More on torture....
 

Arch, here are some more examples of people that could have potentially been tortured, where the govt. said they were bad, bad people.....and it looks like they were wrong.

1. they guy who was a professor in Florida. Just acquitted of all major charges, and the jury deadlocked on the others. He was accused of being a "aid and support" type ringleader in the US for a palestinian terrorist org.

2. Yee. The chaplain in Gitmo.

3. The guy at Los Alamos, accused of espionage.

4. another example - richard jewel, olympic park bombing. Ask him how he feels about the govt's judgement.

5. Even the dirty bomber brings up questions. First he was going to blow up a dirty bomb. Then mysteriously, about a year ago, the govt. says "well he was going to blow up some apartments." No dirty bomb. And now, to try and prevent the supreme court from reviewing the case, he is indicted on charges related to neither. The reason they say the charges are unrelated is that they want to protect methods/sources. Well, call me a little skeptical.

6. German guy was kidnapped by the US govt., beaten, taken to Afghanistan, and held in clandestine prison. Many months later, govt. admitted mistaken identity, and released him. Now, with the ACLU, he is suing the govt.

This hardly sounds like a system that gets it right everytime.

I read an article (maybe it was an editorial) in our legal newspaper about the torture issue.

According to the writer, the principles and procedures of torture that the government is trying to implement are modeled after the Soviet methods.

A point that jumped out at me was that these methods were not designed to elicit information, but to break someone down.

In addition, the process is not a short-term thing, but takes place over time. The ticking nuclear time bomb theory that the mullahs love so much doesn't fit with this very well.

Anything modeled after the Soviets has to be suspect, IMHO.

this is full of inadequate information or misinformation
 

Obviously, the forms of pressure should be clearly defined by persons having special expertise in the field.

The persons allowed to implement should a discreet number, just not everyone can be a special forces soldier.

You both outline some of the problems.

However what about psychological pressure.

Let's say you separate two guys, cause one to believe the other is ratting on the first, thereby encouraging the second to rat out, and then you use the first against the second.

What about piping screaming (phoney) into the room, stating, I'd really like to help you, but when Jonsie comes in, I won't be able to help.

I'm no expert, but neither are the journalists penning sensationalistic articles meant to rile up the troops.

To me, neither side examines the issue clinically, in you two, we basically have two persons who've made up their minds and funnel all information to support your conclusions. Your analysis doesn't sound very scientific or probing, but rather very conclusory.

I don't doubt you raise important points, but I haven't heard either of you carefully consider nuances from the extreme, i.e., rape or dismemberment.

There are nuanced alternatives.