mcdelroy

What happens Swiftsword if we say that some group has kidnapped your significant other, mother, father, or whoever means more then anything to you. They intend to kill your significant other unless the US changes their international policies. However, as you know, the US government does not negotiate with terrorists because that would only encourage further terrorism.

Now lets say that US special forces have secretly captured a confirmed member of the group who holds your significant other. We can either let them have their 20 prayer periods each afternoon and three squares a day hoping they tell us where your loved one is before its too late, or we can encourage the captive to give us information to save your significant other by treating the captive harshly. What would you say we should do? Chances are if you say no to the harsh treatment you either haven't imagined this scenario vividly enough, don't truly have a significant other who really means much to you, don't have a truly significant other at all, or are a saint. I doubt any of us here are saints.

A previous poster mentioned that the needs of the many out way the needs of the few regarding harsh treatment of prisoners. I'd correct that by saying the rights of the few not needs are out weighed. In reality, the above scenario applies. However, on a grander scale encompassing the safety of thousands of US citizens. It is ironic that our safety to sit here and preach about limiting the abilities of the protectors of our freedom is afforded us by the efforts of those same protectors who's abilities we talk of curtailing.

Now admittedly the US cannot publicly endorse inhumane treatment of prisoners. However, unfortunately we need intelligence. Oh. and generally captors take pains to verify the information they are given. After all, the captives will still be there after the information they have release has been tested. So the ramifications of lieing are likely communicated during the interrogation process.

Marc