Thread: "The US Does Not Torture"

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Now who's putting words in who's mouth?

Oh, sorry. That came out the wrong way. When Oneironaut speaks supportively of sources that say it's true, he has explaining to do. More importantly, the sources have explaining to do. I was questioning them much more than I was questioning you.

The sources you posted did use the statements of anonymous witnesses. They admitted it. That is why the links I was talking about yesterday were stretching things by reporting it as factual. It turns out that the news outlets really were just saying that certain unnamed witnesses made claims about "black sites". So the reporters in those links were not being entirely honest.

Coleman and Black seem to be talking about using harsh interrogation methods, which I definitely believe exist. The government admits it very freely and very publicly. "Kicking the *%&# out of them" is most likely a metaphor for that. But as I said in the early pages of this thread, I don't think the methods the government has admitted to qualify as "torture".

However, you just quoted CNN as quoting Bush in saying that "secret prisons" are necessary. That is the strongest piece of evidence you have presented. But what he said does not mean we have the "black sites" where terrorists are being interrogated through torturous means in other countries. One of your links said Condoleeza Rice has denied their existence. Why would Rice deny their existence while Bush says they exist? It could only be that they are not talking about the same thing. By "secret prisons", I have been talking about prisons that the government would not admit the existence of to the public. That is what the links yesterday and most of the links today talked about. If the president admits a prison exists, it is "secret" only in terms of details, but not in that it exists at all. Your links yesterday were talking about a type of prison that the government denies even exists at all. Bush is apparently talking about prisons that admittedly exist but that have locations and actions that are kept secret from the public. That is how it seems, but as I have said, those "black sites" might exist. It is not inconceivable, and I can definitely see why they would. Though for the reasons I have given, it has not been proven to me. But yes, you have provided evidence for their existence.

However, if the U.S. is running those sites even though they are in other countries, how would their existence prove that torture is happening at them? Again, I am not saying torture is not happening at them. I can see the government putting terrorists' faces in ant beds and the rest of their bodies in Medieval torture devices. I even think there is a high likelihood of it. The fact that we found Saddam Hussein in a hole in the desert makes me really wonder what is going on behind closed doors. I also suspect that the Abu Ghraib incident might have been a distraction the government intentionally threw at the country so everybody would be wrapped up in a low level of oppression and be distracted away from what is really happening. But with the evidence so far, if I were on a jury, I would find the government not guilty. That does not mean I am convinced that they are innocent.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The sources you posted did use the statements of anonymous witnesses. They admitted it.

Very true, and I have never denied that. My point was that you said that that was all that they used, which was simply not true.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It turns out that the news outlets really were just saying that certain unnamed witnesses made claims about "black sites". So the reporters in those links were not being entirely honest.

I misunderstand the logic on this one. The link about agent Black was posted yesterday, and other links were saying (which, I agree, is questionable) 'certain intelligence officials" (loosely put) were cited. This is nothing definitive, absolutely, but to say that they were not being entirely honest, without evidence that these officials did not say this, is not entirely honest.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

"Kicking the *%&# out of them" is most likely a metaphor for that.

Wow. That's a stretch. Do you have anything to back up that theory?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why would Rice deny their existence while Bush says they exist? It could only be that they are not talking about the same thing. By "secret prisons", I have been talking about prisons that the government would not admit the existence of to the public.

In which one did Rice say that they didn't exist? Not implying she didn't say it, but I would hate to have to go back through all of them to find the one you're speaking of.
But I think you are throwing an awful lot of assumption in there. If we have torture prisons, worldwide, and rumor is starting to spread about their existence, what do you think would be more plausible; the President would completely deny that any such prisons exist, or that he would say that secret prisons exist, but they "aren't what you think?" Honestly think about that one. Which would be the most intelligent way to keep a torturous agenda a secret?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

But with the evidence so far, if I were on a jury, I would find the government not guilty. That does not mean I am convinced that they are innocent.

That's fair enough, but I see both flaw and reason in that. To convict someone of such, on a jury, where there is actual consequence, takes much more conviction that simply having an inconsequential opinion. Have I read enough information to have an opinion that "Operation Northwoods" was actually proposed? Yes. Do I feel that, only based on what I read, I would be willing to convict the Administration of that time on it, and have them face the penalties of whatever a charge like that would carry, if I didn't have either proof or 'evidence beyond a reasonable doubt?' No. That still wouldn't change the fact that I have more reason (by way of research) to believe that it was proposed, than I have that it wasn't proposed.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Very true, and I have never denied that. My point was that you said that that was all that they used, which was simply not true.

