"We need to have a less-cramped view of what torture is and is not"

[chequita guevara]

Yes, but what some label as merely being uncomfortable is, in fact, torture. Let's face it, have a cattle prod stuck up your ass is pretty damned uncomfortable (or so I would imagine). It's also torture. Stress positions and sleep deprivation are considered torture and have been for quite some time. They are illegal in the United States for interrrogating criminal suspects for precisely that reason.

[SpencerH]

and so after dancing around Gepap's bull****, I reiterate

Originally posted by SpencerH
So are you all saying that if we capture a terrorist who has planted a dirty nuclear device in an american city (we know he did because he is contaminated by radioactive isotopes) that we should just ask him politely where it is?

I'm not sure how to define torture, but it's unlikely that anyone would define 'asking politely' as such. So yes the choice is between 'torture' and 'asking politely'.

Anyone wanta actually address the question?

[GePap]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So you get shot down, and you go back to the same stupid question?

hahahahahahahaha

The answer to your question:

1. Assuming you somehow already "know" he did (huge assumption from being contaminated with radiation to planted dirty bomb, but hey, whatever floats your boat), none of the methods cited, like sleep deprivation for 96 hours seems that effective, unless you somehow have 4 days to wait to break the guy. Perhaps some police methods, a s opposed to sadistic torture like you seem to ask for might be more effective.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

The answer to your question:

1. Assuming you somehow already "know" he did (huge assumption from being contaminated with radiation to planted dirty bomb, but hey, whatever floats your boat), none of the methods cited, like sleep deprivation for 96 hours seems that effective, unless you somehow have 4 days to wait to break the guy. Perhaps some police methods, a s opposed to sadistic torture like you seem to ask for might be more effective.

Too funny. You actually believe that drivel answers the question. Stunning.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

So what are you gonna do, Spencer? You want to draw and quarter the suspect until he admits that he is a witch?

[GePap]

No, he actually thinks that torture would work, even though he can show no proof whatsoever of that.

let him be, nothing can be done for him now.

[Nubclear]

Why, pumping a man full of milk, forcing him to eat 2 pounds of cheese, sticking a metal pole down his throat, forcing him onto a bed of needles, placing him over a burning pile of feces, slapping him with a cattle prod, and doing brain surgery while he's concious isn't torture!
Damn liberalcommies....These are *legitimate interrogation techniques*

[SpencerH]

Dire circumstances can call for dire actions.

[Nubclear]

Thus, all the torture that went on during the Soviet Union is fine and should be *condoned* by the Americans!
I mean, the Soviet Union was in a dire situation...and dire circumstances call for....

[Kuciwalker]

Isn't the President technically not hampered by the Geneva convention, since as a treaty it is subordinate to the Constitution (specifically, his powers as Supreme Commander)?

[SpencerH]

I missed this in the original article, its essentially the same as my question.

Mr. LaFave, a law professor at the University of Illinois, said he was unaware that the Pentagon used his textbook in preparing its legal analysis. He agreed, however, that in some cases necessity could be a defense to torture charges. "Here's a guy who knows with certainty where there's a bomb that will blow New York City to smithereens. Should we torture him? Seems to me that's an easy one," Mr. LaFave said.

Lafave, at least, has the balls to give an answer!

[Nubclear]

It's interesting, Sky, cause in fighting your enemy...your becoming your enemy

[The Emperor Fabulous]

I want to reiterate what was said today by Sen. Joe Biden:

"There's a reason why we (Congress) sign these treaties: to protect my son in the military. That's why we sign these treaties, so that when an American is captured, they are not tortured. That is the reason; in case anyone forgets this, that is the reason."

"One old soldier" should be able to understand this.

[Ramo]

It seems like a reasonable conclusion based on the lease agreement.

Still waiting for the justification, Dino.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Isn't the President technically not hampered by the Geneva convention, since as a treaty it is subordinate to the Constitution (specifically, his powers as Supreme Commander)?

"Supreme Commander"? Maybe you have forgotten, but while the president may be the Commanded in Chief, he, as all servants of the People in the US are subserviant to the Law-and since treaties ratified by the Senate become the law, all president are bound by the treaties they signed. If a president gave an order to slaughter civilians, he would be guilty of war crimes, and so would the whole chain of command under him.

NO, the president does not become God once in office. Thank goodness for that.