"Harsh Interrogation" should not have secrecy protections

Thank you. I'm beginning to think that this debate has drifted very, very far from its roots. Foreign terrorists: Hey, there is an advantage to living in America. They get the rights of Americans. If the terrorists would move in first, before attacking, it would solve your problems. Gitmo: Are you sure that they base their detentions on likes and dislikes? I'm thinking they use a bit more reason than that. I am strongly against the idea of the Japanese-American Internment camps, but that's a different debate, and we'd be on the same side. World Peace: I don't. I advocate exterminating the terrorists. Terrorists attack: I'm not in support of plowing through foreign nations and killing everyone in our paths. I'm in support of focusing our attacks only on terrorists. We should focus our efforts on finding out exactly who is the terrorist and who is the innocent civilian. Al-Qaeda: So we helped one side of a war. I don't see a connection to torture. Al-Qaeda imminent bomb: Finally, we have something relevant. We could always use lie detectors. Lie detectors would tell us if they are lying once we torture them. However, if we reveal exactly how our lie detectors work, which would be part of the "harsh interrogation". .. al-Qaeda could train against our lie detectors, and that's millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars defeated. Terrorist's fault: We shouldn't be abducting every Middle-Easterner we encounter. I agree with you there. We should pick up the ones that we discover to have a connection with al-Qaeda, and were part of the 9-11 plan. Proof: You haven't shown a single case where a "terrorist" WASN'T allowed a trial. We both lack proof. And I asked for proof of illegal torturing, and you didn't show any. Maybe we "torture" captives by asking them trick questions to mess with their minds and recording everything with a lie detector? Maybe we show them "harsh" movies to scare them into submission? Maybe the government decided to hire Mark Harmon to use for interrogation? Al-Qaeda: Yes, we started a civil war. People died in our Civil War; it was the deadliest war in our nation. However, we think of it as kind of a good thing. You know why? Because it had a happy ending. There might be a happy ending in this war, too. Can't you see the morning after? Wrongdoing: The Geneva Convention cited honorable warfare, if I remember correctly. That means that when a war is not honorable, all applications collapse. Torturing innocents is wrong. However, I'm defending the torture of the guilty. US and China: You didn't say who China was torturing, so I'm going to assume that it's a group of radical terrorists who don't play by honorable warfare, and are completely known to be guilty. In that case, I'm on China's side. Terrorism: Simple. They don't attack us, we don't attack them. They attack us, we destroy them. They can no longer attack back. Terrorism: We're attacking the terrorists, not the innocent civilians. At least, that's the only part I'm supporting. Striking back: It's an intelligence tool that allows for revenge. If the terrorists moved to America, we wouldn't torture them when we caught them. If they never became terrorists in the first place, we wouldn't even have to catch them. National Threat: We released photos of what we did to Abu Ghirab? Sadly, I don't know who Abu Ghirab is, or what we actually did to him, and you apparently aren't going to tell me. Guilty: You don't know that they weren't a known terrorist. The government knows more about them than you. I never accused every Muslim or Arab of being a terrorist, but we should do something about the ones who are. Human rights: No, those who strike terror into a nation and mass-kill innocent civilians in an unexpected attack are terrorists. You don't really have any proof that we don't know of any terrorism. We might have captured someone before he blew himself up; you don't know that, and nor do I. Most of your arguments are pure speculation. You haven't proved that our "harsh interrogation" is criminal. It makes a difference whether the war they are a prisoner for is honorable or not. It makes a huge difference. Eye for an eye? They killed our innocent people, so they deserve to die. Genocide cannot fight genocide. It makes no sense. We should not bomb Arab civilians; we should snipe their terrorists. We are above the terrorists, if we attack them, and not their civilians. The American people did not ask for war; nor did the Middle Easterners. Extremists asked for war, so the government sets up an army to take care of them, not all of the Middle East. But the terrorists attacked the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. This makes us mad. Now, to reiterate two reasons why "harsh interrogation" should have secrecy protection: 1. Terrorists can protect against them. Lie detectors can be fought if word spreads about how they operate. It is much harder to fight torture if you don't actually know what the torture is beforehand. This reason alone is enough reason for government. 2. Terrorists can use them against us. If the terrorists learn a nifty interrogation technique from us, they're sure to start to use it on our army soldiers. We really don't want to see our fellow countrymen being felled by techniques that we came up with; let al-Qaeda come up with their own techniques! We use good resources to come up with our own, and they should do the same! Thank you for your time.