Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
No one is talking about whether it was illegal, just whether it was effective, and even if it was effective, whether it was worth the consequence of lowered standing in the international community and a loss of moral authority to accomplish our global goals.
No one of consequence in the United States is or really seems to be particularly concerned about human rights violations or anything of that nature. We do not submit the jurisdiction of the ICC and our own courts and justice department don't seem to be interested in enforcing whatever legal obligations we have under those Conventions/treaties.
Personally, I'd like to see people prosecuted an made examples of. I think the U.S. should still aspire to be Reagan's "shining city on a hill." To that end, I'd love to see serious examples made out of these people, soldier and CIA agent alike. It's not going to happen and my wish here is probably 'out there' enough to qualify me as a raving moonbat on this subject. But there it is.
|
I'm a little confused by the two parts I've put in bold. Do you mean no one is talking about the legality, but they should be in the first part?
I think the overall effectiveness is going to be impossible to actually evaluate. I think KSigRC is right about how arguments are made to the general population, and so I think the initial linked story is pretty meaningless because it's easy to refute using a similar standard of evidence: this guy says it doesn't work, but this guy says it does, etc.
I agree with Kevin that even if it "works," if it were solely up to me, the US wouldn't use it?*, but I find Pelosi's BS and the general political spin that only terrible Republicans like Cheney out of pure concentrated evilness would do such a thing sort of wearing me down on how much I really care about discussing this practice.
*It's not about what the person being interrogated deserves.
Threaded Mode
