"Harsh Interrogation" should not have secrecy protections

"Geneva accords..." So we are in accordance with the Geneva Convention? If this is true, then I stand corrected. "I challenge my opponent to show where the U.S. constitutions on rights and freedoms of people are restricted to U.S. citizens...." The way I interpret the Constitution, when it says, "the people," it is referring only to THE people of the United States, not to everybody in the world. Foreign terrorists obviously do not fall under this category, and so it can be said that should the Supreme Court choose, foreign terrorists are not protected by the Constitution. "In regards to terrorist, how many of those tortured prisoners had been convicted of terrorism?..." I have no clue. Do you know that this has ever actually occurred? You bear the burden of proof. "Germany..." World peace would still not be achieved because in an oppressive government, the people will always abort until they succeed. And mass genocide of innocent people is NEVER justified. "Absolute power..." You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. And my opinion is that when the terrorists attack Americans on U.S. soil, they basically signed their own death warrants. We must attack them with a vengeance. I'm sure that that is what the thousands who died in 9/11 would want. "Al-Qaeda..." Our enemy started it. They attacked us. We destroy them with any means we can. How do we know that Hussein had links with al-Qaeda? "Al-Qaeda imminent bomb..." If they lie, we can just keep torturing them. There are more reasons, including that once the public knows, al-Qaeda knows, and we don't want that. Additionally, we are a nation of freedom and justice. That's why we hunt down threats to national security so that they don't harm innocent people. Do you have any proof that we convict people who we think are terrorists who aren't terrorists? "Terrorist's fault..." Okay, I disagreed with the Japanese, Native American, and Jewish persecutions. This, however, is different. The terrorists are the ones who attacked the United States, blew up World Trade Center headquarters (which was actually a blow to the entire world), and damaged the Pentagon. The other people could not have had any knowledge of the unfair consequences. The terrorists should have realized that we would hunt them down for their actions. "Again, I re-iterate, not a single terrorist held at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib nor any of our other prisons were tried in just court...." Do you have any proof of this? Do you have any proof that these people were not convicted of terrorism? Do you have any proof that any of them weren't terrorists? Guantanamo is not part of the residential United States; the Constitution does not fully extend there. "Do the hundreds of thousands (by some counts, up to a million) Iraqi deaths as a result of the war and the anarchy we wrought upon them pay for the 4,000 or so killed on 9-11?..." Who were these Iraqis? Were they friends or enemies? I'm not defending our attacking the whole of Iraq; I'm defending whether we should reveal torture secrets. Al-Qaeda is stronger... we don't want them to be even more powerful by revealing our torture secrets, now do we? "Torture, the war against Iraq ..." Traitors? They were doing what was best for our country. So, who went from a U.S. friend to a U.S. enemy? Middle Eastern Terrorists are capable of some very dangerous actions. I say they are more dangerous than any current foreign problem. "Using the same logic you apply to 'they deserve to be tortured,' for our wrongdoing, haven't we earned and now deserve terrorist retribution?..." Wrongdoing? We're defending ourselves with whatever means we have. I would not consider this a "wrongdoing". "We started a war with the Middle East long before 2001..." http://en.wikipedia.org... According to this, the U.S. was originally just assisting in a war, then enforcing a no-fly zone, then invaded Iraq in 2003. I don't really know what you're talking about. "U.S. and China..." I thought that this debate was about torture, not impartial trials. Now that I think about it, this debate has been going off on many loose ends that are barely connected with torture. Anyways, I don't even see why Chinese torture should get involved. Who is China torturing, anyways? Terrorists? Americans? Chinese? Hobos? Aliens? "Similar goes for terrorism..." They don't attack us; we don't attack them. Simple philosophy, in my opinion. "If you want to stop terrorism against the U.S., the first thing you should do is stop committing terrorism..." Terrorism - the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion http://www.merriam-webster.com... We are not committing terrorism; we are fighting a war against opposing political extremists. "One reason..." Not any evil. It isn't really an evil in the first place. Evil - morally reprehensible http://www.merriam-webster.com... It is a matter of opinion, which everyone is entitled to, but I don't think that striking back against enemies to protect the people of your nation can really be considered "evil." "Techniques on al-Qaeda..." Al-Qaeda is a NATIONAL THREAT. A government's firth duty is to its people. Our government is currently trying to eliminate foreign terrorists. China cannot be considered to be fighting fire with fire; they are fighting the pen with fire. We just have to convince them of that. "If we don't attack and abuse them, they won't gain support and endless new recruits." If they don't attack us, we won't attack them. "No one who has not been convicted in a just court is legally guilty of anything, and there would be no difference in torturing them than some other random innocent person." Being legally guilty and guilty are two different things. Torturing a known terrorist to find the location of a dangerous weapon that is a threat to national security is MUCH different than torturing an innocent two-year old. "Our hostile interrogation techniques should be prosecuted as human rights abuses, the same as was done to Nazis in the Nuremberg trials. Anyone who commits torture or terrorism is an enemy of mine, it does not matter if they operate under the Taliban Flag or the stars and stripes of the U.S. flag." Your enemies are irrelevant. Back to the point, the terrorists are the ones who abused the human's right to life. "The U.S> interrogates terrorists so harshly because we view them as being 'them.' They aren't people because they are different. If we sent soldiers on a suicide mission to mass slaughter civilians, that's okay, but we hold 'them' to different standards because they aren't Americans. BAD!" I think that the group that actually started it should be taken into account. We don't suicide or mass-slaughter civilians. Anyways, just the fact that al-Qaeda can either protect themselves from harsh interrogation or apply harsh interrogation to our prisoners of war is enough reason to keep it a national secret. We put time and effort into coming up with our harsh interrogation techniques, and we don't want them to get to use our hard work. Just a comment, "harsh interrogation" isn't necessarily torture. It could be just messing with their minds. It's over in a second once they confess their information. One last thing, do you have any PROOF that we are torturing anybody using illegal means? Thank you for your time.