And it just keeps getting deeper...

[theHawk]

As for torture itself, any information secured by such means is inadmissible in any court of law because was a) secured through coercion and, b) Such evidence is unreliable. Torture does little more than produce false confessions. Good HUMINT and SIGINT will provice far better and more reliable intel than torture ever has or ever will.

Whoever said information extracted via torture should be or would be used in a court of law? The purpose of gathering any such intelligence would be to prevent terrorist attacks or to help hunt down terrorists in our war against jihadists. This is a war, not a policing action with trials to be held for each and every terrorist we come across.

[glockmail]

Whoever said information extracted via torture should be or would be used in a court of law? The purpose of gathering any such intelligence would be to prevent terrorist attacks or to help hunt down terrorists in our war against jihadists. This is a war, not a policing action with trials to be held for each and every terrorist we come across.

You might just as well be talking to a wall. Libs like bullypulpit think that wars should be fought like police actions, with terrorists given all the rights and privileges given American citizens, and with the burden of capture without excessive force, evidence gathering, legal preparation, jury trials with the burden of proof on the US military, and of course an appeal process.

[bullypulpit]

Whoever said information extracted via torture should be or would be used in a court of law? The purpose of gathering any such intelligence would be to prevent terrorist attacks or to help hunt down terrorists in our war against jihadists. This is a war, not a policing action with trials to be held for each and every terrorist we come across.

As usual, you ignore the part which shoots your argument in the ass...

<blockquote>As for torture itself, any information secured by such means is inadmissible in any court of law because was a) secured through coercion and, b) Such evidence is unreliable. <b><i>Torture does little more than produce false confessions. Good HUMINT and SIGINT will provice far better and more reliable intel than torture ever has or ever will</i></b>.</blockquote>

Torture produces little in the way of actionable, let alone reliable intel. But you really don't want to hear that, now do you.

<blockquote><b>Does the U.S. lose valuable information if torture is prohibited?</b>

Torture is as likely to yield false information as it is to yield the truth. Cesare Beccaria, the eighteenth century philosopher whose critique of torture remains influential today, observed that when a person is tortured, the "impression of pain…may increase to such a degree, that, occupying the mind entirely, it will compel the sufferer to use the shortest method of freeing himself from torment…[H]e will accuse himself of crimes of which he is innocent." Beccaria also pointed out the problem of using torture to discover the accused's accomplices: "Will not the man who [under torture falsely] accuses himself yet more readily accuse others?" [Beccaria, Cesare, Of Crimes and Punishments. (15 Nov. 2001).] . Contemporary law enforcement professionals concur. Oliver Ravel, former deputy director of the FBI, has stated that force is not effective: "people will even admit they killed their grandmother, just to stop the beatings." Indeed, the unreliability of forced confessions was one of the principal reasons that U.S. courts originally prohibited their use.

The prohibition on torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading conduct does not leave the government helpless before terrorists. Convictions in recent cases involving terrorism show that investigators currently have the means and legal methods to acquire the evidence necessary for successful prosecutions. - <a href=http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/11/TortureQandA.htm#prohibited>Human Rights Watch</a></blockquote>

[theHawk]

As usual, you ignore the part which shoots your argument in the ass...

<blockquote>As for torture itself, any information secured by such means is inadmissible in any court of law because was a) secured through coercion and, b) Such evidence is unreliable. <b><i>Torture does little more than produce false confessions. Good HUMINT and SIGINT will provice far better and more reliable intel than torture ever has or ever will</i></b>.</blockquote>

Wrong sir, its your opinion that it only produces false confessions. I'm not saying it would work all the time, but it should be an option because it could very well work.