I think it is.
I mean sure the U.S will occasionally arrest someone who's innocent and they're tortured for a few months, and I know this is bad, but it's better safe than sorry.
Also, if evidence surfaces that they're innocent, then they get released.
Bush supports torture and I'm behind him on that. What would happen if there was a threat of an attack tomorrow and you desperately needed the information? The bottom line is, torture is the right thing to do.
Liberal communists who are against this say that the information that you get from torture tends to not be that accurate because if you torture someone for long enough, you can get them to confess to anything you would like them to, even if it's not true.
Once, again though, it comes down to "better safe than sorry."
2007-02-07
09:41:53
·
19 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics