. TEN planes. That's 2.5x 9/11. Do the ends justify the means? Not always, no. No civilized person could seriously say that. But if it's a high-pressure technique that causes no permanent damage and it saves even one American life -- never mind thousands -- because it's the only thing that's proven to work, then to say that that's beneath us is sick. We will not win this conflict that way. Trying to remain "better" than our enemies will cause us to lose this thing because those idealistic beliefs alone will not save us. You wanna be better than they are? Fine. Go ahead. I'll be beneath them any day if it saves even YOUR skin.

And frankly I cannot understand WHY a foreign attacker should be entitled to the same rights and privileges as an American citizen anyway. If you're not a citizen, never mind being someone who's declared war on us, why on EARTH are you entitled to anything? This is mind-boggling to me. Besides, we get accused of pushing our way of life onto other people as it is, so this seems a little inconsistent to me.

This is war. This is not mere crime-fighting. So sorry, but some guy robbing a bank is NOT the same as some guy trying to destroy the country. To equate the two is lunacy. One is a civilian matter, the other is national security. And there is a difference in the means to fight these two much-different threats and for good reason. We do not use the army to go after bank robbers and we do not use local police to hunt down and bring jihadists to justice. And there are reasons for that.

Yes, I used the term "moral relativistic nonsense", because when it sounds like you're equating terrorism to mugging or the cause of the jihadists with that of the US, I say that's devoid of all reason. We're not going to win this war against Muslim fanaticism by being politically correct. They will eat us for lunch.

So maybe you on the "progressive" side of things need to decide what you're going to do: whatever it takes to protect your fellow Americans from foreign invaders, or provide our enemies with all sorts of protections and niceties just to prove we're better -- which, in the end, will get us zero intel, and therefore zero plots to stop, and therefore a wrecked military overseas and a wrecked country at home.

But, maybe all we need to do is to see if Obama's policies continue to stop the jihadists. If we're not attacked during this watch and, in fact, if we continue with the progress Bush made, then maybe there's something to what you say. I highly doubt it, but we'll see. The next 3.5 years are going to be very interesting.

"A life is a life, American or otherwise." And you're willing to put the comfort or complete medical safety of a sadistic enemy over those American lives you say are just as valuable.

I dont have a lot of time here right now and need to attend to a lot of things. I'm trying to process a family tragedy of sorts and so the last thing I really want is an ideological debate at this time. Culture War stuff is just not my first priority right now. But I'll try to address some of your statements quickly.

"Treaty or not, principles aren't principles if you violate them when you find it convenient. Your principles are the things you hold true no matter what." Do you have children? If so, would you sacrifice them for the principle of not using extreme measures, legitimately torturous or otherwise?

"If innocent until proven guilty is a principle you believe in, then it applies to all human beings, not just a privileged few. This is the price of freedom." That is also a civilian freedom guaranteed by the Constitution for American citizens. It does not necessarily apply nor should it necessarily apply in national security or warfare matters. Habib from Yemen wanting to blow up a city is not the same as Joe from Brooklyn wanting to rob a bank.

"My interest here is seeing how conservatives think and trying to find out why you hold some of the beliefs you do." Okay, then you're NOT interested in the 9/12 attitude Beck is trying to promote. I cannot stop you, but you are disrupting the spirit of this site. I sincerely hope that is not your intent.

AnonLiberals wrote: "If you don't think that's immoral then I suggest you don't know what moral means."

Pretty broad and over-generalized statement there bro. I'm beginning to think that your sole purpose for being here is to disrupt. You are not merely challenging, you are opposing every opinion expressed here. How much have you agreed with the folks here and how much have you opposed?

Free speech is American, yes. But the purpose here is to focus on what we have in common, like we did after 9/11. You seem to be going out of your way to do the opposite. On the surface, it seems that your whole purpose here is to troll.

"Morality is not defined by national borders. Torture is wrong, period, under all circumstances, ALL! Saving American lives is not a justification for violating our most basic principles, we'll be screaming war crimes if someone did this to an American soldier and rightfully so; it is a war crime."

Moral relativism nonsense. Americans go out of their way to avoid harming civilians and even to the point of endangering themselves. And unlike you, probably, I believe our wars are just. So yes, I *would* scream war crime. It seems that you believe that the terrorists' purpose and the American purpose are morally equivalent. If so, then that explains your emphasis on theory and pie-in-the-sky idealism as opposed to raw practicality and effective strategy. If not, then your strategy -- or lack thereof -- makes no sense. Tell me, how would you gather information from hard-to-crack detainees? And secondly, how much is an American life worth to you?

