Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (34126)	5/7/2005 6:55:32 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Good article. Unfortunately today's terrorists are part of a fanatical regime. They are also well trained to resist interrogations. And they also know that they will not be tortured because we actually abide by the Geneva Conventions. Against Rendition? Blogs for Bush "Rendition" is where the United States hands over to other powers prisoners under its control in order that they may be interrogated in manners not consonant with American law; in short, we do it so that we can get information out of people who will not voluntarily talk to us after non-invasive means have been exhausted. This article in The Weekly Standard comes out against the practice; the problem being, in the view of the author (Reuel Marc Gerecht) that our failure to clearly delineate when and where we will apply stern interrogation measures leaves us vulnerable on both practical and moral grounds. While I grant that there should be clear rules for when torture may be used, I disagree that we shouldn't be transferring prisoners into the custody of other nations to force information out of them. On purely practical grounds, a Jordanian interrogator is more likely to get at the truth of the matter in interrogating an Arab terror suspect than we are because he's native to the language and culture. Lots of nuances can be missed by someone who isn't entirely immersed in the culture of the prisoner. That said, I believe we should regulate the practice of interrogating terror suspects by US law; I believe that the best mechanism is the archaic provision in our Constitution allowing Congress to pass a Letter of Reprisal. In past times, this was a legal means of punishing a foreign entity for transgressions; perhaps by bombarding a port which was being used as a haven for piracy and other such outrages. We could, though, apply it to terrorist organizations. By making our actions against the groups and their members a matter of legal reprisal by the United States for their actions and associations, we would have a legal framework for ensuring that we get all the information we need at the time we need it. Make no mistake about it, we can't be gentle with our terrorist captives when push comes to shove. While you get more flies with honey than with vinegar, at times it will prove (and likely already has proved, though we haven't heard about it) necessary to get information, today, by whatever means prove necessary. We owe it to the men and women of our armed forces and police and intelligence agencies to have in place a set of rules and regulations which advise them on what they may do, and when they may do it. Posted by Mark Noonan blogsforbush.com weeklystandard.com My 2¢ - I'm not quite in complete agreement with this POV. I do thing that we should, in very select & clearly outlined circumstances, we should be able to be harsh* with detainees who are highly likely to know of plans that could save lives if we could extract that info. * harsh in the sense that no real or lasting harm is done.