Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ARRRGGGGHHHGGGHH!!!!
Billy bob at Abu gharib did bad- and if commanders told him to do bad they should go to prison- just like Jack nicholsen.
But the guys who went to Gitmo were a high probabilty of livelong Jihadi guys. You know, guys who would fly a plane into a building. Should we let them go, or Should we try and get what we can out of them?
Can we torture OBL if we catch him, to get info on cells here?
What's fucked up about those guys is we are apparently letting many of them go- Wanna bet they'll be back in the news someday?
|
30 detainees were just released from Gitmo because the military's own internal process, in which they did not even get to see and rebut the evidence against them or have a lawyer, determined there was no basis for holding them.
So, how do you feel about the torture that's been directed at these 30 guys? Should we explain to their children that this is the way the US operates when its at war, but it doesn't represent what they should expect from Democracy?
I have two practical reasons for thinking this is very bad policy: I believe it increases the risk to our own soldiers and because I don't think it accomlishes much - torture by its nature provides mediocre, difficult to verify information and information that is partial and disjointed. The torturee must tell us something, he believes, for the torture to stop, but is not going to tell us everything because that will put him in more danger.
On the other hand, the person who is convinced to switch sides or the person who is able to infiltrate produces very good, consistent and verifiable information.
