I dislike the thought of secrecy, but this is logical. Maybe it should also be part of some intelligence sub-committee's overview tasks. If there is a known group doing overview, it should arrest some of the fears.The U.S. could enunciate a policy on interrogations that both adheres to our fundamental moral principles yet acknowledges the reality that unconventional combatants in our care must be placed in some discomfort if they are to be effectively debriefed. Yet, if we spell out too clearly what will and what won't be tolerated in interrogations, our enemies will know just what they have to endure and will likely be able to resist divulging anything useful.
On the other hand, secrecy and poorly delineated rules breeds unaccountable behavior and emboldens the government to overstep into what it only later learns is publicly unacceptable terrain. Rougher tactics will inevitably be exposed, and this exposure will do serious harm to America's moral standing in the world, impairing our ability to chastise regimes from Kazakhstan to Cairo.
There are also links to polls about whether torture should be allowed or not. The ABC poll linked in the article is a bit suspect since it states:
Of course the arguments are not available. Read the linked article, some of the statements don't seem to make sense to me.Given pro and con arguments, 63 percent in an ABC News/Washington Post poll say torture is never acceptable, even when other methods fail and authorities believe the suspect has information that could prevent terrorist attacks. Thirty-five percent say torture is acceptable in some such cases.
The Fox Poll is directly quoted in the article with the specific questioned asked.
No question as to what was asked there. See the Title link for the poll results.Do you favor or oppose allowing the government to use any means necessary, including physical torture, to obtain information from prisoners that might protect the United States from terrorist attacks?*
No comments:
Post a Comment