What else did they use to confirm the existence of black sites? I am not talking about harsh interrogation methods in general. Nobody denies that those exist.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I misunderstand the logic on this one. The link about agent Black was posted yesterday, and other links were saying (which, I agree, is questionable) 'certain intelligence officials" (loosely put) were cited. This is nothing definitive, absolutely, but to say that they were not being entirely honest, without evidence that these officials did not say this, is not entirely honest.

I was talking about the links that just said straight up that the U.S. had black sites, as if they were reporting the current weather. You quoted them in a post yesterday. Black talked about the harshness of interrogation methods but did not say that black sites exist.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Wow. That's a stretch. Do you have anything to back up that theory?

Yes, he is a government official who would have his life turned upside down if he leaked real torture tactics when the government has a supposed no torture policy plus a Geneva Convention to follow.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

In which one did Rice say that they didn't exist? Not implying she didn't say it, but I would hate to have to go back through all of them to find the one you're speaking of.

I think it was in the first one. She apparently denied the existence of prisons in other countries used for the purpose of torturing prisoners when she was being pressed on the issue of secret prisons. That is a denial, but now that I think about it, it is more like a partial denial. There is another Washington Post article that talks about her denials, and it too makes it seem that Rice's denials are very slippery, as if she had a lawyer telling her how to respond to questions about the existence of secret prisons, which she would do one way or the other.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120202024.html

That aspect could be used as more evidence for the notion that secret prisons exist. But it is only minorly circumstantial.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

But I think you are throwing an awful lot of assumption in there. If we have torture prisons, worldwide, and rumor is starting to spread about their existence, what do you think would be more plausible; the President would completely deny that any such prisons exist, or that he would say that secret prisons exist, but they "aren't what you think?" Honestly think about that one. Which would be the most intelligent way to keep a torturous agenda a secret?

I am not assuming anything. I am only talking about probability. The term "secret prison" has more than one possible meaning. It could mean prisons that nobody knows about, and it could mean prisons in which what happens in them is secret. If he were talking about the former, he could no longer call them secret prisons because he would have revealed the fact of their existence to the public. Then again, the term could also mean prisons that have undisclosed locations but that the government admits exist. That is not the impression I got from what are described as "black sites".

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

That's fair enough, but I see both flaw and reason in that. To convict someone of such, on a jury, where there is actual consequence, takes much more conviction that simply having an inconsequential opinion. Have I read enough information to have an opinion that "Operation Northwoods" was actually proposed? Yes. Do I feel that, only based on what I read, I would be willing to convict the Administration of that time on it, and have them face the penalties of whatever a charge like that would carry, if I didn't have either proof or 'evidence beyond a reasonable doubt?' No. That still wouldn't change the fact that I have more reason (by way of research) to believe that it was proposed, than I have that it wasn't proposed.

So you would find them liable (Of having black sites, that is.) in civil court but not guilty in criminal court. In criminal court, the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In civil court, the standard is "more probable than not". You apparently think that burden of proof has been met. Based on what you have shown, I don't think you are out of your mind for thinking that. But I don't think it has been met. Also, the case rests on news reporters who claim that they have talked to unnamed others who claim that the black sites exist. That is hearsay from unidentified witnesses, and double hearsay in some of the articles, and it does not meet any of the hearsay exceptions. It would not be admissible in court even if the witnesses were identified. That is why the black sites issue would not even make it into court based on the evidence you have shown. However, it does raise my suspicions personally.

I still don't understand the relevance of the black sites. They are supposedly U.S. controlled, so how is their existence in torture allowing countries proof that torture is used at them? That is the issue that got us into this part of the debate about U.S. torture policy in general.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

The government, as far as I know, hasn't even admitted to so much as head-slapping. It is suspected and rumored, but they have not admitted to that. Your assessment that "Kicking the *%&&# out of them" is mostly likely a metaphor" for accepted measures of interrogation is, in fact, an assumption. You are assuming that it is most likely. I asked you if you had anything to back it up, and you said: "Yes, he is a government official who would have his life turned upside down if he leaked real torture tactics..." But if his statement wasn't so vague that it could be easily misconstrued, you couldn't even make that argument. However, in the context of everything else that I've been presenting, it does serve as a slight bit of evidence toward the speculation of black sites, as there is nothing countering that peripheral evidence.

