Re abortion---Lots of college women undergo abortion. Of course they probably all will have adequate jobs later...but are poor for now. What I will say to my adopted son will be---(in part) YOU are also RESPONSIBLE> It is not just a woman and child thing biologically tho DAD may be unknown or not told. But why do I RARELY hear anyone charge males with responsible behavior?

Thank you for your good sportsmanship Sy and I hope I didn't sound too heated.

Sy the reason soldiers have uniforms is so that there won't be a provocation that will endanger civilians. If they cannot afford uniforms they can afford armbands. Making an interpretation of the customs of war that makes it more advantageous to refrain from wearing uniforms also threatens civilians. And as far as "innocence" goes, in wartime the word is interpreted by customs of war, not by justice. An enemy soldier is a servant of his state, not always fighting of his own volition and so is "innocent" in the normal sense. Whereas a terrorist is there of his own volition, does not obey an organization that is willing to take conventional responsibilities, and does not have any respect for the customs of war. Most of the captives there were captured while they were at least obviously taking part in belligerant activities. If you like you might suggest separating those who were simply arrested from those who were actually taken in battle. But in the meantime unless you can plausibly argue that a larger proportion were captured by mistake, then there would have been civilians accidently killed by artillery in a conventional war(because the anology is quite apt), you are effectively advocating the encouragement of people to fight without uniforms. Which not only is a demand that the state willingly make itself helpless, but is an encouragement of future atrocities.

And Sy, fighting without a uniform is not supposed to be what gives you immunity from capture. It is supposed to be what gets you hanged when you are captured.

Lack of resources? You mean the resources more then nine-tenths of your ancestors did without. Surely you don't mean that a child does not get to live if he can't live better then a Medieval prince lived?

So I think there was much confusion over what I said above. Just to clarify, Lee, I am quite frustrated (can't say I've ever been in a state I would refer to as bolistic) about abortion, more so than waterboarding. I agree that the degree of difference between the two means that abortion should be a greater concern for those who profess to be pro-life than our use of torture. I don't think I said anything to the contrary. If I did, my mistake. Jason, your acertion that abortion is undergone by mothers who are lazy seems highly unlikely. Sure, there are probably some cases where a child is simply unwanted because it is inconvenient, but it's usually to do with lack of resources. Abortions are overwhelmingly undergone by those in the lower income brackets because the perception is that they can't afford a child. Just more reason to spread the gospel that God does everything he can to take care of and provide for us if you ask me, especially since studies have recently come out showing that Evangelicals are amung the least likely to get abortions, regardless of social class. On your other point about enemy factions, the issue isn't who we go to war with or declare to be warring factions. It's that we don't even know if the detainees we are torturing are enemies because we haven't put them on trial. I only brought up the difference between war with other nations and war with the group we call terrorists to make a comparison. It would be fair to detain without trial those who fought against us wearing the uniform of another nation's army simply because they would be easily identified. But those we detained in Guantanamo often haven't been confirmed as enemies.

I agree with LeeQuod - that this comes around to our discussion on Kim's post (http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/2009/05/pictures-from-the-hubble-telescope.html ). That is, even IF all we've got is judging actions relative to each other... then let's be consistent! Abortion is worse than torture - in degree and damage done.

Jason, I think "suspension" is still the correct word to use, even if it was never a constitutional right for Iraqis. And yes, it's not illegal to hold/torture many non-Americans without a trial, but it's certainly immoral. LQ, we invaded a country, which means we've killed thousands of people. Certainly not just caused some psychological damage (and even that can be no picnic). Let me turn your question around: if you're outraged by a lack of medical disclosure, shouldn't you be ballistic over the invasion of another country without cause, over the death of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and even more civilians? I'd really rather not get into another abortion debate.. Suffice it to say that if we agreed on the morality of it, I'd be outraged by that as well. And of course I condemn any lack of full medical disclusure to women who get abortions.

Ben W wrote: "Let me turn your question around: if you're outraged by a lack of medical disclosure" I'm outraged that a friend of mine got an abortion as a college student, later got breast cancer, and will always wonder if A caused B. And I'm outraged that the mainstream media covers the number of U.S. casualties in Iraq, such that everyone knows it's over 4,000 since the start of the war, yet none of the MSM carries the number of babies killed in abortions. (Hint: it's just under the number of casualties, and roughly the same as the number killed on 9/11. Difference is, that many abortions happen *every day*.) So it's a bit more than mere medical disclosure that outrages me. "I'd really rather not get into another abortion debate.. " I can see why.

