Why don't they flee to a different part of Mexico?
If we're willing to admit that there is as serious terrorist issue here, why aren't we deploying to Mexico?
Or, in that case, if amnesty is the answer, why don't we just invite all the Afghans/Iraqis on over and just ignore the problem in their countries, like we do with Mexico?
I might also add to that definition, those things which induce extreme physical pain and near-death situations.
Waterboarding, for example, is basically repeated controlled drowning, to prevent the victim from actually dying, but to cause repeated mental and physical pain.
The point standing, however, is that even if that person is tried in court, and sentenced to life in prison, it still does not mean that he or she will give up the kind of information that could prevent something like the 9/11 attacks.
If we know a person has knowledge that could save hundreds or thousands of people, to what extent should we go to in order to ascertain that information?
Do we ask politely?
Do we think that prison is enough to make them talk?
Specifically the use of torture against a small number of positively identified high-level terrorists.
I'm not at all suggesting we just go around torturing people on whims, nor is that the way we do it anyhow.
There isn't any point in torturing someone like a mass murderer, because it doesn't gain you anything useful.
A 'key target' terrorist is going to have intimate knowledge of plans-in-action that can be prevented, thereby saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of innocent bystanders.
RE: To those that are anti-Firearms ownership...
I don't get it.Why are they being forced to flee into Texas?
Why don't they flee to a different part of Mexico?
If we're willing to admit that there is as serious terrorist issue here, why aren't we deploying to Mexico?
Or, in that case, if amnesty is the answer, why don't we just invite all the Afghans/Iraqis on over and just ignore the problem in their countries, like we do with Mexico?
Where's the consistency?