The government has admitted to as much as sleep deprivation and waterboarding, both of which are very harsh. If you were waterboarded right now for thirty minutes, it would ruin your weekend. He could have easily been talking about that sort of thing. Maybe he was not, but I have not seen the evidence that he was not. So I am still in a state of not seeing the existence of black sites or the use of "torture" proven sufficiently.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Like the provisions they had, to follow a policy of getting a congressional warrant for wiretapping? We all know how well they stuck to that one.

And look at how the shit hit the fan over it. Officials generally want to avoid such scandal. People also generally want to avoid leaking government secrets for all kinds of reasons. That does not mean that is what always happens, but remember that I am talking about probabilities and lacks of proof.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Leaves a lot of wiggle-room for acts not to be "officially" categorized as torture, doesn't it? (At least) 2 problems with this: 1) Do you have any idea of the amount of physical torment I could put you through, without "being equivalent to the pain accompanying such things as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death?" 2) When you're psychologically tormenting someone, do you have some kind of gauge that tells you, in that person's specific situation, how long their psychological harm will last? If so, how exactly does that work?

That is a more extreme definition than the one you originally posted. That is the one we were debating. But with that higher bar definition of torture, then I would definitely say that waterboarding and sleep deprivation do not qualify as "torture" under that definition. But like I keep saying, harsh methods are used. What is it you are trying to get me to say?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Well, judging by what information that we have (which includes pictures getting out from Abu Ghraib, declaration that secret prisons exist, a governmental willingness to bypass legislation that ties the administration to the responsibility of getting a congressional warrant before wiretapping Americans, countless accounts of prisoner's being held saying they were tortured, documentation outlining a willingness for government factions to circumvent present laws for any particular purpose, testimony (albeit vague) testimony from government officials that we "send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them" and that "Abu Zubaida, who is believed to be the most important al Qaeda member in detention, was shot in the groin during his apprehension in Pakistan (where one of the alleged black sites are) in March," and a stockpile of evidence) I would say that probability stacks up that the "need to know basis" concept (which has been in place in American Government for as long as it's been around) still applies. Secrets are kept and lies are told. If the government wasn't able to justify a policy of lying to the people, we would know everything that they were doing, all the time. And we couldn't have that, now, could we?

Sorry, but I'm not ready to take the words of terrorists. Their testimony is worth zero. You will agree if they ever try to blow up your town.

Abu Ghraib, as far as we know, was a fraternity hazing committed by a few idiots very low on the totem pole. It is not proof of corruption in government policy. We have been over that.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

No offense, but I do have to agree with Moonbeam on this one. If there is one thing you've said in the past, that I will never forget, is that you admit to "usually picking one side and just sticking with it." I feel that if you have a vested interest in something, you can very effectively fight for that side. That's not, fundamentally, a bad thing, but sometimes I think you slip into "technicalities" and "talking points." It's really hard to debate when (somehow) the burden of proof is on me, and I'm supposed to "convince" someone that slaps away the majority of evidence as "that's not good enough." It would be like being a prosecutor in a courtroom with no judge or jury, and a defense attorney that just says "that's not good enough" when evidence is presented. I think that if we had more people actually engaged in this conversation we could get some more outside opinion on who's stance is actually gaining some sort of ground.

What????????? When did I ever say that? It goes completely against my stance on debate. If I ever said that, I was making fun of the absurd claim you are making. That's another major accusation, and I challenge you to post that quote and tell me where you got it. You have a responsibility to do so now that you have made that accusation. You've got the wrong person. If I thought like that, I would be a rich as Hell trial attorney. For your information, I decided not to be a trial attorney because I hate that kind of thinking so much. I will tell you right now that you will not find a serious quote of my saying such a thing. That is your most bizarre personal accusation yet. If you really want to get into my personal motivations in this, I can start talking about what I think yours are. But I suggest that we keep this debate about the issues and not each other. Do you think you can manage that?