But there is equal importance in questioning whether it is wise to permit prosecution to become a weapon in political vendettas which the circumstances of the case bring one to wonder. As for being at war with "A specific country", that is assuming both that the Treaty of Westphalia is universally valid and that all wars are fought like wars in Central Europe. Historically wars were not fought just between states. They were fought between anybody who could amass sufficient force. To assume, "a specific country" is required, assumes that countries have no right to suppress rebellion or even large scale banditry which assumptions make having a State at all useless. In any case the terrorists held are members of specific factions which regard thenselves as being at war with the United States. To declare that we cannot behave as if such factions are not in fact at war with the United States is saying that our right of self-defense is nullified simply because the enemy does not have a flag. Which in turn if taken seriously gives any potential enemy unusual advantages over us in return for doing no more then not being recognized. It is absurd to say that factions that do not bear the responsibilities of being recognised as a country should be given greater priveleges then those who do. It is equally absurd that representatives of factions that are in a state of rebellion against allies of ours are in the same league with "ordinary decent criminals". The Constitution is not a suicide pact and was not intended to be. Demanding that one regards members of an organization to strong to be suppressed by police and to unofficial to be considered the same as foreign countries as having de facto special priveleges is a form of legalism that in fact is more threating then the terrorists themselves.

So, Ben and Sy, if you're upset over torture and the suspension of habeas corpus, shouldn't you be absolutely ballistic over murder and the avoidance of full medical disclosure to women who often end up sterile and/or emotionally scarred for life? We're talking about a small number of foreign citizens who at worst suffered psychological damage, versus millions of American citizens who were viciously dismembered and discarded, and their mothers brutalized frequently without their full consent (and certainly without informed consent). Rolley has it exactly right: going on a crusade against waterboarding and not going on a much more vigorous crusade against abortion is like being furious that a podiatrist trimmed one of your toenails too short and made it bleed, while shrugging off that the hospital amputated your other foot instead of treating it.

Jason, I think the issue is a little more complicated because the detainees that have been waterboarded haven't been tried. The issue isn't whether our laws apply to foreigners, but whether we can simply detain anyone who we think is a terrorist without formal evidence, and then torture them. It would be a different situation if we were at war with a specific country and could easily identify the combatants. Then, no, habius corpus would not be an issue. We don't know, however, if everyone we have been denying habius corpus to and torturing is even against us. That is, the public doesn't know this because no one was undergoing due process. So I think extreme caution in giving a government that has acted this questionably and with this much secrecy permission to waterboard is wise.

Or should the US withdrawl recognition of the UK, Ben, because it has an established church and issues patents of nobility?

Ben, isn't the logical extension of the assumption that habeas corpus, which is a part of the constitution of the United States that the country from which terrorists come has successfully applied for statehood? After all you are saying that American law applies to foreigners. Why not say that Sharia applies to Americans? Or is it that you are saying that the Constitution is universal and not simply a law of aparticular polity? On what grounds do you say that. What great philosopher discovered that habeas corpus applied to all mankind before the Constitution of the United States was written? The Constitution has a specific date, it is full of political compromises and peculiarities unique to the United States. Why not say that foreigners are obliged to have eight year term limits for their head of state?

It is pretty obvious that liberals believe the law to be mandatory for their opponents and optional for themselves and their greatest heros are breakers of the law. In any case habeus corpus does not apply to millitary prisoners and never has. The writers of the Constitution applied the customs of war to fighting, not laws designed for American citizens.

If it's done legally, I don't see how prosecution could be pursued.. but I'd work to see the law changed. Morality is more important, but generally lacks teeth without legality to back it up (in this day and age). I can't say I've decided that all torture is immoral, but I don't trust our government to use it responsibly.. so as transparency and accountability have been lacking, I think it's extremely likely we've crossed the line. Not to mention the suspension of habeas corpus..

Ben, suppose the waterboarding was done legally - would you say that prosecution and/or disbarment shouldn't be pursued? I.e., which is more important to you - legality, or morality?

"If the 3 terrorists were waterboarded in order to get information and not to harm them did we torture them?" Yes, Dennis. Getting information has always been one purpose of torture. And the essence of torture is the infliction of pain, not the infliction of permenant harm. The later is mutilation.

Indeed Ben? Then perhaps they should prosecute, draft-dodgers, rioters, and terrorists who have gone unprosecuted.

Unless it's voluntary, waterboarding is always torture. Whether or not it "harms" them is moot, and we have plenty of ways to cause severe pain or suffering without physically harming the person. If you really think waterboarding is just a little water up the nose, why don't you try it? It's pretty safe and easy to do (with a spotter for safety, of course). But both CIA officers and conservative talk show hosts who have tried it say that it's torture.