[supercat]

Sure has been a lot of silence about torture here lately, hasn't there? There were no takers on my two posts about torture,

Well, I did reply to the first one, but didn't know what best to say in response to the second, since I really have no way of knowing the veracity of the charges some have made against the U.S. A stated unwillingness to escallate 'badness' can encourage others to engage in it with impunity--clearly not a desirable objective, so I don't fault the U.S. for indicating preemtively that it won't do any such things. As for whether the U.S. in fact engages in such things inappropriately, I don't have enough real information to judge and I don't know that people who have access to accurate information are going to be in position to talk about it.

[floriduh voter]

I wish I could post what I know about what happened to Terri but, more books are on the way and I don't want to be a spoiler.

I don't bluff.

[T'wit]

The old rule is, you announce fair treatment of prisoners. (You have to keep your word, too, because the enemy will soon find out.) Otherwise your enemy will fight to the death instead of surrendering. That increases casualties on both sides.

I have no information on present U.S. use of torture. I have only a native -- or is it naive? -- belief that Americans are above engaging in what I myself would call torture, namely, inflicting great pain. I can certainly see using psychological pressure on POWs to try to extract information.

[Wampus SC]

I stumbled on this torture stuff by accident while researching something I *thought* was unrelated -- separation of powers. It's good to hear voices that either favor it somewhat or are relatively neutral. There was plenty there that could have been responded to as to the ethics of torture itself, regardless of who's doing it. I actually prefer it that way, since if you let who's doing it make a difference you've entered the moral relativism zone. That's a digression, though.

"I really have no way of knowing the veracity of the charges some have made against the U.S."

I dismiss many sources for that reason. Any source in the Mideast, MoveOn, etc., for obvious and known bias. My sources for the "charges some have made against the US" are the reports on torture released by the United States Army. Not just incidents at Gitmo and Abu, apparently. Including DVD's full of pictures and videos made by the torturers themselves, documenting their handiwork. Because of recent court rulings, every last bit of it will be released soon. Sworn testimony about who ordered what will be interesting.

My source for the "signing statements" where the executive exempts itself from laws - such as the McCain Anti-Torture Amendment: aside from commentary everywhere, check whitehouse.gov.

"A stated unwillingness to escallate 'badness' can encourage others to engage in it with impunity--clearly not a desirable objective, so I don't fault the U.S. for indicating preemtively that it won't do any such things."

Historically the way anti-torture agreements have worked is that stated unwillingness to torture makes it less likely that an adversary will torture your troops. Countries enter the agreements to protect their own troops. Violating the agreement makes your own troops more likely to be tortured. Unfortunately the administration claims the right to use torture techniques (and CYA by calling it something else). Not the best way to support the troops, huh?

"As for whether the U.S. in fact engages in such things inappropriately, I don't have enough real information to judge and I don't know that people who have access to accurate information are going to be in position to talk about it."

The danger in making a point based on information you say you don't know is that someone might come along and tell you where to find it. :) The internet is a great research tool - all points of view are represented and it's easy to use.... Go to google and enter these searches:
----- "US Army" torture (photos OR pictures)
----- taguba
----- "signing statement" torture
----- gonzalez torture memo

See what you find. It's an easy way to test my veracity. I welcome that.

Last thing: let's talk about that "escalating badness". In the runup to the war the administration produced proof that Saddam used torture as an instrument of policy; and used that proof as a reason why he had to be deposed. I wholeheartedly agreed, and still do. If (actually when) it becomes clear that americans torture, or that the administration claims the right to (ie: policy) -- what then? What implications? I sure hope nobody says it's wrong when THEY do it, but right when WE do it.....