The defense attorney stance you just characterized is actually the stance all of them take, although most of them have things to add to it. It is the center of all defenses. A defense says, "You made an accusation, now prove it." I have said many times that "torture" might be a secret U.S. policy and that "black sites" might exist. But I have also said that it has not been proven. Proving that black sites and U.S. government torture policies do not exist would be like proving that Uraguay does not have a terrorist training camp under the Himalayas. So most of what I can say to somebody who claims that there probably is would be, "Oh yeah? Why do you think that?" And then I can talk about the evidence presented. But the idea that any of us could come up with our own evidence for the nonexistence of such a thing is very unrealistic.

As for getting people to agree with you here, I'm sure that would be really hard. There have been like four people in the history of this forum with conservative foreign policy views. I don't go by polls to judge political truth any way, so it makes no difference to me if you get a thousand people to agree with you. I will judge the truth by logic and not by an opinion pole in liberal territory.

Don't forget about this question...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I still don't understand the relevance of the black sites. They are supposedly U.S. controlled, so how is their existence in torture allowing countries proof that torture is used at them? That is the issue that got us into this part of the debate about U.S. torture policy in general.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I agree, if UM were really trying to discuss things instead of just regurgitate fox news talking points, why doesn't he ever join in discussions about how America's economy is being destroyed by bankers?

Let me know when you want to join this debate.

To answer your question about me, and not the actual debate issues, it is because some absurd accusations are more interesting to talk about than others. Stop regurgitating voodoo card talking points. (If you are going to make us strange stuff about me, I am going to make up strange stuff about you.)

The New Yorker has an interesting article about the black sites. Perhaps there are some things in it that can provide something of substance to debate.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...3fa_fact_mayer

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What????????? When did I ever say that? It goes completely against my stance on debate. If I ever said that, I was making fun of the absurd claim you are making. That's another major accusation, and I challenge you to post that quote and tell me where you got it. You have a responsibility to do so now that you have made that accusation. You've got the wrong person. If I thought like that, I would be a rich as Hell trial attorney. For your information, I decided not to be a trial attorney because I hate that kind of thinking so much. I will tell you right now that you will not find a serious quote of my saying such a thing. That is your most bizarre personal accusation yet. If you really want to get into my personal motivations in this, I can start talking about what I think yours are. But I suggest that we keep this debate about the issues and not each other. Do you think you can manage that?

Ok (and believe me, I hate to even bring it up, because you were giving me a compliment at the time that you said it, which I really appreciate. I don't mean it as any sort of personal attack at all (so don't take it personally), but this is the side of you that I think I've been debating against, in this discussion).

Your post in the Drug Discussion thread, but the specific paragraph is here:

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I honestly think this might be the most intelligent debate I have ever seen on this site. I almost always take a side and squint my eyes at the other one, but this discussion has had me changing my mind back and forth about 12 times. Oneironaut, you need to be promoted from moderator to site attorney. You have absolutely kicked ass at arguing the site's position on the issue.

[Emphasis mine.]

And you don't even have to worry about stating my personal investments. I will do it for you. I believe, wholeheartedly, that if there is a chance that we are being lied to by our government, we should make stead-fast, dilligent and meticulous attempts to investigate the claim. I do not believe on pardoning any government (given the history of government, in general) simply because they claim that they are doing everything by the books. Does that about cover it? It should, because that is my only personal investment in looking for evidence to the torture claims.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A defense says, "You made an accusation, now prove it." I have said many times that "torture" might be a secret U.S. policy and that "black sites" might exist. But I have also said that it has not been proven.

Exactly right. Except, in a court of law, it would be up to a third-party to decide which part of the debate (the prosecution or the defense) is presenting the stronger case (because, yes, they both have to present a case). In your mind (and in your posts) you are playing defense/judge/jury. You are not only playing defense by countering however many of my points as you possibly can, but you are playing judge/jury by telling me which points don't even qualify as evidence. Had this been a real court of law, you would not have the luxury of doing both. We are basically doing what a prosecutor and D.A. would do if there were no judge and jury in the courtroom: we are going back and forth against each other, ad nauseum. We could go on forever, and who would decide who is presenting the stronger case. Do you get me?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The government has admitted to as much as sleep deprivation and waterboarding, both of which are very harsh. If you were waterboarded right now for thirty minutes, it would ruin your weekend. He could have easily been talking about that sort of thing. Maybe he was not, but I have not seen the evidence that he was not.

