Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[eppie]

But... if you go on any, and I repeat ANY public university campus in the US, you will find the perennial "Protesting Student Organization" marching around with drums and bullhorns demanding that the US government does something different than it is doing. Which is fine, they have the right to peacefully protest the color of canned peas if they so desire. Why do we NEVER see them protesting against the actions of our enemies?

Yes and that would make sense!! An 'enemy' of the US that doesn't really listen even though there are hints towards a possible attack would listen to some students protesting? I hear your remark a lot in discussions....and I am not impressed by it. When you protest, you protest against your own government, because there is a chance that you might change them....protesting against a government of an enemy is useless.

Like the title of this thread, I consider what words mean like "torture". For example, eppie just compared the US strapping a terrorist to a board and producing the fear of drowning, to Russian soldiers in Chechnya, raping women, beating people to death, cutting off fingers, setting people on fire, cutting them with glass, and gouging out eye balls. So, I question what the word "torture" means as we casually fling it about labeling actions with that word.

I didn't compare the two, I just think that the people of say, Chechenya and Iraq both will not have a too high regard for their invaders. The allied forces also make civilian victims....that there is a difference in ferocity does not make too much of a difference if you have your dying child in your arms.....

For example, it is a great rally cry to talk of closing Gitmo, but quite another thing to figure out what to do with someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the other terrorists who we just don't want to be running around free. So you don't like holding them in Cuba, then maybe we turn Kalaupapa, Hawaii into a terrorist internment camp. No one in the contiguous 48 or Alaska would certainly think of housing a terrorist prison.

That is why maybe it would have been better to put in some effort and find out who were really terrorists and who were just guys of the street, and subsequently release the latter group and trial and imprison for life the first group (or have death penalty if that is possible). Now there are cases of people that apparantly had something to do with terrorism who get 5 years imprisonment.....well I can just imagine what that person will be doing when he gets released. Making sure that there is a good legal system in place that allows guilty persons to be sentenced to death or long imprisonment would be a lot better than just keeping people in a prison on a place with no rules while not giving a ** about if they really did something or not. Having a place like Gitmo looked really cool and hard fro Bush and Cheney but it didn't help the US at all, nor was it fair for the innocent that were imprissoned. If I would compare the management of that 'project' with the banking business I would say it was worth just a tiny bonus.

So, I wonder when will the overwhelming sense of liberal betrayal by Barack sink in, or I would say dealing finally with reality rather than slogans and pipe dreams? We are nearing the end of the honeymoon period for Presidents, so it will be interesting to see what happens over the next six months.Yes, we should do more to make the embargo (siege) more effective and productive.Nobody forced them onto the boat to Florida... Wait, I guess Fidel forced them. Who is the bad guy here? The US for implementing a severe policy (short of war) against the bad guy, or the bad guy?Huh? You are talking profit motives? <reaches for the oxygen canister>

Fidel forced them? Didn't they just want to go to Florida to sell drugs? Also a bit strange that they didn't go to any of the other non'communist free states in the region, that are obviously doing so much better than Cuba.

No, I don't think we really don't need them, and on principles, we can afford to avoid dealing with criminals. We should take any other Caribbean nation, like say Honduras or Belize, and help make them rich instead.First, it becomes more meaningless when our allies don't follow through to contain these thugs (ie. Saddam), because they are greedy, or spineless, or maybe they aren't really our friends. Second, it sends a message to every Castro wannabe that the result of actively seeking to threaten the US with nuclear weapons will result in at least isolation. Third, moral certitude, which, can be politically expedient as a cheap recourse to war and sells well to the hawks domestically. Siege is an effective strategy, like it or not.

I wonder if these people really threaten the US or that you just think that they threaten the US. The single biggest attack on the US has been performed by people being funded by your allies (Saudi Arabia etc.) (people from those countries) apart from that the biggest threats over the years have always been white supremacist groups. Many experts say that the chance that the next big attack comes from one of these groups is much bigger than from one of the classic enemies.