From what I saw, yes-or-no questions with obvious answers were used multiple times, which is a novice mistake during an interrogation, since anyone allowed on the front lines is taught to withstand interrogation via admission to whatever the enemy wants to hear, so that the truth is therefore masked. Admit to everything, even contradictory statements, and the interrogator has nothing useful to take from you. The only way to successfully prove or disprove the use or lack thereof of torture would be with trained professionals handling the interrogation, and not one of your published studies on the subject has used that.

Sorry, had this debate one too many times with co-workers, so I can smell that argument coming.

Versus a couple of hundred NON-CITIZENS who just happened to be shooting at us, transporting weapons, or otherwise engaged in activities inimical to the civilized world (not just the US).

IMO they should have been, and (NOT my opinion, but liable under provisions of the vaunted Geneva Conventions) shot where they were found. They have no rights under US law. AFAIC, those who argue that they do are enemies of civilization as well. If we need to get time-critical information from them in a timely manner, I say go for it, using the most effective means possible.

‘Course, you and yer pals’d rather go over there and chat ‘em up while drinking tea with your pinkies extended . . . until they sawed your heads off.

“Anyone under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart. Anyone over 30 who is not a conservative has no brain.” -Unk.

Neither is it an occupation. If it were so, we and other coalition members would be running the government, the courts, the police, the schools, etc. We are not; we are simply providing security until the Iraqis are self sufficient in this regard.

Frankly, and I say this with a straight face, I feel as safe now as I did before 9/11. Well, from terrorists… from the government… not so much (thanks Patriot Act)

If precedent being set is what you’re concerned about… it was already set. Have you forgotten our imprisonment of German Americans in WW1 and Japanese Americans in WW2? Not only did the government not have proof they did anything wrong, the government _admitted_ they had done nothing wrong and that it was just a preventative measure. Thousands lost their homes, businesses, and land. Familys were split up and people lost everything.

It was worse than anything in Gitmo by an order of magnitude. So, if there was precedent set, it wasn’t by Dubya. If anything we have shown restraint compared to what our country has done in the past.

Dictonary.com shows “Invade” to mean
“to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease.

to intrude upon.

to penetrate; spread into or over”

Just because they got past our security doesn’t mean they didn’t invade.

9/11 was neither a rebellion nor an invasion.

2. The U.S. signed the U.N. Charter and the U.N. Treaty.

3. The U.N. Charter specifies that no signatory nation may declare war without U.N. approval.

4. The U.N. did not approve Bush’s plan to go to war in Iraq.

Therefore the war in Iraq is illegal. QED.

Except for the fourth amendment. And, my gun loving friends argue, the second.

2. The U.S. is not a Police State. If you see martial law enacted anywhere, let me know

Ask the liberal activists in Minnesota who were harassed by the police if they agree.

3. There’s technically no such thing as an “illegal war” since all states don’t have to answer to each other. The US also never signed the Geneva Convention, but we follow it (for the most part) anyways.

UN Charter baby! We started it, and now that it pinches *our* expansionist goals, we whine about it.
4. There is no bill called the “If You Don’t Like It You’re a Terrorist Act.” Which exactly is being referred to?

USA Patriot Act includes vague language that makes it a crime to speak out against the USA Patriot Act. (Well, in theory, anyway. I admit I don’t expect to see it used against me personally.)

You can run around saying the whole system has been corrupted, but that’s tinfoil hat nonsense. The only people who have been “screwed” by broader law enforcement powers are criminals. I don’t see thousands of innocent people being rounded up and locked away like during WW1 and WW2 right here in our own country. Hell I think even in Gitmo there are only a few hundred people, and none of them is Joe Average American Citizen with no ties to terrorists.

The government isn’t going to waste their time arresting people that are just going to waste space and money unless they have a damn good reason. These academic arguments about rights are fine and dandy, but lets look at the reality of whats happening. There hasn’t been this massive usurping of rights that has just devastated the freedoms of all Americans, like some around here want us to believe.

I have all the same rights I had 10 years ago. In fact the only way I’ve been affected personally with the new laws since 9/11 is inconvenience when travelling via air.

Let’s be frank here, unless you’re an Arab American with a close family member or acquaintance who is affiliated with terrorists, you’re probably not going to attract much attention from the government. They don’t have the time, money or resources to go around wiretapping random Americans without a court order, like some here would have us believe is going on.

The UN was never designed to govern over countries; it’s original purpose was to stop wars from happening through open communication. Just because the UN doesn’t see it fit to send in their troops as well means the war is “illegal,” they try to keep their people to peace efforts; especially considering they get the sloppy seconds of NATO and have trouble holding their own against some guys with AKs and RPGs. Even in the UN-sanctioned Korean War, over 90% of troops were US; asking permission is more of a formality than anything.