Sam Norton:

The difference between KSM and, eg, the Somali pirates, is that in the KSM case the interrogators are in total control of the situation. In the latter case, and equivalent cases, they are not, and there is therefore a higher moral standard to be applied in the fomer. KSM poses no present or (at least theoretically) future danger to the actors in the situation.

The key point is that at the time of the waterboarding, KSM did pose a threat. By his silence he was aiding and abetting one or more planned atrocities, mass killings of civilians which served no military purpose, but only the political purpose of reducing confidence in the ability of America to protect her own.

The justification for the torture, in my opinion, lies exactly and specifically in our very high confidence, supported by KSM’s own remarks, that he knew of more political mass murders of Americans, planned on American soil. And in that the American government has, as its first duty, the protection of both Americans and American soil. This is a positive moral obligation, not to be negated by the “rights” of the (war) criminal as he is in the act of committing the crime, which is in this case to remain silent about an act in progress which is not legal under any accepted theory of war whatsoever–except of course, under the theories accepted by bolsheviks, maoists, warlords, and terrorists. But we, as civilized people, reject those theories (well, Saul Alinsky doesn’t, and maybe Obama doesn’t, and …) and so we must reject the notion that they are justified in what they are doing, and that the people doing them are protected from our acts of self-defense.

This is entirely different from torture for revenge or other personal pleasure, and it requires that we have the means and capacity to use the information effectively.

“In the former case, you have the victim in your custody. In the latter case, you do not.”

Referring to KSM as a “victim” is a bit much. After all, his victims were the ones jumping out the window a hundred stories up. Hardly compares to being waterboarded, especially as performed by our rather squeamish lads at Clowns In Action.

Also, I’m not sure the suspected terrorists being blown up by Predator drones in Waziristan — along with their families — are analogous to a perp pointing a gun at a police officer. There’s the proximity factor to consider. Not that I mind the tactic, though. I do wish those good hadjis godspeed on their journey to see Allah.

On the other hand, perhaps I need to “invest” in lumber and nails so that my doors and windows can be blockaded or closed off.

However, in fact I’ll just wait for the next VDH essay, which, as usual, will be based on fact and logic, which probably will be pessimistic too. It’s hard not to be these days. Time for a good bottle of Guinness!

You wrote and nicely done:

I believe some of those key principles should be states rights, attaining a severely limited federal government with a drastically curtailed ability to tax and spend, maximum individual freedom, strict construction of the Constitution…

Yeah, but THE slogan must incapsulate all of that to fit on a bumpersticker/placard/ banner, no? Plus, the SLOGAN must inculcate and project our intent.

You and our host ably and consicely outline our myriad problems. Bleak. Given the temperature of the water, I would suggest that US frogs-in-the-pot ought to be focusing less on refining our observations and more on solutions. The boiling point is at hand – 2010 temp = 200 degrees.

What’s the rallying cry? What one message can we send that gets the undiluted attention of the President, both houses, the courts and the bureacracy that will recruit voters to our cause? Enough at least, to have any hope of making any difference?

You’re All Go’in to Gitmo! comes to mind. This expresses the level of our displeasure and serves to unite all of our natural constituencies.

IOW, unless the electeds feel very, very threatened in the upcoming 2010 and 2012 elections, we have little chance of ever reversing course. Kulaks-r-US.

What the House and Senate did re: Stimulus was theft. Passing this level of funding without reading the bill is outright criminal derilection of duty. Then, of course there’s all the graft, corruption, pandering, posturing, self-promotion, scofflawing, favoratism, pay-off, scandel, cronyism stuff too. Class-action against the political class is the imperative.

Every one of the Senators and Representatives who voted “for” has to know they’re going to be unseated and criminally prosecuted, if they lose. 600 in the dock, all tried at once. Loss of all pension and benefits being the minimum penalty – jailtime for the leaders. At Gitmo.

At this point, if we’re not angry enough to buy-in to this expression of intent and commit to its cause, we invite our enslavement. 95%+ of the incumbents win re-election. Looks to be the challenge. Republican leadership better get aboard, or the party becomes irrelavent by 2012.

In the former case, you have the victim in your custody. In the latter case, you do not.

It’s like asking why a police officer is allowed to fire upon an armed man pointing a gun at him, but is not allowed to fire upon a man who *had been* armed and dangerous, but is now handcuffed and immobilized.

It’s a clear, straightforward distinction.