President Bush, warning that "the enemy wants to attack us again," called on Congress Friday to give U.S. intelligence agencies "the tools needed" to interrogate and try suspected terrorists for war crimes.
"Time is running out. Congress needs to act wisely and promptly," Bush said at a press conference in the White House Rose Garden.
If you were president, how would you handle the issue of military interrogations?
E-mail us at firstname.lastname@example.org to jump into the debate.
Here's what FOX Fans are saying:
"The Geneva Convention doesn't, and should never, apply to terrorists. After all, they aren't fighting for a country or wearing a countries uniform. I think we should be allowed to use harsh interrogation techniques to interrogate terrorists such as sleep depravation or any other means of getting information — but not torture" — Virginia
"We are treating the terrorists with kid gloves as far as I am concerned, and I think our military should be able to use harsher methods if that's what it takes to get information that saves innocent lives!" — Candy
"We're in a war. Use whatever means necessary in interrogating terrorists!" — P.M.
"If I were president, I would instruct my Secretary of Defense to order that the US military use any, and all means, necessary to extract information from our enemies with no holds barred — if that information would save even one soldier, sailor, airman, or marine from injury or death. The enemies confronting us are suicidal anyway and to treat them with kid gloves dishonors the service of our military personnel." — Buck (Georgia)
"Senators McCain, Graham, Feingold have the correct answers! The people of the world wanted to become like us for our democracy and fair principles, amongst our fantastic history. We have weathered many problems and have, to the most part, kept our principles." — Kenneth
"The Geneva Convention stated that military personnel couldn't be tortured. I don't believe the terrorists at Gitmo are military. What country do they serve? What uniform do they wear? Coercive torture and pure torture are two different things entirely." — Dona (Seymour, IN)
"It is ridiculous, in my opinion, to not consider any means of getting information out of a terrorist that works. The object is to save lives and thwart their tactics, not engage in political rules. This is war, not a game. It's a life or death scenario for human beings." — Nancy (Darby, MT)
"Let the military do the job they have been assigned to do. Aggressive interrogation techniques have always been used and should always be used otherwise being captured would not be a bad thing. It is the public discussion of the practice that's the problem." — Mark (Florida)
"I would apply the Geneva Convention agreement on all nation's military personnel as outlined in the convention (so long as these nations are party to the convention)." — Jade (Arizona)
"I'd change the rules of engagement for all of our troops. We're not fighting an recognized and organized state army and as such, the rules of the Geneva Convention should not apply at all." — D.M., US Navy Ret.
"Any armed combatants captured on the field of battle that are not wearing an official uniform recognized by a legitimate government should be offered the choice of cooperation or death by firing squad. That is how it was handled during WWII. What is any different now?" — Michael (Hatboro, PA)
"Congress needs to decide if we will abide by the Geneva Conventions or not. If we are, we need to abide by them fully, without any shady 'reinterpretations.' If we aren't going to abide by them, we need to say so and be prepared to deal with the consequences. Either way, it is up to the people, and thus the Congress to make the decision, as provided in the constitution. The executive branch should have nothing to do with it." — Allen (Phoenix, AZ)
"Only simple minded people would believe that our enemies will adhere to Geneva convention rules — especially current day enemies. Therefore, the Geneva rules should be abolished and let the best methods for obtaining information rule." — Al
"Suspected terrorists aren't covered under the Geneva Convention and shouldn't be — they're not legitimate members of any country's military. Short of true cruelty or torture, I would let the military use their best judgment, but monitor their procedures carefully." — Jeff (Baltimore, MD)
"I would proceed as the president is doing. These detainees are not in compliance with the Geneva Convention. They represent no country and are not combatants in uniform. Why should they be afforded treatment as if they were?" — Steve
"There is nothing morally wrong with torturing a known terrorist. By engaging in terrorism, an individual gives up all claims to individual rights. As president, I would order that we do anything necessary to get information they may have in order to protect our citizens and our interests. A simple example makes the point: If you knew that someone had kidnapped your child, but wasn't talking, and you had him at your disposal, would you think it was immoral to torture him to save your child's life?" — Joe (Incline Village, NV)
"If I were president I would be authorizing any action (and I mean anything) that could be used on terrorists to obtain information that might save American lives. There is nothing ‘civil’ about these fanatics so why worry about whether or not we are violating their rights. They want us dead, just for being American. Why should we not do everything in our power to ensure our safety?" — Kevin (Ft. Lauderdale, FL)
"If I were president, I would stop allowing the media to dictate what happens with these prisoners. My administration would not deny or admit to even having them in custody much less where they're being held, how they're being treated or how they're being interrogated. When did it become the policy of the U.S. military to fully divulge such 'secrets?'" — Steve