How does one "compromise" on torture?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

The Republican "moderates" are being praised for working out a "compromise" on torture and fair trials. Though I've been around long enough, and paid enough attention, to expect mendacity from politicians, I'm a little baffled by the response given them by the all-wise pundits and the ever-gullible public.

Allegedly, they "stood up" to BushCo and fought the good fight and got him to ease up on his proclivity to encourage his minions to "save us" from the forces of Darkness that would do things like...torture people.

"Compromise" is looked upon as a "good" thing. Nice, respectable, rational (supposedly) people sitting down and working out a meeting point acceptable to both sides. Sounds good. Except if you happen to be one of those being tortured in an "acceptable" way reached through "compromise". We're those being tortured a party to the "compromise"? Or, was the "compromise" made between the torturers?

Perhaps we should "compromise" on rape. Maybe rapists can agree that putting 1/2 in is OK but 3/4 isn't.

Bank robbers could "compromise" on the amount taken. $50K is acceptable. $100K is just greedy.

Or, how about genocide? Maybe those that kill lots of people could "compromise". 30,000 is just "collateral damage", 300,000 is "unfortunate", but 3,000,000 is very naughty.

Funny how those making "compromises" never get around to asking the folks being "compromised" to join in the negotiations.

[Skidmore]

1. You don't.

You either acquiesce or just plain sell out. This is an area where there is no gray.

[Clarkie1]

2. They need to make public the limits of permissible interrogation

techniques as defined by this agreement. Torture is absolutely not acceptable, or any violations of the Geneva Conventions. I all expect all suspects to be treated with due process under American law, upholding our ideals.

What the CIA would be permitted to do under this agreement needs to be made public, in detail, before the vote. Anything less is unacceptable.

[Skidmore]

4. Are you so confident of that, given some of the

situations that have come to light under this administration and its prosecution of this "war on terror." I personally cannot even imagine striking another person in anger, let alone doing some of the things that have been described as "intense interrogation" by those who want the legal permission to engage in such behavior. Did you read that earlier thread on the Afghani man who died after his legs were beaten to a pulp with a baton? As for suspects under our own laws in the American justice system, some of them are treated fairly brutally and in an inhumane manner. I prefer for those techniques not to be defined so that people would have to stoop and give careful consideration to whether what the behavior that they are about to engage in is moral or not, and perhaps then refuse to become physically or psychologically abusive.

[Jack Rabbit]

3. It's not really a political compromise

Those who bargain on this matter have compromised their souls.

[tnlefty]

7. My first thought, also. Step1. Sell one's soul to darkness.

Step 2. Proceed to become that which you claim to despise.

Step 3. Give up so much of your humanity that it isn't recognizable anymore.

[rock]

5. You torture your opponent until

he agrees (compromises with you) that torture is wrong. It's a lovely arguement.

[Solly Mack]

6. It's not possible

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Kick for the hell of it.

[Odin2005]

9. He's an anology.

Say you and a friend are in a boat. Your friend is nuts and want's to drill a 5-inch hole in the boat. If you conprimise and drill a 2-inch hole the boast still sinks.