Well, I was planning on doing a long post basically saying the same thing, so I'll just use your comment space to elaborate a bit now. ;-)

Let's take a look at an ill-fitting analogy that still proves my (and it would appear your) point:

My friend starts going into convulsions whilst watching The Daily Show. He passes out, foaming at the mouth. So I carry him into the car (I'm strong) and speed to the emergency room.

Yeah, the speed limit is 30, but I'm going 85. I also go through a few red lights. But you know what? I've decided that I'd rather have the friend alive than worry about breaking some laws. However, if I did get a ticket in the mail from one of those Red Light Cameras, I'd pay the fine. I *chose* to break the law; I'm not demanding that the law be changed, that citizens get to decide when they want to obey traffic lights and when they don't.

Same with torture. It's one thing for someone to decide, indvidually, that the ends justify that means, that one person is less important than the million in the ticking bomb scenario (aside: why the tick? Don't they use digital timers? WTF?); it
s another vastly different thing to actually *codefy* the use of torture, to give it the official Federal Government Stamp of Approval.

No.

Torture is wrong and should be punished, and those who torture should know that going in. It might actually make it less likely to occur, tick or no tick. The US of A simply cannot give the official okey dokey to torture and expect to wins the hearts and minds of our *own* citizens, let alone the vast unwashed masses of the rest of the world.

You know, I just may make this a blog entry anyway. nevermind.