Should we interrogate terrorists?

[gully]

I want to remind everyone how the debate on "torture" is going to be framed, and the box Dems are going to be put in.

We're going to have to DEFEND being against "torture" er uhm, "interrogating terrorists."

PREPARE now, it's coming.

[Greyhound]

1. Definition please. n/t

[gully]

2. This how the media will define this "torture" issue ala Karl Rove.

Definition, schmefinition!

Do you want to defend America or not?

;)

[Greyhound]

15. Thank you. In that case, I vote no in the strongest terms possible.

If the Constitution doesn't apply in any circumstances, no matter how extreme, it is meaningless.

To those that are in favor of torture-for-terrorists, please re-read your 6th grade American history book.

[NNN0LHI]

3. I think you mean "suspected" terrorists don't you?

Everyone is a "suspect."

Don

[gully]

8. Well now don't let facts enter into this debate.

There's no room for facts.

[Acryliccalico]

4. No torture (interrogation)

Torture DOES NOT WORK!!! = Psychology 101 :kick:

[gully]

11. Now now, it's just a little hazing.

C'mon lighten up you hippie tree hugger/terrorist sympathizer, our lives are on the line!

:sarcasm:

[Acryliccalico]

16. I don't think that any

information we get from torture would be worth the effort, money or time and defiantly would not help protect me. Useless information gained from torture is a proven waist. :) :kick:

[Warpy]

5. Um, interrogation was done for many decades without torture

most notably during WWII.

German soldiers would look for American units to surrender to. They knew their treatement would be most humane with us.

That saved lives, as men who are fearful of capture and torture are more likely to fight to the death, inflicting many more casualties on the enemy (us) in the process.

Interrogation and torture are two different things and they know it.

[gully]

9. You're so pre 911.

:sarcasm:

[Warpy]

13. Thank you

I shudder to think there are kids who were in grammar school then and who are in high school now being taught by NCLB and not being taught that the country was once a very different place.

[DemInDistress]

6. if to interrogate is to torture someone for information that was

obtained by torture I vote no. Most if not all people will tell you anything you want to hear in order for the torture to stop. No?

[gully]

10. That's the correct vote no matter how they spin this issue.

We just need to prepare to deal with the MSM slant and get out our message regardless.

They'll orchestrate a vote on this "interrogation/torture" issue, redfine and justify torture, then follow it up with a scary reminder of why it's so important to vote to keep merika safe ala Repuglicans. My guess is they baited OBL with the 'death' rumor so he'd rear his head pre-election?

[ThomWV]

7. The Question is Should We Interrogate, not Interrogate and Torture

Of course we should interrogate those we have apprehended as suspected terrorists. How else could we possible determine if they should be held? And if they are indeed enemies we should ask them for all the information we can get them to share within the constraints of existing treaty. What's the problem with that?

[gully]

12. Indeed this is the real question. But the "Rovian" question is what

will dominate the headlines I fear.

[TahitiNut]

14. Once they're represented by an attorney, sure.

At that point, they can be questioned in the presence of their attorney. Due process. Habeas corpus. Representation. Fair and prompt trial with respect for their right to confront their accusers. Access to evidence, INCLUDING discovery of exculpatory evidence.

Unless and until someone's convicted of being a "terrorist" in a fair trial, they're only an "ACCUSED terrorist"!!!