Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[kandrathe]

As usual, your links show little to nothing to support your case. How do you suppose Mr. King achieves his goal? By instructing readers to get 'background' information about other players before the game, or by telling them how to interpret the moves they make during?

Both. Even if your opponent is a total stranger, during the game you will learn about their play style, and hopefully, will be able to adapt your strategy to take advantage of what you learn about your opponent. If you forgot my original point, it was that in diplomacy, international brinkmanship, or the game of chess, you don't "win" by reacting to what is on the table. You win by predicting what will happen in the future, and which moves you can make to result in a favorable outcome. You win by positioning yourself such that all outcomes are favorable. So, while it is informative to review the history up to the present of North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Al Queda, or other potential threats to national security, the art of international diplomacy will be to predict the future, and position the US and allies such that there are the least negative consequences for our near term actions. This is why the Bush administration failed at diplomacy. They were only ever reacting to past actions, and did a poor job in predicting the consequences of their near term actions.

I am an advocate that the US does "act" according to what it predicts its allies and enemies will do in the future, but I'd also constrain the US to act within it's principles.

So, just what are American principles? Here are what I believe they should be, however, the Obama, and Bush administrations would probably both disagree for different reasons, but primarily because their common idea of government is one that tramples on individual liberty. I do believe though that if people stopped for a moment and considered them, rather than being concerned about the D-ness or R-ness, then they might agree.

Here they are conveniently summarized by ( J. Neil Schulman);

1. Allow for disagreement.

2. Punish people only for the bad things they've already done.

3. Live and Let Live.