That's a long answer! Do I do it injustice by summarising it as, the government knows that rounding up sleeper cells would prove unpopular, and in election year, it would be foolish to alienate voters?

What a cynical risk for them to take with people's lives, just to avoid political disadvantage. Stripedangel said that we don't know where or when they [the sleepers] will attack. That's presumably the Government line. So, there's a risk that there'll be another WTC, and the authorities know this. Yet they are prepared to gamble on US lives - or if they are lucky, on Spanish, British or Saudi lives instead - so as not to jeopardise McCain's chances of election. From over here, the Democrat vote looks split anyway, and most anti-torture, bed-wetting liberals would tend to vote Democrat rather than Republican, so why worry?

On the other hand, you imply that in any other year, they would be rounded up. What? Has this world-wide cell only just been discovered (assuming it really does exist, and is not just made-up to keep us all on edge)? I don't think so. It's not election year in Britain or France or Spain (so far as I know). Why don't those countries round them up? Answer - they can't. They have no proof of wrong-doing.

Going back to the question of torture, I think, that despite the fact that politicians are a bunch of self-seeking megalomaniacs with no real thought for the well-being of their constituents, other than to keep them voting the way they "should", they do pay more than lip-service to the rule of law. After all, they make the laws and the rules of the dirty game they are playing. Even they have to observe certain rules. It is the politicians who have signed up to treaties and conventions against torture because even they are not prepared to condone it openly.

The USA has signed and ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, so it should not now cavil about it. No torture means no torture: there are no exceptions -

Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
However, reading your post again, I feel we have achieved some kind of consensus. Torture is futile. You say, "no super secret intel was gathered from the captivity and torture of any Japs." I'm sure you are right, and conclude that all that was done was to cause unnecessary pain and humiliation.

But then you go on to say that your "well-intentioned" government has been ham-strung by people-who-engage-in-sexual-intercourse (you do that, don't you?) from waterboarding one or two of its unwilling guests - how else do you describe people who have been picked up at gunpoint, deported to a place that is (hopefully) subject only to military (do I mean summary?) justice, kept in cages like animals, subjected to mental torture and deprived of legal representation or POW rights, and then let go without charge or proof of guilt of any kind. Well-intentioned be buggered! I'm sorry, I just can't accept that good intentions justify degrading people for no good and certain purpose. Nor do I accept the supposition that the government is well-intentioned.

Mr Fixit: Surely this type of tactic has been reserved for a specific few that, based on credible intel, have implicated that use of such an extreme tactic would prove beneficial to uncover further life saving credible intel."
It hasn't though, has it? As for "credible intel", I seriously doubt the West is capable of gaining it: so let's not have more "WMD" scare stories.

You say the public should be unaware of most of what your intel says. Why? Because it reveals illegal acts that, if the public knew were taking place, it just would not tolerate it? Or because it's based on a universty student's essay that draws upon information already in the public domain, and the public would be horrified at the government's ineptitude, and the money and lives it was costing?


I cannot answer your question "Based on American history, what do you think would happen if we started rounding up sleeper cells" My knowledge of American history is limited because it played a relatively insignificant role in the British Imperial History course I followed - something about France winning your independence for you, so you could pay higher taxes and have fewer freedoms than when you were subjects of King George I seem to think. But you appear to be guiding my thoughts when you suggest that, despite the most luxurious cages provided and the free trips to foreign countries on the Extreme Rendition Express given to your political prisoners, some lily-livered wimps might still make life uncomfortable for the government.

Wouldn't that be a shame?

Stripedangel. I will look at the links you have provided. Thanks.

I, too, would like the world to be a perfect place, and know that it never will be. But things do get better over time, don't they? I mean, 500 years ago, I'd probably have been advocating that the terrorist be hanged, drawn and quartered, or spit-roasted live. 250 years ago, I'd probably have settled for hanging. 150 years ago, transportation might have been enough.

There's room for optimism.