Originally Posted by ForeverNight
That may be, however I am making the point that they are not under any circumstances covered by Geneva, since a Terrorist goes after Civilian targets to make the most terrifying impression they can. And, as Jae pointed out in another thread, purposely targeting Civilians is against the laws and customs of war.
I don't know if they should be tortured. But, if the information needed is needed at that very moment in order to avert a catastrophe then I say go ahead and do it. If that case cannot be made... then, well, it matters on how badly the information is needed and what is done with it, and then if it was proven that they are indeed terrorists.
That why innocent farmers are locked up in Gitmo then?
I have already pointed out that it is a psychological FACT, that intelligence gathered under torture is not reliable, ever
. You can ignore this, and pretend the world works as Jack Baur would have you think, however the facts are very different. As once you have "cracked" someone they will tell you whatever you want to hear, to make you stop them torturing. So if someone is going to give good intelligence torture isn't needed.
But fine, play little legal games with Geneva Convention. Though how do you establish if someone is a terrorist or not, without a court to view the evidence? The legal system, stands or falls on innocent until proven guilty. You'll forgive me for not trusting the UK and US governments, after say Iraq the Global Economic melt down etc...
But just to play your little game; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...f_Human_Rights