Save a Few but Kill many

Knowingly imprisoning a few innocents to house the guilty is, in my opinion, unconscionable, especially in a war against an ideology which cannot be won.

Every human being deserves due process. Did we overthrow tyranny in the hopes that we could become the tyrants or because we felt that tyranny was evil? I hold to the latter, and feel that what is occurring at Guantanamo Bay is our national shame. We're better than that, and it's time we showed it.

AD as long as Bush is around to blame for any mistakes PC will run amok, let there be another attack on America and watch how fast these cowards on the left run away from their PC positions

Agreed

Gid, while I understand your position I ask that you stay on topic in your defense. No one (on either side) is saying that we should torture just anyone (unrestrained power). The innocent here are people who are guilty by association or has evidence that links them to a plot or act.

The only problem with due process is that if I discover a plot to blow up a major building sometime next week there isn't time for due process.

So do you torture someone in order to uncover the details of this plot?

I'm not saying you kill the suspect but to wait for due process while a few thousand civilians are at risk. But if there is enough evidence that this person has information that can potentially save thousands and there isn't time for due process what do you do?

Says who?

Due process is an invention of civilisation, it is not available in nature (the tiger will eat you) nor is it a good deal or fair towards the uninvolved.

Within a legal system, like under a king or in a republic, due process is a good deal to keep the balance between government power and the right of the individual. But that is not the situation Guantanamo is in.

All wars see the innocent become casualties. But here's the thing:

Guantanamo keeps lots of terrorists out of the war, reducing the number of battles.

The innocents in Guantanamo (and I doubt they are a large percentage) are in the mean time enjoying a far better fate than the innocent casualties of the battles would have.

Sometimes the question is not right or wrong, but pure mathematics. Should we keep innocents alive and in prison or should we risk them (more likely others) being killed in battles that can be avoided by keeping terrorists in Guantanamo?

If the US would apply the idea that no innocents' rights must be harmed no matter what to the war (or any war), the US wouldn't be able to fight.

Tell that to the terrorists' victims in the west and the middle east.

Find a police man or soldier willing to do that, torture the suspect to get the information, then allow justice to deal with the police man or soldier.

Result: many lives saved, one guy in prison for several years

Alternatives are legalizing torture and not torturing.

Result 2: many lives saved, lots of people tortured for no reason

Result 3: many lives lost, nobody tortured

Yes, but I see this being the fundamental question which reveals how one thinks. Logically or Emotionally.

I am staying on topic, AD. I'm not speaking of the torture in this case as much as the indefinite detention without benefit of a trial. I feel that there needs to be stronger evidence of torture before I am willing to accuse our soldiers of participating in it as standard practice (Abu Ghraib, for instamce, was an anomoly, which is why the soldiers caught were tried and punished).

For the record, I'm not wholly opposed to the concept of military tribunals. They may not be the equivalent of a civilian court in our country, but there is at least some measure of justice. My solution? Military tribunals for initial determinations, to be followed by civilian trials when it is practical to do so. Not perfect mind you, but there is a better chance of sorting out innocents who might be detained.

and are you able to accept that few innocents are mistakenly tortured in order to protect civilians?

Gid, this is diverting from topic.

Your usage of tyranny is in effect of Abu Ghraib which they were not torturing to get information. That was pure torture not interrogation (with the means of torture).

No one is advocating unwarranted torture. And rightly so the soldiers were punished which shows a balance from unrestrained power (definition of tyranny).

Torture is wrong.  Period.  End of story.

"better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished"

I have a huge amount of respect for McCain because of his anti-torture stance and I would vote for him if he got the Republican nomination.  Of course, he won't get the Republican nomination because somehow it was wrong for him to point out that waterboarding is a torture technique invented by the Inquisition. 

better ten guilty men go free and thousands die?

OK, so where we're splitting here is in our definition of tyranny. I believe that an unlawful, indefinite detention with no access to the legal system to defend one's innocence is a form of tyranny and is the very tyranny we're employing here. I'm not talking about torture, but about unlawful, indefinite detention.

Hence my agreement to due process w/ military tribunal.

But my topic is before the indefinite detention. It is on the subject that we have information of a plot to bomb a building hosting thousands of people and we have evidence linking them to the plot.

Do you torture them to get potential information to save the thousand innocent civilians?

And you know this will happen because of psychic powers?

Uncovered plot.

Knowingly imprisoning a few innocents to house the guilty

Gid pointed out the achilees heel here.  Did anyone "knowingly" imprison the innocents?  You then talk about guilt by association.  That is a good point.  But until you discern the innocence of those guilty by association, how do you know they are innocent?

I dont think anyone is "knowingly" imprisoning innocents.  Imprisoning those that we are not sure are guilty, sure.  But not knowingly imprisoning innocents.

It is on the subject that we have information of a plot to bomb a building hosting thousands of people and we have evidence linking them to the plot. Do you torture them to get potential information to save the thousand innocent civilians?

Everyone always brings up this example, but not once has it happened...living in a world of hypothetical questions isn't very efficient. Sure it's good to have some forethought, but dwelling on crap that probably won't happen is a stupid idea. Do you honestly think religious zealots would tell you everything with some scrotum shocking? Faith is a powerful thing, and those with it are very hard to crack. I'm not a fan of torture...it's a pussy move and it doesn't seem to be particularly helpful. A person can make up a lot of lies to make the pain stop for awhile.

~Zoo

agreed. But then we have to have an accord on what torture really is. I do not see loud music or a overheated or cold room as torture, I do see ripping fingernails out as torture. Try to remember these are the same folk that cut of heads and other body parts of our troops and how many of the gitmo folk have been released only to be found again on the battle field killing our troops again.

The knowingly is just my perspective. Do I think everyone in jail today did the crimes they are accused of? Not hardly. Vast Majority are but I 'know' that there are a few who are innocent, just hard to tell who.

That is the real issue here. Some folks seem to have a problem distinguishing between the words torture and interrogation. True torture, inflicting of extreme pain such as using a half inch drill on the knee caps, is wrong. Interrogation is necessary.

They attempted to clarify the definitions of the two but some people are still going to claim that any sort of interrogation technique other than asking nicely and saying pretty please is torture.

Ok Mason I'll totally accept that.

Is this where the 'gray zone' begins? Distinguishing what is torture and what are allowable methods of interrogation?

Try to remember these are the same folk that cut of heads and other body parts of our troops and how many of the gitmo folk have been released only to be found again on the battle field killing our troops again.

I'm hardly sympathetic to them, if they're uncomfortable, then who gives a damn? It'd probably be better if they were dead in the first place. I don't take kindly to people trying to kill me.

I just see torture as an essentially useless information gathering tool.

~Zoo

Can you give effective interrogation tactics that don't border torture?