Hannity describes those who oppose waterboarding as "moral fool[s]"

We agree on most of that. Maybe I didn't read it correctly, but it seemed to me that it meant torture should just never be used at all, not just whether it's sanctioned by the government or not. I thought the statement that he doesn't care if another 9/11 were to happen was rather sweeping.

"most of us wouldn't hesitate to break the speed limit rushing someone to the hospital... but that doesn't mean we do away with speed limits."

But of course neo-cons are inherently cowards so they insist on having even the most unlikely fantasy legalized, because if it were illegal they wouldn't lift a finger even in extremis (e.g to save the nation).

We now know the torture was not conducted to solicit information, but to create propaganda of a non existent link between Al Queda and Iraq. At least, that is what the torture started out as. When you administer the American Baptism to someone 83 times, you've gone WAY beyond faking propaganda, and are deep into the realm of pure sadism.

Abu Zubaydah is now a psychological cripple, thanks to our abuse. He has seizures, and was driven insane. We could have easily claimed the high moral ground through a fair and impartial trial followed by swiftly meted justice. Instead, we debased ourselves and sullied our national reputation.

I have long maintained that any agent or soldier in a position to stop a massive terrorist attack would do so, even if it meant breaking the law. Furthermore, I don't think any jury in the country would convict him if he ever came to trial. The ticking time bomb argument is inherently bogus.(Nerzog)

That's a very important point, Nerz, well put.If this fantasy scenario ever happened, the exception-to-the-rule falls into place.The distinction is that so many rightys want to make the exception SOP.

Just as a citizen or cop can take a life in circumstances of self-defense, and this grey area is understood by anybody who's not limited to black & white thinking.

I heard a caller to a radio show the other day in a typical "gotcha" analogy, which on righty radio is the same type of flawed comparison that the hosts train their audience to see as logic. She was talking about the Somalian pirates who were killed by the snipers, and sarcastically asking if they had been read their Miranda rights, or given a trial.This was accepted in righty world as a slam-dunk argument against folowing established American principles in regard to captive,unarmed detainees in Gitmo,

I'm not talking about anything systemic, I'm saying that specific circumstances can make a difference. There are many things where conditions can be imagined to justify them, and this is one of them.

Again, the scenario at hand is one of certainty. You know you have a terrorist in custody. You know people are going to die if you don't get the information. What's the moral basis at this point, exactly? If someone's trying to kill you personally, you can kill them out of a sense of preservation. But if the same element of certainty is applied to thousands of other people at immediate risk, you can't hurt someone out of a similar sense of preservation? That goes beyond morals into the realm of moral absolutism, where judgment is taken out of the system completely.

As I said, I know this is not realistic. It's a fantasy scenario, and it shouldn't be used to justify torture in a more general sense. But if that actual situation were happening, I can't comprehend someone letting people die because they're dying for freedom and torture is wrong and America will survive. The incredible amount of damage to thousands of families directly and the entire country indirectly makes that idea preposterous.

Moral standards exist within a framework of what is necessary. I believe that lying is morally wrong, but if I look at a woman on the street and some wild-eyed punk with a gun in his belt gets in my face asking if I was looking at her, you can damn well bet I'm going to lie instead of saying "Yes, I was checking out her ass." The word "convenient" doesn't apply there in any realistic sense. You don't apply your morals in that situation of risk, because the cost is wildly disproportionate to the violation in question.

So the big question for torture is need. That's why the "ticking bomb scenario" is presented by defenders, because that is a case of actual need. Has that ever happened, or will it ever? Probably not within the parameters I would personally require regarding certainty and time, and that's why using it as a defense of actual torture is invalid. But as a theory, it justifies the act. You don't let people die because of a moral absolute, because you refuse to adjust your thinking to specific circumstances. You do what you need to do, and that's something that people with moral standards should be able to agree on.

I'm not sure what your question has to do with the argument that there isn't a moral absolute here.