I've written a paper incidental to this, and am deciding on polishing and publishing. Bear with my over-academic rendering of the subject. If you read the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and then the US's public, on record, objections and assertions to it prior to signing it...you might come to the conclusions that I have. If not, I'm more than happy to consider alternatives. I'd rather be happy than right anyday ;)

1. Anything the US says about not torturing anyone is legally valid, because their signature to the CAT is with some exceptions that make the definition of torture meaningless. Torture isn't torture unless it's really specific in a specific place and to specific types of people, and is known about in a specific way by specific people. Three European countries called them out on it, stating that they suspected as much at the time.

2. One of these specific places is anywhere that's not the US. A conservative reading of the exceptions to the CAT will note that "torture" isn't the US's concern if it's not 'in the US'.

Ergo, 'black sites' are allowed. They've apparently been part of a legally defensible (in the US) policy apparatus. Sick, eh? This is why the infamous 'torture memo' was about expanding the specifics of the torture definition (it wanted it to be at organ failure, if anyone's keeping score) - it's one of the specifics that needs to be...much more specific for the current iteration of US torture policy in order to stay legal. Bush did inherit this policy, but it would be myopic to assume the policy and the practice of the policy are the same thing. Does anyone believe the use of the policy's allowances - allowances which are still unknown by most people and operate in virtual secrecy - haven't surged and waned with presidencies and policy concerns? Of course, the exact history of the changes has yet to be written.

<font color=8fbc8f>Having these sites not on US soil is three fold. Two of which you have eluded towards, and explained with some good specifics. The other is not well covered in your article here, and is missing a very specific piece of literature that will allow specific things to happen without specific repucussions.

In your second sentence of your closing you use the "it" as "it wanted it to". It should refer to policy makers, and it is the actual document? It cannot write itself, and the authors are not public, so you validate this well by ending with "the changes have yet to be written" I like that!

Now, before the uproar starts. Torture is a tool, it not not a human rights activist camp. If you find yourself in a specific camp, in a specific country, you must ask yourself, "What did I specificly do to get here"? The information you hold may prevent the loss of civilian and innocent life, and to a lot of "us", that is a viable trade off!</font>

"Torture should never be seen as a viable tool for information extraction or punishment by any nation."

Seems like a straightfoward statement that most folks would wholeheartedly agree with.

Of course the definition of 'torture' is where things get sticky.

Is it 'torture' to physically damage an inmate? Most of us would have no problem saying yes.

How about emotionally damaging an inmate? Pretty relative term there and who decides?

Is playing annoying music all night to annoy inmates 'torture'?

Is speaking to inmates in a demeaning or offensive way 'torture'?

Is it 'torture' to put inmates in demaning situations or positions?

Based on some of the definitions I've seen floating around, some people think that causing any discomfort to an inmate is torture... which of course makes it hard to incarcerate folks at all.

Personally I see what our government has done as wrong... but not because anyone was 'tortured'. Even what happened in Abu Ghraib I don't see as torture, although it was not behavior I would support. My problem is that these 'black sites' along with Gitmo have been utilized as a means to circumvent US and International Law, and that sort of behavior shouldn't be accepted in any democracy.

<font color="cyan">I believe if your hiding something your nation needs to know so that it can protect its borders and civilian lives, then torture is an acceptable method.

■■■■ their rights, they are terrorists whose silence can potentially kill others.

If they don't like it, they shouldn't be terrorists.

And this debate isn't really rellevant, we both know that governments torture suspected terrorists, even if it is breaking all the codes & conventions.


</font>

[ 09-11-2006, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Lavindathar ]

I'm sure you're right - who knows what really goes on in these maximum security prisons. Torture's been used an an interrogation method through the ages - I visited the Tower of London when I was in London a few weeks ago (awesome place btw) and saw all those torture implements that the kings of England used to extract confessions back in the Middle Ages.

I hear what you're saying about the fact that if one person has to be tortured to prevent a 9/11 type event happening again, then you would weigh up that one life against thousands. But the problem is when you need to decide if that person is holding information vital or not. Because as they say, people can, and will, admit to anything when they're tortured enough.

<font color="cyan">True, but thats why there are expects.

An ordinary civilian, or a terrorist linked person who isn't high up enough, cannot provide crucial details. The governments will know this. There are many methods nowadays, and im sure government polygraphs and "truth serum" are far more accurate than say, the FBI's.

Someone can't admit to something and provide details if they know nothing about it.

Did that make sense?</font>

Well, there is the simple fact that in a truly free society there would be no government secrets kept from its citizens. But, what *he* gained is some self-humility, and his pollsters have told him he needs a lot of that to help the party win upcoming elections.

He's a lame duck, the only thing he can be now is a help to the Republican party. He can't be re-elected, he's only got 2 years left so any agenda he had is not going to happen at this point, if it hasn't yet. He's politiking. Get with the game, y'all.

<font color="cyan">Sorry, I'm not too up on the ins and outs of American politics.

All we know is George Bush is an idiot, and letting him be the most powerful man in the world was a joke.</font>