Evil be-gets evil, does it not?….

And I don’t agree with waterboarding, but I’m not going to debate about it, so.

*disappears*

lol wrote:
Really? going by this theory we should never have dropped any bombs on nazi germany, i mean some of them were innocent.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the bombing of, say, Dresden (not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki) are not beyond criticism. Even so, I’m not all that sure that the analogy is valid. Wars between nations are not the same thing as hunting for individuals that might be terrorists.

Quote:
The simple fact of the matter is, you are trying to play their game by your rules. They don’t care about proof; they don’t care about hurting anyone’s feelings. You’re trying to act civilized with people who will do anything to destroy you.

From their point of view that description now applies to you as well. Now that you are the monster, is it okay to do anything to get you?

hiraethin wrote:
It is often said that a tortured person will say anything and thus torture is useless. But interrogation is about producing useful information and some detainees will say anything without coercion; what they do say must be cross-checked for accuracy. This is a basic rule of interrogation and any small-town detective knows it. Information produced under coercion is no different. In WW2, the Gestapo was well-known for its use of torture to obtain information from captured Allied agents and Resistance members – and was so successful that the rule observed by Allied agents was to attempt to hold out for just 24 hours, in the hope that all contacts could be warned in that time. Clearly torture can work.

I found an article that indicates we’re both wrong. Since I lost the original reply by trying to post a link, I’ll just copy-paste some key phrases:

"1 Torture worked for the Gestapo.

Actually, no. Even Hitler’s notorious secret police got most of their information from public tips, informers and interagency cooperation."

"3 People will say anything under torture.

Well, no, although this is a favorite chestnut of torture’s foes. Think about it: Sure, someone would lie under torture, but wouldn’t they also lie if they were being interrogated without coercion?"

You can find the whole article, written by Darius Rejali, by googling for 5 myths about torture.

Quote:
But is it worth it? Do we want to be the guys who do this? To answer that question (which is, after all, a cost/benefit analysis) one must know what is at stake. One could argue that in sufficiently critical cases, it is worth it; I submit that in the vast majority of cases it is certainly not.

A very good post all in all with several valid points. I wrote a more extensive reply but lost it, as I mentioned before. Since it’s Saturday and I’m feeling lazy, I hope you’ll forgive me for just listing my main points:

1. It’s one thing to have different rules and regulations concerning terrorists, and another to circumvent the whole legal system and create a "limbo", where suspects can be held indefinitely without rights or hard evidence.

2. Bending national and international laws when fighting terrorism endangers everyone’s rights, foreign and abroad.

Edit: Foreign and abroad? Scratch that and leave it at "everyone’s rights".

3. In addition to a case by case consideration of the pros and cons, one needs to consider the bigger picture. Terrorism has many reasons, but hate is probably a common nominator. By waging its "war on terror", the US might actually have been more efficient in spreading anti-American feelings than ever before. The question is: Even if torturing people and denying suspects their rights might lead to some results, do these methods only escalate the problem in the long run?

Marquis wrote:
where the ideals of a modern democratic society are held to be "rather naive"

Please don’t misrepresent my position by being glib. Do you honestly think that any kind of society can exist without the curtailing of some individual freedoms, namely those freedoms which are thought to impinge upon the freedoms of others? Do you not think that a society will inevitably develop some governing body that will determine which freedoms take precedence over others? If not, then I call you naive.

Now, if you want to argue whether a specific right should be sacrosanct, such at the one originally proposed by this thread, then that is another issue entirely.

I repeat – Oi Vey!

lol wrote:
Wow very fancy and clever.

They want you to die.

I’m getting embarrased on your behalf now. :oops:

They want you to die.

lol wrote:
What happened to innocent before proven guilty? What happened to due process?

True that, lets wait until they cut the head off an innocent man live on TV before we do anything. React is better than proact!

Here there be Thought Police.