Peter F

Freedom? The freedom to buy an airplane ticket to Tunisia? That kind of freedom?

"Vacation paradises"? I cudnt give two shits about vacation paradise. Travelling to foriegn lands is not a crime nor even indicative of crime. See Terrorist Paradise! So get a grip. Hush money my ass.

I see no wrong to Canadian Taxpayers. Attemps to make whole are part and parcel of what taxes are for.

Torture = Terrorism, Shady. Our motives merely get us there.

I agree with you 100%. My death. Unfortunately, I am not sure how to arrange that in context of where the bomb would be if we have no idea where it is.

Of course. Others can hold whatever opinions please them.

Well, You'll have to do the nasty without my participation. I refuse to stoop to thier level. If its death or torture - I choose death.

You see Oleg? Thats why there are Burka's. Good thing she's wearing one or you'd have jumped her.

I was going to say that I have no problem on acting on such information....but on further thought I would be wrong if I did. In your conundrum all is known, straitforward and simple. Torturing people tell us bomb is in such-and-such a place. Do we go check to see if the bomb is there? Well sure. Of course we do. If there is indeed a bomb, just like they said there was, do we attempt to disarm it? Well sure. Of course we do. End of Story according to the conundrum. There is nothing else beyond, right? So torturing the source is better than not torturing the source. So I have accepted torture by the less squeemish as a 'lesser evil'. Such a conclusion actually makes me ill. In the particular scenario you described, where all is known - I guess I just have to be ill. On the other hand. In order to not be ill, suppose I do not investigate the information because its derived from torture. A bomb will go off and hundreds will be dead. End of story according to the conundrum. The funny thing is I don't feel ill by ignorning the torture information. Now why is that? Perhaps I am insane. Could be....or maybe its because I believe that the acceptance of torture - even in an indirect way as per the conundrum, will eventually lead us to the Lubyanka. And so I consider the acceptance of hundreds of dead through terrorist action to be better than accepting torture or anything to do with torture is in fact The Lesser Evil There conundrum answered and vote made

I dunno Army Guy. When the state condones the torture of one individual for the greater good - it doesn't take very long for arena's to be filled up.

Hows about if the tortured source only knew some of the information about the absolute definate bomb. Say only that the device is in Montreal or Vancouver but doesnt know where. But he dies under overzealous torturers. But before dying he gives the name of someone he thinks may have that crucial location info and that name is a canadian citizen residing in Canada. Should we torture the shit out of the named person?

Is being the underdog supposed to mean something?

...and further: The question is very dishonest. The question teslls me to assume the existence of the bomb; That it will go off tomorrow and that hundreds will die. That is the assumption. Then the question is asked: If I didn't know the assumption what then would I do with info derived from torture - but remember the information is accurate only that I have to act as if I didnt know the information was accurate. Its not a conundrum - its a trap. If I don't act on the torture tip I am responsible for the deaths of hundreds. If I do act on the tip then Im a fuckin'Hero! Therefore Torture is Good - just like Nukes!

Here you are saying that the security wonks will have time to assess information to arrive at a rational course of action. Do you suppose the process takes 20 minutes? Because you also say: Are you suggesting that Security wonks go arrest people with no usable evidence - none - except for the tip foriegn powers give them that they got from torture? Is our Security apparatus run by madmen?

medical experiments regarding the effects of cold water immersion.

Kimmy points out that the Imam is exploiting 911 by his actions. His exploitation of that event is given as a reason the mosque is not a good thing. Now if exploitation is neither here nor there since 911 has been exploited by everybody and their dog - Nato exploits it, the UN exploits it, NYFD exploits it, YouTube exploits it, Politicians exploit it etc - then kimmys point that the Imam is exploiting the disaster becomes pointless.

Ah. Qutbism is a particular sect of Islam. Sorta like Scotsmen are a sect of Scottish people...errrr wataminit....

Huh? Judging what? Watching what case? What secret trial? They didn't. Did I claim such somewhere? Brains...glglglgl....kill.....glglglg

I agree. I would add that a Treason charge would also be kinda redundant if a murder charge or conspiracy to murder charge would do the job quite nicely.

I didnt realize there was a riot over that in NYC...

Get off your lazy butt and start organizing 'stead of moaning that no one's gonna do it for you.

Ok you think it was a stupid thing for him to not testify. Help yourself. But his silence still means nothing. At one point you beleived he was tortured/abused. Why would you beleive that? His record of public statements? He hasn't made any public statements - ever. His lawyers certainly have, but not Khadr. There's been no interviews with People Magazine or Entertainment Tonight or any Press Conferences...yet you believed he was tortured. There must have been some reason for you to have come to that conclusion and that conclusion was not based on anything Khadr has said since he has said nothing. And now, still no interviews or press conferences but perhaps a written statement that has yet to be made public, so you have never seen that either, you doubt the torture/abuse. Apparently its because you now think he's stupid.

-.. .- .-.. ..-. --- .-. . ...- . .-.

Wether he thinks its a sham or not is crucial to wether he participates in his defence or not, as Bloodyminded pointed out. And, if it is a sham, as he believes, his taking the stand will mean absolutely nothing to the outcome. His lawyers tried to make the case and failed to convince the judge. What was Khadr going to add or say that hadn't already been said? Did his lawyers hold something back? Very doubtful. Was Khadr withholding some crucial bit of info? also doubtfull. Also his silence accounts for nothing. He has every right to remain silent. If the trial is not a sham the tribunal will convict him based on the evidence presented - if they convict that is - and not on what Khadr didn't say.