yes you have never been tortured by the looks of it. neither have i.

im not sure if you're actually endorsing the skinning of an innocent person in order to torture the actual suspect.

does that sound wrong or what? or am i just misreading?

Endorsing? No. Merely saying that it happens. Not the skinning (although I'm sure there are many people in the world who are not above it), but torturing a child or a relative in order to gain information from the suspect. And if it would have happened to me, I'd talk.

LS - it seems to me that you've arrived at a marginally more efficient way to extract information using a method that's entirely inefficient. I'm against torture because it's a shitty way to find out what you want. It's a great way to reinforce preconceived notions.

If anyone's ever studied the show trials of the late 30's USSR, you can see fantastic examples of what people will admit to under torture.

It's a useless tool, although I'll concede that certain methodologies (namely sleep deprivation) can actually produce results in some cases.

I'll agree on one point. It is an ineffective tool to obtain a confession. Most will confess to anything under torture.

Getting information, I'm not sure about. Information can be checked and if the person is lying...well, that'd be quite obvious. I'm not saying torture will work on everyone. Some people are quite resilient or believe in a cause higher than themselves. I think it would be easier to use drugs of some kind of get the info.

I can't believe we're talking about this aspect of torture within the context of the U.S. Is it even an issue? That the U.S. would do this (i.e. empower it or 'allow it to happen') "family oriented" style of torture would be the worst atrocity it has committed in recent years.

And you're 100% sure it hasn't happened in this country already?

No. But I stand by my statement either way. I wouldn't put it past them. A nation under threat and/or in decline can be a nasty thing. Morality and ethics are conveniences of the prosperous.

Glad we can agree on something. :)

The following link leads to a photograph on Wikileaks. It is extremely distubring, and features a detainee held by the US (possibly at US Bagram Theater Internment Facility in Afghanistan, though that has yet to be confirmed).
Image:Us-detainee-wired-2004-08-06.jpg - Wikileaks

This seems to be torture, and I cannot imagine there being an excuse for such treatment. Whether or not he could be characterized as a terrorist or insurgent strikes me as being immaterial to torture. I hope that we can end US torture policies.

I think i saw that guy at a bad Religion concert. that must be a couple hundred bucks worth of piercings right there. Bet he got a great deal on them. Anyone who read the last thread knows that I am a bit of a decenter on this topic. I do believe most of the reasons inBOIL stated apply to my views on this. Accept for number 2. I think the government will label anyone they want a terrorist or such if suits their needs, innocent or not. Mostly though, I don't have a huge problem with it for the simple fact that I really just don't like people and as a rule, don't really give a damn what happens to them. They stay out of my way, I'll stay out of theirs. As a form of interrogation, yes, it's unreliable at best. but some people need to be made an example of. If they could ever get their hands on Bin Ladden, I would hope they would put up the torture channel and have him on 24/7 for at least 3 months. Don't ask him shit. Just work him over. That would make me a happy camper.

Seems to be an unverified photo - where's the evidence this is a US torture victim?

One thing about a historical record of actual events is that the truth will eventually surface. During Bush's presidency some would have us believe that he acted unilaterally when it came to many issues including torture and that he was abusing his power without allowing congressional leaders to do their job of advise and consent. I was reading the WSJ this morning and cam across this editorial, they stat that congressional members were fully aware of questioning techniques used by the CIA. Here is a portion of the editorial.

What Congress Knew About 'Torture' - WSJ.com

i find the implementation of torture, the extraordinary rendition business--and the war in iraq as a whole for that matter--to be an indictment of the entire political class.

but it is still the case that the administration should be prosecuted for war crimes. let them prove this is that case, that they're not responsible for the policies they initiated. these are crimes against humanity---let them demonstrate their case.

Who do you want to bring the case? Democrats can't, I think the record may show complicity. The U.N., I would consider that a joke because the U.N. has no credibility in my view. Who?

Obama's appointment of Dawn Johnsen as DoJ Assistant AG for the Office of Legal Counsel (that gives advice to the Pres on the legality of proposed actions) is a step in the right direction, after John Woo et al.

ace...sounds like more open, accountable government to me.

There are words and there are actions. Let's revisit when she actually does something.

