Posted on 05/19/2009 11:13:47 AM PDT by jazusamo
It is a misnomer to call the techniques employed in the extraction of information from terrorists "enhanced" anything. They should simply be called "basic interrogation techniques."
The word enhanced, by definition, means to augment with improved, advanced or sophisticated features. Therein lies my complaint in part. Forced nakedness, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, prolonged isolation, sensory bombardment (e.g., prolonged loud music and/or bright lights), scriptural desecration, simulated drowning, i.e., waterboarding, and stressful positions are not enhanced or extreme, nor are they torture.
Torture would be a battery with cables connected to one's more personal or sensitive areas. Torture would be being placed in a stressful position that caused bones to break or legs and arms to pop out of their sockets. Torture is pliers to fingers, hammers to toes, and the removal of teeth by blunt force trauma. Rough interrogation is being beaten until the person is bloodied and permanently disfigured beyond recognition.
Keeping someone awake is not torture, nor is it sophisticated. Keeping bright lights on in a room with the temperature turned up is not torture. It is being made uncomfortable. And the fact that the United Nations, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Lawyers Guild, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Council of Europe Commission for Human Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch argue to the contrary doesn't make it so.
Understand leftists' dedication to tyranny and tolerance of terror in Jamie Glazov's "United in Hate"
Where were these groups when barbaric Islamic pagans were beheading reporter Danny Pearl and the American contractor Nick Berg? I don't recall the ACLU or the National Lawyers Guild offering demonstrative outrage over that. How many offers did Mrs. Pearl receive from the International Committee of the Red Cross or Human Rights Watch to advocate on her behalf?
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Supreme court ruling on what constitutes cruel and unusual and unconstitutional treatment
>>In Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L. Ed. 2d 666 (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment had been contravened when prison officials had disciplined an inmate for disruptive behavior by handcuffing him to a “hitching post”, once for two hours and once for seven hours, depriving the inmate of his shirt, exposing him to the sun, denying his requests for hydration, and refusing to allow him the opportunity to use the bathroom.<<
So, yeah, we are way over the line into torture.
Very well said Ping!
One mustn't waste a great mind, one must listen and take heed. /s
Now where's that feather boa....
ANYONE who says dripping water is torture is a liar.
The US Code defined torture in tha `90s and dripping water ain`t it. In face,Congress tried to outlaw it in 2007 but the legislation could not over ride a veto.
ANYONE who says the Japs did the same thing is a liar.
The Japanese used water torture, from pumping salt water into POW`s stomachs to making them eat dry rice then filling them with water and exploding their intestines.
ANYONE who says the Geneva Conventions apply is a moron.
The Taliban and AQ are not signatories.
ANYONE who says Bush should be tried as a war crimminal is an idiot.
The USA are not signatories to the Treaty of Rome.
ANYONE who says the UN Treaty on Torture applies is a fool.
The treaty is so poorly worded one could make use the treaty to charge bill maher and the producers of his show with it.
Agree completely. These are no worse that a typical fraternity hazing at best. As soon as we let it be called torture, we got lumped into the same boat as thugs like Saddam Hussein, who actually did torture innocent people.
I’ve seen Ventura interviewed a couple times recently, I believe he’s “really” gone over the edge. :)
Agreed!
You have my condolences.
I hope your recovery period is a short one. ; )
Did we sign the Geneva Convention??
I will never cede the moral argument to the ‘progressives’ who never have this country’s safety as a goal.
Both parties have to be signatories. Added to that is the language of combatants out of uniform, hiding behind and killing civilians,spies,sabotuers,etc.
Was this concerning terrorists or people with constitutional rights?
Apparently some colleges are experiencing “water boarding competitions”. The winner is the person who holds out the longest.
It’s not torture.
No, we did not sign the Geneva Conventions.
>>So, yeah, we are way over the line into torture.
That ruling was about a U.S. citizen but it defined what is cruel and unusual.
One can argue, as the Bush administration did, that the constitution does not protect against torture for enemy combatants overseas but we can’t very argue that what we did does not meet the American definition of torture.
The US Code defined torture in tha `90s and dripping water ain`t it. In face,Congress tried to outlaw it in 2007 but the legislation could not over ride a veto.
ANYONE who says the Japs did the same thing is a liar.
The Japanese used water torture, from pumping salt water into POW`s stomachs to making them eat dry rice then filling them with water and exploding their intestines.
ANYONE who says the Geneva Conventions apply is a moron.
The Taliban and AQ are not signatories.
ANYONE who says Bush should be tried as a war crimminal is an idiot.
The USA are not signatories to the Treaty of Rome.
ANYONE who says the UN Treaty on Torture applies is a fool.
The treaty is so poorly worded one could make use the treaty to charge bill maher and the producers of his show with it.
just figured it was worthy of repeating.
when prison officials had disciplined an inmate for disruptive behavior
An inmate is not a terrorist being interrogated. I think there is a big difference here.
“...Supreme court ruling on what constitutes cruel and unusual and unconstitutional treatment...”
Just an observation, but the unconstitutional part sticks in the craw a bit. If a US citizen was being waterboarded it would be considered unconstitutional/cruel and unusual. An enemy combatant, not in the uniform of a duly recognized national military, and bearing arms against Americans...it is simply interrogation.
None of the techniques mentioned cause permanent damage.
.02
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.