Originally Posted by Cofer Black

Abu Zubaida, who is believed to be the most important al Qaeda member in detention, was shot in the groin during his apprehension in Pakistan in March.

That is from the man (that you were just speaking of), himself. Based on that testimony, he is on record as stating that something happened to Zubaida that goes well above waterboarding for thirty minutes. Is he lying? I don't know. Was this an act of U.S. order? I don't know. Is it evidence (given the context of all that has been presented) that should be given consideration? I think so.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

As for getting people to agree with you here

This is exactly the kind of illogic that I'm talking about. I'm not trying to get people to agree with me. I don't want people to just agree with me. I want people to look at the cases that we both of have made, objectively, and decide for themselves who has presented a stronger case. That you would even try to spin it any other way, I think, highlights your playing "bulletproof D.A." instead of trying to actually provide a logical defense.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Don't forget about this question...

If I'm not mistaken, the links I posted suggest that some (not all) of these sites were CIA operated.

Judge: Bush Violated Geneva Conventions

Abu Ghraib. The portion of Abu Ghraib where the infamous abuse took place was, officially, controlled by the Iraqi government. Until we have evidence that the abuse was the result of only this one group of 19 individuals, it is not logical to exonerate the rest of the military personnel, there. I'm not saying that anyone else is guilty, but until some sort of formal investigation concludes that only this group has been responsible (coincidentally, the only group from which photos were leaked), I think it's important not to pardon the possibility that others might have been treating the detainees the same way.

New Light Shed on CIA's Black Site Prisons

U.N. Torture Experts Want to See Secret U.S. Jails
I feel that all of the red-tape and deterrent, if these sites were so legitimate, is more than slightly suspicious.

Get Details on New 'Secret Flights' Allegations

Justices Refuse To Hear German Man's Claims He was Abducted, Tortured By CIA So, even in the case of mistaken identity, a free man cannot even hope for any sort of legal procedure (which should be his right) to hear his allegations of torture by the CIA.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

The New Yorker has an interesting article about the black sites. Perhaps there are some things in it that can provide something of substance to debate.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...3fa_fact_mayer

Very interesting article, so far. (I'm not all the way through it yet, though. I will comment on it, more, later.)

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Ok (and believe me, I hate to even bring it up, because you were giving me a compliment at the time that you said it, which I really appreciate. I don't mean it as any sort of personal attack at all (so don't take it personally), but this is the side of you that I think I've been debating against, in this discussion).

Your post in the Drug Discussion thread, but the specific paragraph is here:

What I was claiming I never said is that I pick a side and make a point to stay with it because of a "vested interest" or a "technicality" or "talking points". That was the nature of your characterization. That is how you described it. You were suggesting that I hold to a side and am not dissuaded by counterlogic. But I absolutely do pick the side I think is more logical and usually end up staying with it because I seem to have been right that it is the more logical side, and I am usually very opinionated through the whole process. However, you showed a very clear exception to that. You posted a quote of mine where I said that my mind was being changed back and forth. My mind does get changed when somebody convinces me that the other side is right, and that seemed to be what you were saying I don't do. You just illustrated a situation where I did.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And you don't even have to worry about stating my personal investments. I will do it for you. I believe, wholeheartedly, that if there is a chance that we are being lied to by our government, we should make stead-fast, dilligent and meticulous attempts to investigate the claim. I do not believe on pardoning any government (given the history of government, in general) simply because they claim that they are doing everything by the books. Does that about cover it? It should, because that is my only personal investment in looking for evidence to the torture claims.

I am all for keeping the government in check. But I also understand why certain foreign policy measures have to be kept a secret. We just have to make sure the government does not go too far. When we find out they do, we can vote them out of office.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Exactly right. Except, in a court of law, it would be up to a third-party to decide which part of the debate (the prosecution or the defense) is presenting the stronger case (because, yes, they both have to present a case). In your mind (and in your posts) you are playing defense/judge/jury. You are not only playing defense by countering however many of my points as you possibly can, but you are playing judge/jury by telling me which points don't even qualify as evidence. Had this been a real court of law, you would not have the luxury of doing both. We are basically doing what a prosecutor and D.A. would do if there were no judge and jury in the courtroom: we are going back and forth against each other, ad nauseum. We could go on forever, and who would decide who is presenting the stronger case. Do you get me?

