I am against it as a matter of policy. Not out of any humanitarianism. But for practical reasons. It is not worth the negative PR it would generate IMO. It will make our job more difficult in the long term.

I really dont have a problem with terrorists being tortured on a moral level though.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Same with child molesters and some others. But as a matter of policy it's a hell no. Just like I think we need to work to prevent prison rape, but I won't shed too many tears should the BTK killer find himself in the midst of a gang rape. Tough luck.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

or child molesters, or rapists, or serial killers...

Not gonna be shedding any tears for their plight anytime soon.

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

Then there's another issue. Whether it should be applied to foreigners and/or Americans. After all, we do have an amendment preventing cruel and unusual punishment. So, what if we have the most horrible American ever, who has information. We can't torture him?

In addition, I want to bring up the fact that the spirit of our Declarartion of Independance was "that all men are created equal," which leads to the fact that all humans in the world have the same rights that the revolutionaries fought for. So could it be said that the "basic" rights and protection guarenteed by the bill of rights should be aplied to all foreigners. Or is this bad logic?

Nope. If we believe that, we should act like that and treat foreigners like human beings.

That's really what it gets down to in the end: We ban torture not to do a favor to terrorists. We ban torture for *us*. Because it is not who we are. Even if that makes our life more difficult in some ways.

Living our principles can be hard. But that's why they're principles.

__________________
Man up.

Its like how I dont eat pork.... kinda

I think there should be a military panel which designates individuals whom they have significant enough evidence might have enough information and be unwilling enough to talk that persuasion is justified.

I'd then take said individuals, fill their veins with chemicals that impair judgement, and methodically ask them questions in a sensory deprivation tank.

Seeing as the person isn't in any pain (Hell, with the right drugs, they may be having the time of their lives!) I don't consider this torture.

It only becomes questionable because it's a forced injection which has numerous sanctity of body issues legally.

Thoughts?

Correct. Torture cannot be legally applied to American Citizens. Nor should it.

That being said, we treat foreigners differently than we treat our own citizens. There is a double standard.

I do not agree with that interpretation. And using your logic, we could exclude women, since it does say all MEN are created equal. That would be consistent with the beliefs of that time period as well. Right?

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Well, I think we can assume that by all men he meant men and women. This is a very common grammatical things. Manking means women and men. And I read and hear all the time in books and such from the 15th century on to this point people everywhere treating the word men as meaning both sexes.

Hmmm.....so true, most people are against it.....right up until you brought up those 2 examples. Normally I would be against it, however, in such situations, the innocent are backed into a corner with very few choices, so yes I would agree with it.