I think it is incorrect to focus on the validity of the information obtained using torture. By that logic, any action is valid if you obtain something valuable enough. I also don't think it is correct to use our enemy's actions as a means of us doing something less extreme.
I pretty much see it as a black and white thing. We shouldn't torture. I do think that some harsh methods may be premissible but if the technique requires secret legal interpretations to justify it then we probably shouldn't be doing it.
The only measuring stick I would see appropriate is to consider what we would call acceptable methods for interrogating our own soldiers. Are we comfortable with the thought of our men being waterboarded?
---------- Post added at 01:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I also find it ironic that for example we celebrate snipers killing alleged pirates in a criminal matter not a declared war without asking question but we have grave concerns about known terrorist fighting as our enemy in a declared war being questioned using enhanced techniques. I don't get how people on the left reconcile these kinds of issues.
|
Give me a freaking break, It's not that hard to tell the difference between someone who is actively threatening a person and someone who is in captivity and can't harm anyone.