Canadian

When I do the math, it comes out to about $85,000 per home. Granted, that's still a lot of money.

Yeah, even the liberal newpapers here had articles saying it was a pretty dumb case.

Personally, I don't think castration is the answer, in part because I don't think it will work. A sex offense is basically an act of violence. While castrating a rapist prevents him from commiting rape, it doesn't necessarily cure his violent tendencies. He'll just be violent against women/children in some other way. Besides, I don't think sex offenders should have "options" in the first place... so I vote for 2) life in prison. Put em away.

Here's an article from a New Zealand publication which reports that the Bush Administration has labelled an American citizen a "terrorist" and withheld the American's constitutional rights. Now I haven't researched the source of this article... and it certainly appears to have a liberal slant to it... but if this is true, does it worry you? White House decides who is a terrorist

I agree with most of that. I think torture might be the practical response in an extremely time-sensitive situation, where many lives are at stake. I also agree with your distrust of politicians. However, "those on the ground getting dirty" have nothing to do with the issue of torture, in my opinion. Soldiers are supposed to kill and maim the enemy. They're supposed to inflict great harm. Everyone understands that and nobody (with any sense) disputes it. The issue of torture is really about how war prisoners are treated... people who are locked up in jails. This relates to the military insofar that the military usually guards the jails that house these people... but guarding prisoners at Guantanamo is not the same as being "on the ground getting dirty" in the middle of a war zone. So the issue is, Should the American military or the American government be allowed to torture terrorists that they have captured as part of the war on terrorism? The answer could very well be yes. I don't know.... it's one of those "does the ends justify the means" kind of issues. You point out that, "The terrorists aren't fighting for the flag of another country and aren't subject to the Geneva Convention." This makes sense on the surface... but the thing that worries me about this line of thinking is that if the government or military knocks on your door tomorrow and accuses YOU of being a terrorist, then suddenly YOU lose whatever rights you thought you had. Insisting that the government respect the Geneva Convention isn't about protecting the "rights" of terrorists. It's about protecting your own rights from power-hungry or abusive future governments.

I don't know what articles you're talking about. I haven't read anything about this subject in Canadian publications. Up here, our big concern is the hockey strike. Perhaps I should have used a different word instead of "positive". On several episodes of "24" this season, the members of "CTU" (Counter Terrorist Unit) have used various strong-arm tactics to successfully extract important information from terrorists -- information that was needed to save the lives of millions of people. There was also a case where the show's hero, Jack Bauer, used electricity (if I remember correctly) to torture an apparently innocent civilian (his girlfriend's ex), mistakenly believing that the civilian was withholding information. When his distraught girlfriend later described this event to her father (a U.S. Senator), the Senator said that Jack was just, "doing his job". So maybe "positive" isn't the right word, but torture does appear to be portrayed on "24" as effective and necessary. And the show also suggests that people in U.S. intelligence agencies have a right to use it under certain circumstances. In fact, according to the Senator character on the show, it is part of their job. As for Berg's comment that, "Torture is neither legitimate nor sanctioned by the US Government"... well, that may be so. But I suspect a lot of people who watch "24" either believe that their government DOES use torture, or that it SHOULD have the right to use torture in certain circumstances. There doesn't appear to be a lot of public outrage over the use of torture on the show. What is your opinion on the topic, Alaska Darin? Do you think western governments should have the right to torture suspected terrorists that they find at home or overseas? Or should we follow the Geneva Convention, provide due process to suspected terrorists, etc.?

I don't know for sure, but it's possible that torture has ALWAYS been used by Western nations for extracting information. It's just that in the past, the use of torture was better concealed... governments did a better job of keeping it hidden from the press and the general population. Today, because of the fear caused by 9-11 and because of positive portrayals of the use of torture on TV (e.g., shows like "24"), the public is more open to the idea of their government torturing people. Most people don't seem to care a lot about what goes on in Abu Ghraib, for instance. Still, you'd think the public would be demanding SOME kind of government accountability. Maybe torture is necessary sometimes... but if so, there should be a set of rules established. Right-wing Americans are correct to not trust government. Laws regarding the use of torture need to be established so that future governments can't haul away people on false charges (e.g., "They were planning terrorist acts") and torture them.

As a Canadian, it's interesting to watch how American attitudes towards torture are changing. Americans used to think torture was barbaric. Now it seems to be acceptable in some situations. In fact, the idea of torture being acceptable is such a part of the mainstream now, that you've got shows like "24" where the good guys are using torture (sometimes on the wrong people) every other episode or so. This shift in thinking is understandable given the tragedy of Sept 11. Still, it's a weird shift in some ways. Most conservative Americans don't seem to trust their government very much... they basically see government as inefficient and error-prone. I don't know much about the U.S. constitution, but I assume the "right to bear arms" is at least partially rooted in a distrust of government. So from an outsider's point of view, it seems strange that Americans are increasingly OK with the idea of letting the government use torture as a legitimate tool. That's quite a bit of power to hand over. I'm personally not sure whether torture is a legitimate way for a civilized country to extract information, or not. Seems to me that if a terrorist has plans to kill thousands of people, then torture might be necessary. The thing that bothers me is that no one talks about the DETAILS of torture... who is allowed to torture, and under what circumstances. For example, if a police officer goes to a coffee shop and overhears two guys discussing a bomb plot, he can certainly arrest them... but does he have a right to torture them for information? Or is that too much power for the police to have? Should only the army be allowed to torture people? Or the CIA? Should only the President be allowed to authorize torture as a means of information extraction? Should torture only be applied to non-Americans? Perhaps torture is OK in American POW camps (outside the country), but not on American soil or in American jails? Why isn't anyone trying to get a handle on the rules for legitimate government-sanctioned torture? (Or has somebody written down the rules of torture somewhere and I'm not aware of them?)