Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[kandrathe]

You have no problem with the CIA actively violating the sovereignty of a nation? Do other nations get to do this to you, or is this just a privilege reserved for Americans? Being supportive of reform and giving sanctuary to political exiles is one thing. Actively attempting to overthrow the government of another country is quite another. It's a line the US would not tolerate crossing in almost any other circumstances. The mere suggestion would be a serious diplomatic incident.

Sure, infiltrate away. I'm already a big hockey fan, and if I were to drink beer, I'm sure it would be Canadian (yes, I know you are living in Britain now. :)) although I used to really dig Modello Negro.

Seriously, I would say the philosophical enemies of everything that western democracy stands for are already well placed in every public school from kindergarten to Phd level. What need have you to send any more subversives, as we already are so good at doing it to ourselves. As for insurgencies, we have them as well, which is why we now have an overzealous DHS.

Pretty much never.

And for any other 3rd world thug? There never was, and never will be a peep of protest from the liberals. Why?

But... if you go on any, and I repeat ANY public university campus in the US, you will find the perennial "Protesting Student Organization" marching around with drums and bullhorns demanding that the US government does something different than it is doing. Which is fine, they have the right to peacefully protest the color of canned peas if they so desire. Why do we NEVER see them protesting against the actions of our enemies? Iran is holding an Iranian American woman, Roxana Saberi, on drummed up charges of spying. Where is the liberal outrage? Wait, I guess her alma matter did organize one rally. It seems that in times like this, they quietly remain mute, waiting for the next opportunity when the US does something that they can break out their drum kit to march against.

Like the title of this thread, I consider what words mean like "torture". For example, eppie just compared the US strapping a terrorist to a board and producing the fear of drowning, to Russian soldiers in Chechnya, raping women, beating people to death, cutting off fingers, setting people on fire, cutting them with glass, and gouging out eye balls. So, I question what the word "torture" means as we casually fling it about labeling actions with that word.

To give you some perspective on me; So, like HRW, I've been a member of AI for over 20 years, and while it is hard to stomach the continual bashing of my country by the more liberal devotees, sometimes they make me consider why we do the things we do. I belong to AI, because I believe it helps to actively write letters to 3rd world dictators and their governments asking them to show mercy towards people who I feel are wrongly imprisoned. It is a little thing that I can do to add my voice to thousands, or millions which might, maybe, in just a little way influence someone to do what I believe is the right thing to do. But, unlike many of the people in AI, I'm probably more discerning about choosing which causes I will support. Many people in AI are like the noisy Protesting Student Organization where the unrestrained cacophony of protesting everything just reveals the one truth of these PSO's in that what they are really against is the US government and any action they make. So, I reserve my protests for people who I feel are truly innocent, or those who are political prisoners, or convicted of things that would be protected in a free democracy.

Speaking of which, I will point out that the Bay of Pigs (and the exploding cigar) were done under the watch of two great liberal heroes, the Brothers Kennedy.

Yes, I wonder how liberals explain away the "actions" of their heroes. It was interesting to see how those betrayed by Bill Clinton reacted to his lack of "change" in Washington. It is equally interesting to see how the rhetoric rubber of the Barack campaign trail hits the road of policy and action. For example, it is a great rally cry to talk of closing Gitmo, but quite another thing to figure out what to do with someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the other terrorists who we just don't want to be running around free. So you don't like holding them in Cuba, then maybe we turn Kalaupapa, Hawaii into a terrorist internment camp. No one in the contiguous 48 or Alaska would certainly think of housing a terrorist prison.

So, I wonder when will the overwhelming sense of liberal betrayal by Barack sink in, or I would say dealing finally with reality rather than slogans and pipe dreams? We are nearing the end of the honeymoon period for Presidents, so it will be interesting to see what happens over the next six months.

On the other hand, you are advocating that the US continue its unproductive, pointless blockade.

Yes, we should do more to make the embargo (siege) more effective and productive.

As for the relationship with Cuba being more trouble than benefit, I think that the families who are trying to travel to Cuba, to see their relatives without having to commit a serious crime, feel a little bit differently.

Nobody forced them onto the boat to Florida... Wait, I guess Fidel forced them. Who is the bad guy here? The US for implementing a severe policy (short of war) against the bad guy, or the bad guy?

The cost in lost trade is also considerable...

Huh? You are talking profit motives? <reaches for the oxygen canister>

No, I don't think we really don't need them, and on principles, we can afford to avoid dealing with criminals. We should take any other Caribbean nation, like say Honduras or Belize, and help make them rich instead.

What are the benefits of keeping it closed?

First, it becomes more meaningless when our allies don't follow through to contain these thugs (ie. Saddam), because they are greedy, or spineless, or maybe they aren't really our friends. Second, it sends a message to every Castro wannabe that the result of actively seeking to threaten the US with nuclear weapons will result in at least isolation. Third, moral certitude, which, can be politically expedient as a cheap recourse to war and sells well to the hawks domestically. Siege is an effective strategy, like it or not.