I never claimed that we are in some sort of internet court. I have said that you have made claims about stuff that could not possibly be disproven. All I can do is know what your evidence is and critique it. Who would decide who has the stronger case? I wasn't planning on asking anybody. If we did that, which I have no interest in doing, it would have to be somebody who would not be biased, and you know the political ideological nature of this forum. Do you think debates here need judges? This is the internet, not a court room. But the fact that a person making a claim has the responsibility of proving/supporting the claim is a matter of logic that applies to both court and internet debate. I was also saying that by certain proof standards your evidence would not make it to court in order to illustrate the lack of evidence. But you yourself have said that your case is not proven. To tell you the truth, I don't even know what we are arguing about at this point. We both think the existence of black sites and secret U.S. torture policy might be real and that there is evidence of them but that neither has been conclusively proven. What is the disagreement?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

That is from the man (that you were just speaking of), himself. Based on that testimony, he is on record as stating that something happened to Zubaida that goes well above waterboarding for thirty minutes. Is he lying? I don't know. Was this an act of U.S. order? I don't know. Is it evidence (given the context of all that has been presented) that should be given consideration? I think so.

Criminals get pissed when they get put through the cycle, and they lash out against the system they had to deal with. Their words are not credible. He might be telling the truth, but I am far from convinced of it.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

This is exactly the kind of illogic that I'm talking about. I'm not trying to get people to agree with me. I don't want people to just agree with me. I want people to look at the cases that we both of have made, objectively, and decide for themselves who has presented a stronger case. That you would even try to spin it any other way, I think, highlights your playing "bulletproof D.A." instead of trying to actually provide a logical defense.

It's not about whether you were trying to. It's that you said they would. My interpretation was that you were saying they already do and that if you asked them, they would tell you. I am saying that is irrelevant because this forum is the lucid dreaming version of MoveOn.org.

I am still lost on what our big disagreement is at this point. We seem to have different grey area levels of uncertainty, and that's all.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

If I'm not mistaken, the links I posted suggest that some (not all) of these sites were CIA operated.

Judge: Bush Violated Geneva Conventions

Abu Ghraib. The portion of Abu Ghraib where the infamous abuse took place was, officially, controlled by the Iraqi government. Until we have evidence that the abuse was the result of only this one group of 19 individuals, it is not logical to exonerate the rest of the military personnel, there. I'm not saying that anyone else is guilty, but until some sort of formal investigation concludes that only this group has been responsible (coincidentally, the only group from which photos were leaked), I think it's important not to pardon the possibility that others might have been treating the detainees the same way.

New Light Shed on CIA's Black Site Prisons

U.N. Torture Experts Want to See Secret U.S. Jails
I feel that all of the red-tape and deterrent, if these sites were so legitimate, is more than slightly suspicious.

Get Details on New 'Secret Flights' Allegations

Justices Refuse To Hear German Man's Claims He was Abducted, Tortured By CIA So, even in the case of mistaken identity, a free man cannot even hope for any sort of legal procedure (which should be his right) to hear his allegations of torture by the CIA.

Very interesting article, so far. (I'm not all the way through it yet, though. I will comment on it, more, later.)

There has been an Abu Ghraib investigation, and nobody higher up has been charged. It was just the young knuckleheads who took the silly pictures that have been charged.

The articles you posted earlier said the U.S. is in charge of the "black sites", and Abu Ghraib is not a "black site". I am still unclear on the relevance of black sites if torture governments are not supposedly running them. Your point that got us into this very long argument where I am not even sure what we majorly disagree on was that the black sites are in torture countries and that that suggests that the terrorist prisoners are being tortured. That is where we really are in the conversation, though we have gone down all kinds of roads in the process. What do you say at this point is the relevance of the supposed existence of black sites in torture countries?

And please tell me what our big disagreement is supposed to be at this point. We have agreed on about thirty things now, including the fact that evidence of black sites and torture exist but that the evidence is inconclusive. Are we just arguing about the degrees of inconclusiveness? Where are we?