"Harsh Interrogation" should not have secrecy protections

=== REBUTTALS TO CON === Geneva accords: I never made it past basic training, but when I enlisted in 1994, the Geneva conventions were one of the first things taught that we must abide by. We were taught that, in the event of being captured, we must give our name and military ID to our captors, and nothing else ... and the rules of war from the Geneva convention. I challenge my opponent to show where the U.S. constitutions on rights and freedoms of people are restricted to U.S. citizens. Where, in the Constitution, does it say we may do with as we please with the citizens of other countries? In regards to terrorist, how many of those tortured prisoners had been convicted of terrorism? How many were merely fingered by someone who didn't like them, denied due process and locked up merely on the word of someone? Germany: You missed my facetious. If you believe the ends justify the means, and Nazi genocide against all other races results in world peace (because everyone different is dead, there is no one to fight), then applying your reasoning to Hitler's hope for the future makes it a good thing, the means of getting there being irrelevant. Absolute power: There is no honorable way to use dishonorable means. There is no justifiable use of torture. NONE. Justice is not about blind vengeance, eye for an eye. al-Qaeda: The results of our torture interrogations told us Hussein had links with al-Qaeda. Given we know that information is false, that it created phantom targets and in making an unprovoked invasion of Iraq, we actually weakened our international support and drove millions of Arabs to join al-Qaeda. If we cannot protect ourselves and win with honorable tactics, not resorting to terrorism and torture ourselves, how are we any better than those we call our enemy? al-Qaeda imminent bomb: That's how we wound up with the "slam dunk intelligence" that told us Saddam Hussein had nukes and links to al-Qaeda. You'll never get reliable information from torture ... if someone doesn't know, they'll tell you what you want them to tell you instead of valid information. The only reason to hide human rights abuses is to keep from answering for them, and that's the wrong reason. We are supposed to be a nation of freedom, liberty and justice for all, not drumhead trials, conviction without due process, and most definitely not supposed to be ones to inflict vengeful cruel and unusual punishments. I regret that you, like so many others, disagree ... it truly makes me ashamed. In continuing to be an American citizen, this dishonor and disgrace dishonors and disgraced myself. I most definitely will not stay silent about it. I'd rather die with honor than live committing evil. Terrorist's fault: I suppose it was the Japanese Americans' fault for us interning them, even though most were loyal U.S. citizens, during WW2. I suppose it was the Native American's fault for daring to live here and stand in the way of Manifest Destiny. I suppose it was the Jew's fault for not converting to Christianity under Hitler's Germany or in the Spanish Inquisition. Did they all get what they deserved? Again, I re-iterate, not a single terrorist held at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib nor any of our other prisons were tried in just court. Not a single one was convicted of terrorism. By the very long-standing definition of our justice system -- innocent until proven guilty -- they were all innocent. In fact, there is good cause to believe a majority of them had no links to terrorism, but were at the wrong place at the wrong time, or one of our informants merely didn't like them for one reason or another. There's no verification, no truth, no justice. 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? Iraq wasn't even a valid target, al-Qaeda had virtually no presence in the country until we took out the Hussein regime which, while terrible, kept al-Qaeda out of the country. al-Qaeda is now stronger with much of the Arab world more sympathetic to them than to the U.S. than before the Iraq war. Torture, the war against Iraq ... these things have made the U.S. more vulnerable with fewer friends and more enemies. In that sense, those who ordered torture and derived "slam-dunk intelligence" as a result to make the case for a war with Iraq should be tried as traitors, not protected under national secrets. They've endangered the security of the people of the United States far more severely than any bonafide Middle Eastern Terrorist. Using the same logic you apply to "they deserve to be tortured," for our wrongdoing, haven't we earned and now deserve terrorist retribution? If you don't think we do, explain why not. I don't think we do, because I do not follow your reasoning, as it does not work and when I turn your own reasoning around, I cannot see how you could still cling to it, perhaps you could show me. We started a war with the Middle East long before 2001. We have attempted to overthrow Middle Eastern governments in Iran and Iraq in our global sphere of influence expansionism. If we had not done such interference, there would be little support for the extremists to lash back at the "infidels" who bomb them. We gave Hussein chemical and biological weapons, armed and supported his totalitarian genocide because we thought he'd be better than the previous regime. We struck the first blows. U.S. and China: You completely missed what I was saying. EVERY PERSON ACCUSED OF A CRIME deserves a fair and impartial hearing. The crime does not matter -- whether its terrorism or torture, murder or rape. If there is no justice, we are not leading by example and any complaints we make about other regimes violating human rights fall flat because we are being hypocritical. I do not understand your difficulty in grasping the concept that if we are committing torture, why we would have less of a standing in getting other nations like China to stop torturing. Similar goes for terrorism -- whereas other regimes, desperate and without the U.S.' technology, feel compelled to resort to "suicide bombers," we kill a lot more by pushing a button to launch a missile or drop the "enemy" cannot defend against. If you want to stop terrorism against the U.S., the first thing you should do is stop committing terrorism. Terrorism begets terrorism. Eye for an eye is endless violence until one "side" is exterminated. One Reason: So you think we can commit any evil to fight another evil, and it does not cost us a moral high ground? I find a terribly ethnocentric ambiguity in your perspective. Techniques on al-Qaeda: Fighting fire with fire means we are no better than the other side using fire. Of course China would acknowledge we are fighting fire with fire, and that will justify their oppression and torture against religious and political dissidents. We are not a just and honorable nation if we do not practice justice and honor when faced with injustice and dishonor. If we don't attack and abuse them, they won't gain support and endless new recruits. 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. 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. 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!