captured terrorist in mumbai to be given "truth serum"

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Funny, I think coddling terrorists is what's cowardly

Coddling is a funny word to describe justice.

What you want is not justice. What you want is to be defeated.

If doing what is just is your definition of defeatism then you've got me pegged.

[Teacher Mark 53]

Marsellus: What now? Let me tell you what now. I'ma call a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' #$%^%^@, who'll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch. You hear me talkin', hillbilly terrorist boy? I ain't through with you by a damn sight. I'ma get medieval on your ###.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

IN EVERY war, information is a weapon. In a “war against terrorism”, where the adversary wears no uniform and hides among the civilian population, information can matter even more. But does that mean that torture can sometimes be justified to extract information?

The answer in international law is categorical: no. As laid down in treaties such as the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the ban on torture or any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is absolute, even in times of war. Along with genocide, torture is the only crime that every state must punish, no matter who commits it or where. Defenders of this blanket prohibition offer arguments that range from the moral (torture degrades and corrupts the society that allows it) to the practical (people will say anything under torture so the information they provide is unreliable anyway). …

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayst...tory_id=9832909

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Funny, I think coddling terrorists is what's cowardly

Coddling is a funny word to describe justice.

What you want is not justice. What you want is to be defeated.

If doing what is just is your definition of defeatism then you've got me pegged.

AJ? Give up?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Funny, I think coddling terrorists is what's cowardly

Coddling is a funny word to describe justice.

What you want is not justice. What you want is to be defeated.

If doing what is just is your definition of defeatism then you've got me pegged.

AJ? Give up?

Yup. I support vengeance and you don't. It's cool.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Funny, I think coddling terrorists is what's cowardly

Coddling is a funny word to describe justice.

What you want is not justice. What you want is to be defeated.

If doing what is just is your definition of defeatism then you've got me pegged.

AJ? Give up?

Yup. I support vengeance and you don't. It's cool.

You're so BC.

Just so we're clear, I'm not talking about not bombing them (retaliation) if we know where they are located. I'm saying that once you've captured someone and rendered them defenseless, then vengeance becomes a cowardly act.

Edited December 5, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You know it.

[Amby 490]

hug it out boys. just hug it out.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Funny, I think coddling terrorists is what's cowardly

Coddling is a funny word to describe justice.

What you want is not justice. What you want is to be defeated.

If doing what is just is your definition of defeatism then you've got me pegged.

AJ? Give up?

Yup. I support vengeance and you don't. It's cool.

You're so BC.

Just so we're clear, I'm not talking about not bombing them (retaliation) if we know where they are located. I'm saying that once you've captured someone and rendered them defenseless, then vengeance becomes a cowardly act.

And I've already said I disagree. Vengeance is cleansing, it's closure, and yes - in some cases it's justice. IMHO of course

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Funny, I think coddling terrorists is what's cowardly

Coddling is a funny word to describe justice.

What you want is not justice. What you want is to be defeated.

If doing what is just is your definition of defeatism then you've got me pegged.

AJ? Give up?

Yup. I support vengeance and you don't. It's cool.

You're so BC.

Just so we're clear, I'm not talking about not bombing them (retaliation) if we know where they are located. I'm saying that once you've captured someone and rendered them defenseless, then vengeance becomes a cowardly act.

And I've already said I disagree. Vengeance is cleansing, it's closure, and yes - in some cases it's justice. IMHO of course

and you can always put it on ppv

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

ppv?

no. public broadcast.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

John Farmer, the former attorney general of New Jersey and a death penalty supporter, writes about the absurdity of the government's efforts to put Zacarias Moussaoui to death.

Through a perverse confluence, Mr. Moussaoui's interest in becoming something in death that he never was in life -- important -- has combined with the government's interest in executing someone for the 9/11 attacks. The likely result is an odd form of assisted suicide, in which Mr. Moussaoui will claim martyrdom as he is executed, and the United States will claim that the rule of law has been vindicated by bringing a terrorist to justice for 9/11.

Farmer reminds us that "Atrocities cry out not for vengeance, but for justice." The government's unjust quest to kill Moussaoui, at best "a fringe character," shouldn't distract from the larger issues arising out of the administration's war on terror:

What is clear is that the administration has struggled in many contexts to define how -- or whether -- it will vindicate the rule of law in the war on terrorism. Its effort to hold suspected terrorists classified as "enemy combatants" indefinitely without due process was roundly rejected by the Supreme Court.

Its effort to hold Jose Padilla, an American captured in America, first as a criminal suspect, then as an enemy combatant, and finally, when the case appeared ripe again for Supreme Court review, as an indicted defendant, would be laughable if its manipulation of due process weren't so transparent. The government's condoning of aggressive interrogation has been castigated at home and abroad as support for torture.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/04/11/570/04979

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Ok, if he says so.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Ok, if he says so.

did you expect something different from a website called talkleft?

[Danno 1,228]

The question is surely with whether the methods employed in interrogations are actually effective (which should surely dictate whether or not they are necessary).

How can you protect your own or foreign citizens by doing things that don't work? Is it to actually "protect" people and extract useful information or is it simply about creating an impression that this is the case?

======

First of all ... you are wrong.

torture DOES WORK!

But there is a science to getting and verifying intel gained in any instance.

Sure someone could torture you to make you confess to something you did not do but.....

they could not make you give up info that you would have no way of knowing.

Such as names dates locations.. all of which could easily be verified.

There is a huge difference between a "confession" and "information".

Before you speak... as if you are so-sure these harsh measures don't work, listen to what those who use them have said.

Here is one example;

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>">

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">