Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[Occhidiangela]

That still leaves us with the problem though. If assasination teams are no good, and neither are US or International Law, how should we deal with this? :unsure:

First step, send the assassination teams for you. If they succeed, see if they can handle a tougher missions. And so on, until their limit of effectiveness is reached.

"And neither US nor international law are no good"

You seem to have a problem with equivalence and scope. The very problem of international law is its failures in scope and enforcement, and accountability to the people it is meant to subjugate, rather than serve, which is the purpose of US law for all of its imperfections. THe US law, by limiting itself a bit in scope, and having both checks and balances, as well as structured means of revision, rejection, and improvement, is so far ahead of international law that the two cannot be put into the same sentence unless a deliberate "apples to dog collars" comparison is being made.

To give you an example of how International Law is used as a bludgeon, I offer you lines on the map, Wilsonian Era, being enforced by GHW Bush and his UN Security Council (and other) allies under the pretext of international law in 1990 and 1991.

From Saddam's point of view, it was an absurdity backed up by a massive sledgehammer. His problem was that he was a member nation, and as such had allegedly agreed, by lineage, to abide by this arbitrarily dervied structure.

Sucked to be him, I guess. It was the law of might makes right, which he had tried to enforce on Kuwait. It worked until someone with more might was more right.

That is your international law: might makes right.

Does that answer your foolish question?

Occhi