Thread: "The US Does Not Torture"

Okay, I think we're closer to being on the same page. There are just a few key things worth discussing now.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And I would like to take it further and try to investigate evidence that the U.S. uses tactics that are more harsh than the ones they have openly admitted to. Related text: ACLU on Extraordinary Rendition and case subjects

I will say ahead of time that the ACLU's claims may be true. But remember that the page is about law suits in which the ACLU is going to be representing those possible terrorists, which means that the information on that page is coming straight from the attorneys for the plaintiffs.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

However, as the U.S. has been working (somewhat) closely with Pakistan, and in light of all of the allegations of these secret CIA flights (and Cofer Black's actual statement that we "give them to other people so they can kick the [explative] out of them") there is (some) reason to believe that the Pakistani government was doing the (alleged) torture for us. This is something that should be looked into, further.

We are both the political version of agnostics on that. When there is more solid information, I would love to look at it.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

This was a Pentagon report drafted in 2003. Read the synopsis and the attached .pdf - Excerpts of this report were also published in the Wall Street Journal. (Report also posted on legal news sites such as news.findlaw.com and further discussed by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (item #3).

Wow, that does make it look like the chief counsel to the Defense Department gave recommendations of exactly the type of stuff that happened at Abu Ghraib. That is excellent evidence that the Defense Department ordered the actions. Maybe the secretary decided against the use of the tactics but somebody lower down decided to use them because he was given reason to believe the methods are effective. Something is definitely very fishy there.

I still don't think scaring terrorists with things they can get out of by doing what is right is torture. When I see strong enough evidence of the use of iron maidens and melting syrofoam on skin, I will definitely say that the government is engaging in torture. I will also say the U.S. government is has a secret torture policy when there is strong enough evidence that officials are ordering that terrorists are made to think that those things are going to happen and cannot stop it by doing anything reasonable. But scaring people with dogs and getting them naked so they will say what they can and should say does not seem to be torture under the Geneva Convention definition, if that is what is happening. It would still be odd that the government condemned Abu Ghraib and denied that higher ups ordered what happened if they did if what all did happen was not "torture".

I also think that maybe Abu Ghraib was something the government decided to throw at the public so everybody would go nuts over it and paint the U.S. interrogation methods picture with barking dogs and naked men to distract everybody away from the faces in fire ant beds and butcher knives up people's asses. Just a speculation.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I think you're confused on this one. A black site is not necessarily a site whose location is unknown. What is unknown is its being used for secret/covert operations. If the White House had a secret program running to where they were torturing suspected terrorists in the basement, the White House would be what qualifies as a Black Site.

Oh, I thought black sites were supposed to have secret locations.

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...cret+locations

Maybe that is supposed to be a common theme of them but not part of the definition. The government definitely does not provide the public with all of the details of what goes on at the interrogation sites, though they do give what they claim to be descriptions of the general and accepted methods.