> Perhaps you arrest and tort..., ah, > thoroughly interrogate 99 basically innocent profilees to snare a single > operative or active supporter. >
We. Don't. Torture. Period. Besides being despicable, it almost never works. Most people will say ANYTHING to stop being tortured. I understand the "ticking timebomb" argument (not that I agree with it), but that can hardly apply to a situation where you basically torture anyone you can find without any probable cause at all. To some extent, a war against terror requires some necessary if distasteful tradeoffs. I think what is going on at the moment goes WAY far beyond the bare minimum necessary. I think Bush and Ashcroft have contempt for civil liberties and are overjoyed to have an excuse to do what they want to anyway. If distasteful methods sometimes have to be utilized in the field, under the exigencies of an ongoing operation or a well reasoned fear that an attack is imminent, well, maybe (although it makes it difficult if not impossible to complain if and when the other side treats your people the same way). But that clearly did not happen in this case. They arrested the guy for almost no reason, interrogated him, had absolutely no reason to think he was any kind of terrorist - and had him tortured anyway. Practicalities aside, why doesn't that infuriate you? How can you defend treating the guy this way? Tom Beck www.mercerjewishsingles.org "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
