They've weeded out the people that are not associated with the terrorists and sent them home. The ones in Gitmo now are the bad guys. <br><br>I've also heard that toture is not effictive. Yet history shows that it's been used over and over again because it does work. <br><br>Now lets understand here we're not talking about electro shock, bamboo shoots under the fingernails (and I can tell you that there can be no greater pain), whippings, or branding with hot irons. <br>These guys have to stand or sit in rooms that are hot or cold, or listen to music. I'm sure it's not comfortable, but please, this is not what I'd call toture.<br><br>The values we hold dear is the persuit of life, liberty happieness. These values are not extened to someone who would kill you, your child, your family, your friends, and then take pride in their handywork. <br><br>I'll grant you, these are hard decision to make. I'm glad it's not me that has to make them. It's very much a case of the lesser of two evils, yet gruesom as it may be, if sweating or freezing these murdering cowards is what it takes, then it should be done. <br><br>One single innocent person has more value to me than a terrorist. It isn't more simple than that.<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>Strike three: Torture is not effective.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Sure it is, but what you posted isn't torture, it sounds more like life at minimum wage. While 100 degree heat might be unbearable for someone from Iceland who's never felt it, to someone used to the Afghan desert it probably felt pretty normal.<br><br>The "techniques of brutal totalitarian regimes" you tout leave gross physical scars and often result people missing several parts of their anatomy. <br><br>So unless our boys are chopping off fingers and cauterizing the wounds with arc welders you're lying when you say the US has stooped to the level of those countries.<br><br>What we do is make people uncomfortable at best, which I'll agree with you isn't effective.<br><br>

I believe in the policy that humans have rights. Terrorists should not. <br><br><br>

Now that we've minimized this down to the life of an American wage-slave, show me where they routinely lock themselves to the floor without water and sit in their own excrement.<br><br>I may be hyperbolic there, but the ethics are exactly the same and now we're arguing over what level of torture is acceptable? The facts of the matter are plain here to see and that it goes much further than making people uncomfortable.<br><br>As for the effectiveness of torture, I stand by my original point and all those (like the State Department pre-Gonzales) that make the same point. Just look at the regimes that participated in torture over the world's history. Do you think accuracy and safety were more important to them than brutality or intimidation?<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>we're arguing over what level of torture is acceptable? <p><hr></blockquote><p>No, we're arguing over what torture is, and sorry but I don't consider what you quoted as torture. Period.<br><br>Putting people in hot rooms and having them sit in their own stink isn't torture. Cutting off body parts is. See the difference?<br><br>If believing that what's going on down there is torture helps you sleep at night, then that's your perogative. Doesn't bother me in the least however.<br><br>Like I said if our boys were cutting off fingers and arms, then I'd have a problem. Loud music, withholding water, hot rooms and crap? Woooo. Hell the German army even admitted a few months back it uses techniques like these on it's own soldiers as part of training. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Do you think accuracy and safety were more important to them than brutality or intimidation?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Regimes like Saddam's didn't disfigure and maim people as a means of getting information. They didn't care about information. They did it as a means of getting the word out that if you cross them you're next. Looks like it worked splendidly.<br><br>

That's exactly it newkojak. That's what bugs me. The issue(s) that people avoid purposefully. To look at the things that are happening and gauge if we are or are not becoming all we stand against. These questions need to be asked and honestly answered before it's too late.<br><br>

I read somewhere that FOUR of the detainees at Guatanomo had been charged. FOUR! Where does that work into your human rights scheme? <br><br>Timothy McVeigh killed hundreds of people in his terrorist attack and they knew they had their guy when they found him. He, however, got the full protection of the law and I'll bet he was never subjected to anything where you would have to draw a line dividing whether it was torture or not, even though I am sure he had lots andn lots of information.<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I don't see anywhere in my memory of September 11th<p><hr></blockquote><p>And there, young sir, lies the difference between your POV and mine. Your memory of the event is the result of media input only. Mine, like so any others, is visceral. Physical, and deeply psychological.<br><br>You didn't have to endure the acrid smell of fires that burned for nearly a month, and kept Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn under a thin shroud of smoke and soot. You didn't have to watch the constant procession of flag-draped body bags pass beneath your window. You didn't see the palpable fear and sadness on the faces of everyone you passed on the street or sat next to on the subway. You didn't have to walk past the countless memorials taped to every wall on every street corner where people searched for information about missing fathers and girflriends and sons. You didn't have to face a co-worker who's husband died in the South Tower, or another who's mind and sould died because he ran to his 17th floor rooftop on West Street only to be showered with gore and debri when the second plane struck.<br><br>You experienced none of this. And I envy you that, believe me. I don't feel that being there gives me any special rights or priveleges. But you better believe it colors my view of the issues we've been arguing in this thread. Do I think torture or abuse is right? No. Do two wrongs make a right? No. But after the horrors I saw, do I care if one of these characters has his day ruined because he [censored] himself? Again, NO!<br><br>So think your lofty thoughts. Play your idealistic violin. And wring your wrists over what a terrible beast the U.S. is. I, for one, will not join you.<br><br>

Here's commentary about torture of American prisoners of war in Korea:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The deliberate plan of savage and barbaric handling of these men was a continuation of the policy which existed on all the marches, and violated virtually every provision of the Geneva Convention of 1929. They were denied adequate nourishment, water, clothing, and shelter. Not only were they denied medical care but they were subjected to experimental monkey-gland operations. Housing conditions were horrible, resulting in widespread disease [FN28 - Pt. 2, 87-97, 118-128, 143-146; pt. 3, pp. 185-202, 208-212, 215, 216].<br><br>The prisoners were not permitted to practice their religion and on numerous occasions were beaten, humiliated, and punished. Political questioning and forced Communist indoctrination was constant, and the men were subjected to physical abuse and other punishment when they refused to be receptive to the Communist propaganda. The American newspapers available for reading purposes were the Daily Worker published in New York and the People's Daily World published in San Francisco, copies of which were in the prisoner-of-war camps within 2 months after the date of publication. The Communists utilized prisoners on numerous occasions for propaganda purposes and took posed pictures purporting to show the comfortable life being led by the prisoners, an obvious distortion of truth and fact. . . .<p><hr></blockquote><p> link<br><br>There are differences in the intensity of the treatment--clearly the North Koreans were much more physically violent, and clearly their purpose was to cause physical harm as painfully as possible. They were content to have prisoners die. I'll assume that despite the death of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, American policy was not to kill or cause permanent physical harm.<br><br>But different though they are in degree, the treatment of prisoners then and now are the same in kind. As Sen. Durbin said, if we did not know that what his source was describing involved Americans, we would without hesitation call it torture. Arguments that the people so treated "deserved" what they got is specious at best.<br><br>

Once again, Timothy McVeigh did the same thing to the people of Oklahoma City and got treated like a human being until the day he was executed. And his friend Terry (last name?) was free to live his life when the government knew he was complicit but they didn't hae enough evidence to detain him.<br><br>