How do you know that?

Just listen to the "news"

__________________

Did you read what I wrote?

That's the example that's always held up, or, the one about us knowing a nuclear device is hidden in a city and we just happen to have a guy in custody who knows where it is.

Trouble is, you could go through ten thousand guys, thinking they had the knowledge, only to get a bunch of false leads cause they really had no information but were saying anything to get you to stop.

Meanwhile, word gets out that the infidel is torturing Muslims right and left and our actual security decreases as a result. Torture doesn't work too well. Seems to be a lot of agreement on that one amongst people who actually know about these things.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

How do you know it doesn't work, because of what you have read, huh? Might want to look into it some more. There are all manner of degrees of torture. Simple incarceration would be a form of torture for me. A dental drill and the words, "Is it safe?" might work on somebody else. The key to coercive interrogation is to study the victim and find what makes him tick. Deprive him of his strengths and push on his weakness. It needn't be ripping flesh and soldering irons. Psychological coercion works, too.

Where do you draw the line? Is it okay to interrogate a terror supect? without Mirandizing him? Should he have a lawyer?

What if he was caught with left-over chemicals and wiring and plans for the Democratic National Convention? Should he be mirandized and lawyered-up?

What if he's caught on the field of battle, gun in hand, and in uniform? Miranda? Lawyer?

What if he's caught dressed as a civilian, before detonating a car bomb? Miranda? Lawyer?

What if he has your kid somewhere and you are the one who catches him? Miranda? Lawyer?


B

During WW2, in general, these interrogation methods were used by the allied forces and rooted out spies and discovered important information.

I have heard comments in the past from very educated foreign citizens that were not in agreement with the war in Iraq but rather commented that the United States should have just had Saddam killed covertly and put an end to him.

Hey, the world's true forces have to be dealt with in rather unseemingly fashion now and then. That is the nature of the beast.

__________________
1979 300D 220 K miles
1995 C280 109 K miles
1992 Cadillac Eldorado Touring Coupe 57K miles SOLD
********************
1979 240D 140Kmiles (bought for parents) *SOLD.
SAN FRANCISCO/(*San Diego)
1989 300SE 148 K miles *SOLD

Personally I would torture terrorists for everything they are worth....then kill them...creamate them and dump the ashes in a fast moving river so no proof is ever found......Yeah..you can call me politically incorrect. It also serves to keep them from the bleeding heart types...

__________________
Proud owner of ....
1971 280SE W108
1979 300SD W116
1983 300D W123
1975 Ironhead Sportster chopper
1987 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4 Diesel
1989 Honda Civic (Heavily modified)
---------------------
Section 609 MVAC Certified
---------------------
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

I'm not sure what you mean by "it", but I'm struck by the lack of support for Cheney's position. Do you know of any expert interrogators who agree with Cheney? I've heard several disagree with him. None that agree. Probably that liberal media again.Miranda is a rule concerning the admissility of evidence. It has nothing to with gaining intelligence. There are time-honored answers to each of your other questions. Why does Cheney think he can change the rules?Red herring.Red herrings all. And all easy to answer. You state them as if they pose dilemmas, yet there are easy, well accepted answers to each. None of those concerns justify our deviating from internationally accepted standards of decency.

No? Okay.


Oh, which international standards? Can we should use the same ones that our enemies use, would that be okay? Or maybe we should make them use our standards of warfare and prisoner treatment. Yeah, and if they don't, we'll go to the Hague and make ugly faces at them.

B

Well said, friend dculkin,humanity still burns with a flicker of light in some places.

__________________

What, if we capture a suspected terrorists we don't have to treat them as we do other suspects? Go tell that to the hispanic guy that is supsected of coming to the USA to use a radioactivity bomb. The feds treated him as an enemy combatant and the courts said that was wrong, he had to be treated as an american citizen in criminal court. Miranda applies.

Personally, I approve of that decision. I think citizens should always be afforded constitutional protection unless they voluntarily cede them, like joining the armed forces. Now foreigners, especially if caught in an area of military operations, I am not so strict in how they're treated. If they follow the Geneva Conventions then I think they should receive the protection of the Conventions. But if they don't play by the rules, I think we can lower our responsibilities quite a bit.

Bot

By the way, le garrote is a weapon for killing.

Not if it's handled by someone who knows what they're doing.

__________________

Like a knife.

In the hands of an expert a moderate pressure will cause loss of cosciousness,but not death,this method was favored by inquisitors of the Holy Office.

There are many kinds of garrotes,from thin,tough piano wire to the thicker"sicilian style" and the long scarves used by the Thuggees with weighted ends which were expertly thrown around the neck of the unwary with fatal results.

__________________