there is of course a serious problem with people not understanding what torture actually is - and why it can be termed torture.

sensory deprivation has been proven to cause psychosis in well balanced people even when used over very short periods. Forced standing for long periods causes permanent kidney damage. waterboarding has, in at least one case, resulted in a heart attack and subsequent death of the victim. being threatened with savage dogs has also resulted in at least one heart attack in a healthy male with no previous cardiac history.

so ... should these 'harsh interrogation strategies' be considered acceptable?

I think not.

Regardless of what interrogation strategy is used, the prime goal for the interrogator in a just, democratic society with the rule of law must be to get to the truth. Torture can never be a method for getting to the truth (as daisym explained). Thus, you don't have to be a proponent of human rights in order to oppose torture, it is sufficient that you want interrogators to get the truth out of the interrogated people.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

An excellent point DGG.

If the discussion focussed only on what is the best way to get the truth, torture would not even be an issue.

I can understand what you mean...it'd seem as if both sides have no higher moral ground but the difference would be when saddam did it, it was against innocent people, indiscriminatly or just because he didn't like them.

If the U.S. or any European allies (i assume asked in the poll) were to torture it wouldn't just be to anyone that wasn't liked or anything, it'd be to those suspected of being a threat to security, nobody else.

If mistakes are made then its not intentional, but doing something to the enemy that they would do innocent civillians is not the same as being as bad as them.

Those who were tortured by Saddam's henchmen were tortured for political reasons.

this doesn't mean they had to be high profile individuals, but certainly membership of the wrong group, and association with the wrong people, would be the most common basis for incarceration and torture.

In the minds of the Baathists it was about their political survival. 'threat to security,' or alternatively 'to obtain information about potential threats to security' would have been common arguments for torture.

That thousands of innocent people were tortured and killed is without question ... however the argument would still hold that they were perceived to hold a threat, or information.

One of the real problems I find with people on this forum is that they get these wild eyed ideas that all the rest of the world is stark staring mad, made up of deranged psychopaths, and anything these people do will be just a product of madness.

This assumption leads you on a path where you really can't understand any of what is going on.

If you are aware that others engage in this kind of treatment of their victims for real reasons, perhaps you would think twice about your own reasons for supporting torture.

Define tourture? calling someone bad names? beating the shit out of him? pulling his nails out?

let me ask you this, if you know that the person you have in custody knows where bin laden is and you know that for a fact do you get the information out of his ass or do you "respect him as a human" and let him fuck with you?

__________________
America’s political correctness is a disease that will bring down our once fine nation.

I'm curious, for those who are in favour of torturing suspects, would you approve the use of torture in dealing with domestic crimes ? That is: murder, rape, assault etc etc.

Also, on the basis that law enforcement agencies have been known to get things wrong, misinterpret data, be corrupt etc etc what would you consider to be an unacceptable ratio of innocent people being accidently tortured against real criminals ? 1 in 10 ? 1 in 5 ? Every second person ?

Nope, not at all, its only for the use to defend the homeland, protect the civillian population of the country and to stop enemy threats.

That's the whole distinction better civillian law enforcement and war, its a complete difference in philosophy.

So, what about home grown terrorists ? Say....abortion clinic bombers etc. They use the same tactics as international terrorists, are trying to change the laws and constitution of the USA via violence rather than the democratic process, pose a threat to the civilian population of the country. Or what about the KKK in their more virulent days ?

EDIT. As I said what proportion of innocent people tortured would you consider acceptable ?

I think it really depends on your ideology. Me? I'd use every technique available short of ripping his fucking testicles off his body to get the information. Folks like Daisym, would serve him tea and crumpets and hope he eventually turned cooperative. I don't believe that waterboarding, forced standing, sleep deprivation, are torture - they are not even close to torture. Now, Ripping someones testicles off, pulling out their fingernails, electroshocking - those are all torture and I oppose those interrogation techniques.

__________________
"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to
change it." -- Barack Obama

If you know he knows, and you torture him, how do you know he is telling you the truth?

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

dah!! you go and find out.

__________________
"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to
change it." -- Barack Obama

That's rare. There are currently no threats to clinics and criminals are behind bars. My speculation is that all parties have been interrorgated. Your comparison is moot.Exactly, the tactics, bomb making, delivery systems, and politics are similar if not identical. That's why we need to look at Terrorism globally. Terrorism is, by it's own nature, anti-Democratic. Inaction or under-action are the biggest threats we face.The KKK should be examined and watched. I agree wholeheartedly.I don't quantify numbers as an opinion "POLL" as if the War on Terror is about numbers. It's more about how long, 50, 100 years, etc.

How you define proportion, define success, judge innocence, target potential Terrorists for round up, interrogation techniques employed should be considered to value by number.

Hot lights and uncomforable settings are not usually thought of as torture.


I would prefer to know if lives were saved by agressive interrogation over fattening them up.

__________________
United We Stand.

I don't actually understand what you're saying here, perhaps you could rephrase ?

Actually, worse than the old boss.

Iraq torture 'worse after Saddam'