Posted by Anthony Gregory on 06/01/09 12:40 PM   [Newer: Ron Paul Interviewed By Scott Horton on the Economy] [Older: Bob Higgs Bumps into Ron Paul Fans in Turkey]

Are you prepared to defend rape? What if it worked in extracting intelligence for "national security"? It appears that the photos Obama won't publish include evidence of rape.

And if you won't defend rape, why not? What if it's necessary for "defense"? Is it possible that some acts against humanity are never defensible, even when they are "necessary" in war? This is the idea behind Just War Theory. Targeting civilians, torture and rape are always wrong, no matter how much one can make an argument that they help the war effort.

Posted 06/01/09 1:06 PM stevenstremciuc Phoenix, AZ

I don't know if you have ever talked to the type of neocon's I have, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear neocon's justifying rape in the name of "national security". A lot of people simply can't be reasoned with. The Michael Savage (etc) crowd.

Posted 06/01/09 1:08 PM MRoCkEd Cheshire, CT

For the neocons, the ends always justify the means.

Posted 06/01/09 1:12 PM Andrew Sica Woodbury, CT

Dear God, Please do not treat me to the spectacle of Mancow or some other neocon radio show host being raped by an ex-marine.

Posted 06/01/09 1:14 PM Andrew Sica Woodbury, CT

In all seriousness, I have no doubt that many would support any form of torture if they thought it would make American "more secure". Come on - how many times have we all heard them say: "They cut off that guy's head and we're worrying about how our military treats them?"

Posted 06/01/09 1:24 PM MRoCkEd Cheshire, CT

Maybe we would all be safer if there were government security cameras in all of our houses and mandatory warrantless inspections. Why would you be against this unless you have something to hide? If you favor security over liberty, you might as well take it to the extreme. After all, we know the government is only working in our best interest. :rolleyes:

Posted 06/01/09 2:11 PM rmalfer Cypress, TX

In order for there to be a just war, other means to avoid this situation would have to be exhausted. America certainly over-reached her bounds. Our country is more Machievellian--and what makes this worse, it that a lot of politicians believe this is the only way. But I doubt that most of them have ever read The Prince.

Posted 06/01/09 4:19 PM Andrew Sica Woodbury, CT

"The Prince" ? You can't even get them to read the Constitution. Don't expect miracles :)

Posted 06/01/09 5:17 PM MountainDoc Lewisburg, WV

Source? I agree the argument is valid without it.

Posted 06/03/09 07:51 AM bkpark Berkeley, CA

Waterboarding was a ... "interrogation technique" a lot of libertarians and some conservatives oppose, justifiably, and with some well-grounded argument in reason and morality. But, to conflate "legal" waterboarding in CIA interrogation of terrorists with illegal abuses of prisoners at Abu Gharib is intellectually dishonest. That's the kind of emotion-based arguments that liberals use, not the philosophically-sound arguments libertarians should employ. We can argue whether any kind of harsh interrogation technique should be used in interrogating those who would kill thousands of Americans if they could. And we can argue how harsh they should be. Apparently we have already used waterboarding. What about cutting off fingers and heads that terrorists already use? There's a line somewhere between gentle talk, good-cop-bad-cop, waterboarding, or pulling out fingernails, and we can debate honestly where that line should be. But, to draw out an example from sadistic abuse of prisoners by soldiers who have been punished from their illegal acts (which, BTW, had absolutely nothing to do with national security, as no information was sought in these abuses) and compare it to legal interrogation performed in a professional manner is dishonest. Stay honest---dishonesty what makes liberals and statists what they are.

Posted 06/04/09 12:26 AM BruceLayne Lexington, KY

I reject the entire question of how much torture should the US inflict to make our country safe, because torturing makes us less safe. The neocons have been watching too much Jack Bauer on the TV show 24, where he's a good guy, but unfortunately he's forced by circumstances beyond his control to torture someone to extract the information that's needed to save thousands of lives. It doesn't work that way in the real world. When neocons are dismayed that I reject the notion of torture as a US policy, they remind me of medieval surgeons asking, "Can't you see that we need to perform a trepanning, because the only way to release the demons is to drill a hole in her skull?" They just don't get that the procedure causes needless harm while serving no useful purpose. I'm not a pacifist. In fact, I'm a pragmatic engineer. If I believed that torture would save lives, I'd reluctantly endorse it, but the fact is, torture only recruits more anti-American terrorists and hardens the resolve of those already enlisted. Every time the US tortures anyone, it verifies the anti-American propaganda that until recently wasn't getting much traction in the Middle East. Our policy of state sanctioned torture turned their lies into truth. We have seen the enemy, and it is us. We're making new terrorists faster than we can kill them. They hate us because we're prosperous and free. Yeah, right. By rejecting the Just War Doctrine, the US has lost all moral authority, and it'll be very difficult to regain it.