The words are much better than what we heard for the last eight years..."its legal if the president does it"

Who is that quote from?

the international war crimes tribunal would in principle have the authority.
and it really doesn't matter what us conservatives think about that---sorry--that there are american conservatives who have a Problem with international law is not really terribly important, particularly not in these circumstances.

i don't know if such a case could be prosecuted in domestic courts.

i think that the trial, where-ever it was held, would in itself go a long way toward correcting the political credibility of the united states. so i'd be in favor of the process even if in the end the bush people were able to weasel out of being convicted.

and i agree with dc about the appointments so far from obama--and the approach on the matter of transparency.

When was the last time they took any action on anything? Given what has gone on in the world how do you explain their inactivity? Where will they get the authority to take action on a former President and or his administration? How will they impose their will on the US?

I don't really expect answers to those questions, but those are the the questions that popped into my head as I read your post. My point is that charges of war crimes are for those without power. Do you think Democrats would go along with transferring "power" to a international war crimes tribunal?

Gonzales said something to that effect during hearings on the illegal warrantless wiretapping program.

Cheney said it in an interview with Mike Wallace last month, using the context of a "fighting a war" as justification(their context and justification for everything -- wiretapping, torture, rendition, etc) when there in fact has been no formal or legal declaration of war:

that's your view of what the effects of such an action would be, ace, and it cuts to a basic philosophical difference between us--i think nation-states are already functionally obsolete---you don't. so you see this as a problem of sovereignty, where i see it as a matter of accountability for crimes against humanity. and it should not be the case that the only parties who can commit such crimes are those who lose wars. that is your other argument, btw---if you don't lose a war, anything goes. i find that astonishing--even as it reflects the realpolitik of the moment. if law that has been promulgated to prevent crimes against humanity are to mean anything, they have to be applied based on actions themselves, not based on whether you win or lose a war and then actions.

The above has been historically true. Sure, powerful nations can impose self-punishment or punish individuals but in the end the only thing that matters is who has the power to impose their will on others when it comes to accountability. Only the foolish abdicate power when there is no need to.

in which case, any law that exists, any international convention or agreement there is which bans torture is nothing other than a cheap instrument to be used in the exercise of power. so any ethical argument against torture, any conclusion that the international community---including the united states----might enter into to prevent, to the greatest possible extent, a reversion to barbarism in the form of torture is only meaningful in that context.

because in the end what matters is not whether you torture people, but whether you win or lose a war. and torture only exists as an extension of losing a war.

that's funny.

The issue goes beyond winning or losing.

In the case of Bush, it was declaring a war, unilaterally, then asking your legal authorities to interpret the Constitution and/or acts of Congress in a manner that will provide a legal cover for any subsequent actions.

Even under the broadest interpretation, an "authorization for the use of military force" (granted by Congress) is not a declaration of war (as interpreted by Bush).
-----Added 6/1/2009 at 06 : 58 : 35-----
In 2004, the CIA Inspector General issued a report that “that some C.I.A.-approved interrogation procedures appeared to constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as defined by the international Convention Against Torture.”

The Bush administration response....investigate the IG for not being "impartial"
Being a watchdog or whistle blower over the last eight years and putting the law above the politics of the "war on terror" was not a good career move...but there were some heroic bureaucrats.

ace.....a more complete historical record would show that the Democrats (and many Republicans) attempted on several occasions to enact leglslation that would prohibit water boarding.

In 2005, the Detainee Treatment Act with such prohibitions was enacted and signed by Bush.

Bush then acted unilaterally with a signing statement that in effect said he could ignore provisions of the law in times of war. (there's that old "times of war" justification again).

In 2006, in one of the Republicans last acts as majority, Congress enacted the Military Commissions Act, which included provisions amending the War Crimes Act drafted by the Bush administration. The amendment essentially prohibited the possibility of prosecution of political appointees, CIA officers, contractors and former military personnel, accused of torture under international (Geneva Conventions) standards. Nearly all Democrats voted against the amendment and nearly all Republicans voted for the amendment.

As a result, in 2007 and 2008, the Democrats introduced additional legislation that Bush vetoed.

Cherry-picking the historical record of actual events, ace? So much for your revisionist history now that more of the truth surfaced.