"What makes torture states any better then terror states?"

[leftchick]

This Is What Our So-Called Representatives DO NOT GET!!! :argh:

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/35755

<snip>

The innocent are still to be tortured and mistreated for years with no recourse to justice, and then cast off to their home countries to try to re-assemble their shattered lives with no apologies for their inconvenience.

Wouldn't it be just to treat suspects as innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers in fair hearings, and then if found to be terrorists, then interrogated for terrorist information? Is there any terrorist in the world in 2006 who has operational knowledge so time-sensitive that torture is justified in obtaining information?

<snip>

Isn't torturing the innocent a form of state terrorism?

What makes torture states any better then terror states, or any different? And when will commonsense definitions of torture be used? Rough treatment designed to extract confessions or information involuntarily is probably torture. Offenses against dignity and religious belief are a form of torture. Nations that torture in order to extract information are terror states and no better than non-governmental terrorist organizations.

More importantly, the war on terror can never be won by using terror as a tactic. And innocent victims of terror by state interrogators must be given justice and restitution.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Because Our God is Better Than Their God?nt

[Warren Stupidity]

2. "Isn't torturing the innocent a form of state terrorism? "

I have to object to that sentence as it implies that torturing the guilty is not a form of state terrorism.

Torture is unacceptable. Guilt or innocence has nothing to do with it. This is a basic human right, in fact it is widely recognized as a basic right we extend not only to all humans, but to all animals.