Randy Smith wrote:
>
> >From: "Smigrodzki, Rafal" <SmigrodzkiR@MSX.UPMC.EDU>
> >
> >### There is IMO nothing wrong with narcoanalysis, and no reason why it
> >shouldn't be used to interrogate suspected terrorists, tax evaders,
> >politicians before and after elections, as well as candidates for hire on
> >the police force. I do not see any relationship of this subject to torture.
> >
> >The government should start openly using and popularizing narcoanalysis for
> >public and private use.
> There are probably good points on both sides of this argument. However, the
> point that I would like to bring into the public "debate" is that being an
> American citizen gives you certain rights and benefits when in America.
Rights and benefits that were not very tightly enforced or observed in
the Cold War against Americans who aided and abetted Communism.
Prisoners of War do not get the same consideration that common criminals
do.
Furthermore, our rules of detainment are not written in Constitutional
stone. The constitution says nothing about how long we may detain
prisoners of war. The fact that we detained prisoners of war, on US
soil, for many years without trial, in the past, indicates that this is
not so cut and dry as Samantha and others would care to huff over. You
do not detain prisoners of war in order to have them stand trial. You
detain them to prevent the enemy from further using them against you.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:15 MDT