[detbuch]

Spence: and yet another smaller portion, but maybe too long for you:

Original quote by Spence:
"(2) That doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't think there's any real evidence that torture does work and most experts seem to believe there are better methods. If it's not likely to work and likely illegal why would you do it?"

Response by Detbuch:
"As for that 'illegal' bit, again, the hypocrisy, and worse, of getting what you want politically by trashing your own laws, then demanding that even in desperate times your opposition must not only follow some law based on foreign notions and cooperation, those very laws which not only deprive you of sovereignty, but evolved from some original feasible and sensible notion to the present height of silliness, is all not only astounding but is self-destructive. There have been several U.N. conventions since the original laws on torture of 'legally' combatant prisoners were agreed to. The original notion that all parties WHO SIGNED ON TO THE AGREEMENT would be deterred from torturing each other's prisoners, otherwise, quid pro quo, if you torture mine I'll torture yours. That evolved over time and conventions (due to what were perceived to be 'socially Just' humanitarian values) to the prohibition of 'torture' by a signatory party, even if the other party did not sign on or even if it did torture.

The 'terrorists' that we 'tortured' were not 'legal' uniformed combatants of a sovereign nation which had signed on to the U.N. agreement on torture. And they have, and continue so, tortured and brutally execute, not only uniformed military, but non-combatant civilians. Yet whom, by U. N. convention, we were not allowed to 'torture.' Which, I think, would 'seem to be believed' by 'most' Americans to be stupid."

I realize the length of this may stretch you ability to a breaking point. But if you can handle it, give it a go.