"This is not a line that you can cross and justify because *ALL* tortures will say they were trying to save lives. That's always the excuse, it's simply not OK, ever. It's against international law and a violation of the Geneva conventions..."

Yes and I am of the belief -- along with many others -- that these Islamo-fascist nut-cases do not fall under that treaty. Should there be controls on extreme measures? Oh yes. All day long. But they should not be universally shelved.

"...and justice will only be served when we've thrown a few people in jail and made it clear that torture is not OK, under *any* circumstance."

And when a fingerless Habib is thrown into permanent solitary confinement for plotting a chemical attack in downtown Manhattan that would likely have killed hundreds.

Look, I have no desire to debase myself to gather intel. But if we have reason to believe that someone's planning a nuclear attack in, say, Chicago, and waterboarding or finger-ripping are the *only* things that prove to work, then sorry, but I'll make that sacrifice of "principle". When I think of all the thousands of little children who never hurt anyone all ready to be vaporized in the name of Allah, sorry dude, but I'll take Habib's fear of being drowned or fingers ANY FREAKIN' DAY. With Obama, we'll see if your theories and principles work (that is, unless his army field manual policy is a smokescreen for the continuation of Bush's policies behind the scenes because he knows how unrealistic the far-left's strategy is).

Sure thing. They go out of their way to protect NAMBLA (free of charge no less), have ignored most Muslim infractions of the 1st amendment in public schools, but they go out of their way to erase every scintilla of Christian expression from the public square. One of the latest and most ridiculous examples was the tiny yellow cross on the LA County seal, used more as an historical reference than as religious promotion. The reason? It might offend someone. And that is not the exception to the rule Sam, that IS the rule. Are there times when they've protected Christians? Oh yes. But do a count of their cases for a real indication of what their agenda really is. Just because they USED to be an org you could trust doesn't mean they still are.

I'm not ashamed nor am I unAmerican to say that if I believe it's going to save 1,000 American lives, I'll tear a detainees' fingers off. What's the immorality in this scenario? Not sparing someone's fingers or not doing all that I could to save 1,000 innocent American civilians? Gimme a freakin' break.

Maybe also we need to be prepared for the fact that no matter what, we'll never be completely united. Humans will always argue with each other. The best of friends have arguments. Perhaps we should more realistically settle for agreement most of the time on foundational issues?

My first time here commenting, I'm going to make a few general statements.

First off, I get tired of hearing atheists complain whenever Christians or Jews or Deists mention God or quote a Bible verse, claiming that's divisive. No, it's not divisive, no more so than when you proudly declare your atheism or heathenism. Sorry non-believers, but most people holding to a traditional pont of view believe in God, in many cases that God being the Biblical one. Deal with it. I have no problem with your atheism and your describing your lack of faith. You need to let go of whatever hangup you have regarding Bible verses and the word "God". If we're CULTURALY and PHILOSOPHICALLY in the same general ballpark, then that is what is important in the socio-political context. I'm all for uniting with my fellow Americans, atheist or not, who want to make sure that our nation's founding principles are restored and upheld. We can debate my belief in God and your need for salvation in a different venue.

As for liberals vs conservatives, it may help to better unite the two factions if we analyze our terms a bit more closely. I don't believe "liberal" describes what we're up against anymore. I'm a born-again, conservative guy, but I like liberals and can get along with them. I think the enemy is the "progressive". These are not liberals, in my opinion, but totalitarians who want a one-party system modeled after the ideology of western europe: Godless, weak, socialistic, nanny-driven. They believe that some people have more rights than others, like Barney Frank or Mark Leno and their radicalized homosexual agenda. (Homosexual conservatives and traditionalists, I welcome you also. This is less about you and more about the imbalanced nature of the radical Left's agenda.) The ACLU comes under this heading. So does the NCLR. So does George Soros and Media Matters and the Huffington Post and the NY Times and the LA Times, etc, etc. These folks are not liberals. Liberals are open-minded. I may not agree with some of their PC worldview, but they can be reasoned with. And they won't throw hate bombs at you. Progressives are the ones causing us so much trouble and it is with their ideology I cannot see us uniting.