I think it's great that Obama, with the support of top lawmakers, has decided to make these actions illegal. But it's just plain wrong to charge someone with a crime if it wasn't illegal at the time. That'd be like making abortion illegal and then prosecuting anyone who has ever had one — it's just plain wrong. Again, if there is a U.S. law that stated, at the time, that the specific 'enhanced interrogation techniques' that were used were indeed illegal, that renders my point moot.

Let's look at the practical, pragmatic side of this as well, though. Besides stealing my money, the government has one responsibility: keeping me safe. I'm all for human rights, but at what point does one no longer maintain those rights? If person A is willing (as proven by actions or planned actions) to violate the human rights of person B, why is person A still entitled to those same rights? Clearly person A didn't believe in the sanctity of said rights to begin with.

So why should the government, whose job it is to protect us, be impeded from fulfilling that purpose to protect the rights of persons who don't believe we are entitled to those rights?

The government (particularly the CIA) has a responsibility to get things done. They deal with crises on a daily basis that need to be handled in a timely manner. If they need to violate the rights of someone who would do harm to the citizens of this country, by all means, they should do so. Granted, I'm not suggesting death or mutilation here, but psychological 'techniques' should most certainly be on the table.

Ultimately, what matters in this case is the current legal system and the laws at the time the 'techniques' were employed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be critical of a law system that inhibits the ability of the government to protect us.

I think it's great that Obama, with the support of top lawmakers, has decided to make these actions illegal. But it's just plain wrong to charge someone with a crime if it wasn't illegal at the time. That'd be like making abortion illegal and then prosecuting anyone who has ever had one — it's just plain wrong. Again, if there is a U.S. law that stated, at the time, that the specific 'enhanced interrogation techniques' that were used were indeed illegal, that renders my point moot.

Let's look at the practical, pragmatic side of this as well, though. Besides stealing my money, the government has one responsibility: keeping me safe. I'm all for human rights, but at what point does one no longer maintain those rights? If person A is willing (as proven by actions or planned actions) to violate the human rights of person B, why is person A still entitled to those same rights? Clearly person A didn't believe in the sanctity of said rights to begin with.

So why should the government, whose job it is to protect us, be impeded from fulfilling that purpose to protect the rights of persons who don't believe we are entitled to those rights?

The government (particularly the CIA) has a responsibility to get things done. They deal with crises on a daily basis that need to be handled in a timely manner. If they need to violate the rights of someone who would do harm to the citizens of this country, by all means, they should do so. Granted, I'm not suggesting death or mutilation here, but psychological 'techniques' should most certainly be on the table.

Ultimately, what matters in this case is the current legal system and the laws at the time the 'techniques' were employed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be critical of a law system that inhibits the ability of the government to protect us.