Fears that US will use 'torture lite' on al-Qaida No 3

The Guardian (U.K.) ^ | 03/05/03 | Duncan Campbell

[doug from upland]

what do you mean -- "the whole thread is about this." Are you talking in code or was my question something you don't want to tackle. Here is how it started.

YOU: Now, I know out current president likes to ignore a lot of these really inconvenient things when he wants to execute some people,

ME: Give us examples of those executed where our "current president" ignored really inconvenient things.

Then you respond with "the whole thread is about this." Are you just someone who likes to hear yourself talk so you can impress yourself? You made a charge against the "current president." Let's see examples of those he executed when he "ignored really inconvenient things." It was not rhetorical.

[Tennessean4Bush]

Do you think that's a mistake or sloppy composition? I think it was deliberate, myself. Citizens have certain rights that non-citizens don't--but due process is guaranteed to everyone.

This very argument has come to dozens of courts, both liberal and conservative, over the past 15 months or so and none of them have agreed with you. Any guess as to why? Why are you so brilliant and they some dumb?

I suspect the dumb a$$ is you.

[doug from upland]

I'm sorry I read your posts and responded. You are a time waster. Shame on me. I've been here almost six years and should have recognized it right away.

[Naspino]

What will they say when we get Osama? Ohh the misery to be a liberal -- knowing that dastardly Americans have their idol in a cage -- being tortured somewhere they can send a lawyer or the red cross to supervise. They better wake up -- the world is changing.

[thoughtomator]

I doubt what we're going to do to this guy will resemble torture to anybody but the most tortured liberal mind (if you'll pardon the pun).

I deal with quite a bit of documentation on torture and help people who have been tortured gain asylum. Torture is things like putting out cigarettes in peoples' skin, using pliers to squeeze testicles, rape, purposeful application of fire to skin and hair, violent removal of teeth, breaking of bones, and so on.

The problem with torture as a method of interrogation is that the information produced is completely unreliable - someone who is being tortured, if not strong enough to resist, will say anything - true or false - that will make the pain stop. So there's no way to know whether any statement from a person when coerced under torture is true or not. This is why we don't allow people to be tortured in the USA, and why any coerced confession is inadmissible.

Granted, we're not putting this guy on trial right now, we're wringing information out of him. Even so, psychological tactics are far far more effective than physical ones, and they leave no visible marks for liberals to bray over.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Take, for example, World War II, our last real "war."

You think WWII was our last real war? (Why do you keep putting it in quotes?) That must come as a shock to our Korean and Vietnam veterans. Especially the survivors of the 120 thousand or so who died in those... well... wars.

Seem different to me, but that's just me--most notably, lack of the word war.

I know. You really are hung up on the words "declare" and "war". Those words are key to you, more important than reality, even. If they are not present that it's not "really" a war. I understand all that, but that's your hang-up, not mine.

You will note, I hope, the words "all necessary and appropriate force". Make no mistake, that's a declaration of war, and Congress knew it (and the Taliban knew it). It wasn't like they passed this thing and Bush started sending soldiers to Afghanistan and then Congressmen started saying "hey that's not what we meant" and Taliban started saying "we didn't know that was coming". It was, for all intents and purposes, a declaration of war, and war was what followed. If you still don't believe me ask the hundreds of dead Talibs and other Afghans whether it was a war.

I guess they'll say no, like you do, because words determine reality. In fact I guess they're not really dead; how can they be if it wasn't even really a war in the first place?

Fascinating.

[montag813]

Fears that US will use 'torture lite' on al-Qaida No 3

"FEARS"??? Who is "fearing" this? What a joke this paper is. It isn't good enough to wipe your ass with.

[America's Resolve]

Boy, you've read the entire left playbook and added a few chapters, havent you?

I keep hearing you prattling on about Constitutional rights, but never explaining what you mean by them. He's not an American Citizen; not a taxpayer; not a voter. He's a foreign national who's been implicated in causing hundreds of American deaths.

Would you please indicate the article and section of the US Constitution which guarantees his rights?

If not, please stop being part of the problem and begin finding ways to be part of the solution.

[since1868]

and if sleep dep does not work,do whatever it takes

[America's Resolve]

By the way, if I'm not mistaken, Congress specifically gave the President all necessary powers to handle the Al'Queda/War on Terrorism at his discretion. No weasel words that you can possibly spill out will change that.

[doug from upland]

I agree with your conclusions. I suspect that he will be treated to some joy juice.

[nevergiveup]

Hey Doc,
I was going to recommend you not waste any more heart beats replying to "long live the disentary mouth" (or whatever that french name means), but as I kept reading his pearls of wizz dumb replies, I was reminded of that mystery poster during those good old glory days of impeachment, "Quidem".

Does anyone other old time FReeper see the similarity?

[goldstategop]

I guess the whiners have forgotten the victims of 9-11 already. Now THAT's torture and it wasn't lite either.

[M. Thatcher]

the Constitution applies to non-citizens, too

Upon what authority do you base this bizarre claim?

I, for one, am outraged that this poor al Qaeda lamb might possibly be placed in an awkward position for periods of time. No! Not that! The Geneva Convention and the UN Charter and the Constitution clearly prevent forced awkward positions! For anyone on the planet!

I would, however, make an exception for you, on the other hand.

[M. Thatcher]

the Constitution applies to non-citizens, too

Upon what authority do you base this bizarre claim?

I, for one, am outraged that this poor al Qaeda lamb might possibly be placed in an awkward position for periods of time. No! Not that! The Geneva Convention and the UN Charter and the Constitution clearly prevent forced awkward positions! For anyone on the planet!

I would, however, make an exception for you, on the other hand.

[goldstategop]

I guess the whiners have forgotten the victims of 9-11 already. Now THAT's torture and it wasn't lite either.

[TigersEye]

I compare to the post 9-11 Congressional resolution: "The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,..."

That pretty much covers it doesn't it? Perfectly Constitutional too.

[DuncanWaring]

Sleep deprivation can be surprisingly effective, ...

I'll second that.

Another neat trick is to allow 45-minute 'naps', with 15-minute wakeup periods after about 36 hours.

After about three of those 45/15 minute cycles, the hallucinations are right around the corner.

[DuncanWaring]

...Does im want a widdle bit more sweep??

Don't worry - after a few days he'll be begging to sell his soul for "a widdle bit more sweep"

[general_re]

The Bill of Rights carefully deals with rights during "times of War." I don't see a reason they should be disregarded now.

Non-citizens outside the territory of the United States are not entitled to the protections of the Constitution.