Why the threat of terror is still so real.

[??????????]

Check this out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/08/politics/08plot.html?th

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[??????????]

Check this out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/08/politics/08plot.html?th

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. The threat is still real, if over-hyped.

So what is overhyped in your opinion?

[??????????]

It's important to remember that a common ploy of apprehended Al Qeada collaborators is to "confess" a phoney plot in order to get America to react to it, wasting time and resources that costs millions--and all it costs them is words.  The intelligence community has to really work hard to extract what's credible.  Tough job, and that if you're successful no one knows you even did it.

I think we should have tougher methods to remove true information from terrorists. Water dunking is a good technique.

[??????????]

I would not be happy about it but I know nothing myself or any politician could do would stop it.

[??????????]

I would not be happy about it but I know nothing myself or any politician could do would stop it.

I disagree.  There are adversaries who understand the consequences of violating internationally recognized standards of prisoner treatment.  So long as the U.S. stands by those standards, many are intimidated into doing the same.  Not all, but many.  If we abandon those standards, we submit our fighting men and women to an old hell of war that we don't endure right now.  I just don't think it's worth it...and besides, the effectiveness of torture for the sake of information extraction is highly overestimated.

I would lean against it against organized armies but I think against thug terrorists they have no want to follow international law. We need to be brutal with them as they only understand violence.

[??????????]

I would not be happy about it but I know nothing myself or any politician could do would stop it.

I disagree.  There are adversaries who understand the consequences of violating internationally recognized standards of prisoner treatment.  So long as the U.S. stands by those standards, many are intimidated into doing the same.  Not all, but many.  If we abandon those standards, we submit our fighting men and women to an old hell of war that we don't endure right now.  I just don't think it's worth it...and besides, the effectiveness of torture for the sake of information extraction is highly overestimated.

I would lean against it against organized armies but I think against thug terrorists they have no want to follow international law. We need to be brutal with them as they only understand violence.

Just remember, we need to prove them guilty of the crime before anything like that could be done. Asking them to confess before guilt is proven is fine, but torture, if necessary to be used, is reserved for the guilty.

If they fire one round at our soldiers I'd consider them automatically guilty. We can no win this war through the courts. These "people" only understand one thing, violence.

[??????????]

I would not be happy about it but I know nothing myself or any politician could do would stop it.

I disagree.  There are adversaries who understand the consequences of violating internationally recognized standards of prisoner treatment.  So long as the U.S. stands by those standards, many are intimidated into doing the same.  Not all, but many.  If we abandon those standards, we submit our fighting men and women to an old hell of war that we don't endure right now.  I just don't think it's worth it...and besides, the effectiveness of torture for the sake of information extraction is highly overestimated.

I would lean against it against organized armies but I think against thug terrorists they have no want to follow international law. We need to be brutal with them as they only understand violence.

Just remember, we need to prove them guilty of the crime before anything like that could be done. Asking them to confess before guilt is proven is fine, but torture, if necessary to be used, is reserved for the guilty.

If they fire one round at our soldiers I'd consider them automatically guilty. We can no win this war through the courts. These "people" only understand one thing, violence.

Well, of course if we see them firing at soldiers it's pretty much automatically guilty, I'm not talking about them though. I'm talking about those who are not captured on the field of battle, ones that are arrested under suspicion of collaborating with the enemy, but have yet to be proven to be.

How would you get information out of them? I have no problem with slapping them around a little bit or depriving them of sleep to get answers.

[??????????]

I would not be happy about it but I know nothing myself or any politician could do would stop it.

I disagree.  There are adversaries who understand the consequences of violating internationally recognized standards of prisoner treatment.  So long as the U.S. stands by those standards, many are intimidated into doing the same.  Not all, but many.  If we abandon those standards, we submit our fighting men and women to an old hell of war that we don't endure right now.  I just don't think it's worth it...and besides, the effectiveness of torture for the sake of information extraction is highly overestimated.

I would lean against it against organized armies but I think against thug terrorists they have no want to follow international law. We need to be brutal with them as they only understand violence.

Just remember, we need to prove them guilty of the crime before anything like that could be done. Asking them to confess before guilt is proven is fine, but torture, if necessary to be used, is reserved for the guilty.

If they fire one round at our soldiers I'd consider them automatically guilty. We can no win this war through the courts. These "people" only understand one thing, violence.

Well, of course if we see them firing at soldiers it's pretty much automatically guilty, I'm not talking about them though. I'm talking about those who are not captured on the field of battle, ones that are arrested under suspicion of collaborating with the enemy, but have yet to be proven to be.

How would you get information out of them? I have no problem with slapping them around a little bit or depriving them of sleep to get answers.

And, if they are suspected, but actually innocent?

We apologize but we have to do what we have to do to win.

[??????????]

Check this out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/08/politics/08plot.html?th

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. The threat is still real, if over-hyped.

So what is overhyped in your opinion?

The terror alerts. I'm sick of getting an alert every two hours. Especially these 'blanket warnings'

It's fine when there is specific info, but right now the govt is just scaremongering.

I don't remember being warned every 2 hours. They just captured a very credible animal who gave us detailed information on Al Qeada targets. I guess that info is vague, huh?