1
   

Torture Is Now Part of the American Soul

 
 
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2006 09:35 pm
By George Monbiot, The Guardian. Posted December 18, 2006.

You might have imagined that every possible means of inflicting pain had already been devised. But never underestimate the human capacity for invention. United States interrogators have found a new way of destroying a human being. Tools

After thousands of years of practice, you might have imagined that every possible means of inflicting pain had already been devised. But you should never underestimate the human capacity for invention. United States interrogators, we now discover, have found a new way of destroying a human being.

In early December, defense lawyers acting for Jose Padilla, a US citizen detained as an "enemy combatant," released a video showing a mission fraught with deadly risk -- taking him to the prison dentist. A group of masked guards in riot gear shackled his legs and hands, blindfolded him with black-out goggles and shut off his hearing with headphones, then marched him down the prison corridor.

Is Padilla really that dangerous? Far from it: his warders describe him as so docile and inactive that he could be mistaken for "a piece of furniture." The purpose of these measures appeared to be to sustain the regime under which he had lived for over three years: total sensory deprivation. He had been kept in a blacked-out cell, unable to see or hear anything beyond it. Most importantly, he had no human contact, except for being bounced off the walls from time to time by his interrogators. As a result, he appears to have lost his mind. I don't mean this metaphorically. I mean that his mind is no longer there.

The forensic psychiatrist who examined him says that he "does not appreciate the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him, is unable to render assistance to counsel, and has impairments in reasoning as the result of a mental illness, i.e., post-traumatic stress disorder, complicated by the neuropsychiatric effects of prolonged isolation." Jose Padilla appears to have been lobotomised: not medically, but socially.

If this was an attempt to extract information, it was ineffective: the authorities held him without charge for three and half years. Then, threatened by a supreme court ruling, they suddenly dropped their claims that he was trying to detonate a dirty bomb. They have now charged him with some vague and lesser offences to do with support for terrorism.

He is unlikely to be the only person subjected to this regime. Another "enemy combatant," Ali al-Marri, claims to have been subject to the same total isolation and sensory deprivation, in the same naval prison in South Carolina. God knows what is being done to people who have disappeared into the CIA's foreign oubliettes.

That the US tortures, routinely and systematically, while prosecuting its "war on terror" can no longer be seriously disputed. The Detainee Abuse and Accountability Project (DAA), a coalition of academics and human rights groups, has documented the abuse or killing of 460 inmates of US military prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay. This, it says, is necessarily a conservative figure: many cases will remain unrecorded. The prisoners were beaten, raped, forced to abuse themselves, forced to maintain "stress positions," and subjected to prolonged sleep deprivation and mock executions.

The New York Times reports that prisoners held by the US military at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan were made to stand for up to 13 days with their hands chained to the ceiling, naked, hooded and unable to sleep. The Washington Post alleges that prisoners at the same airbase were "commonly blindfolded and thrown into walls, bound in painful positions, subjected to loud noises and deprived of sleep" while kept, like Jose Padilla and the arrivals at Guantanamo Bay, "in black hoods or spray-painted goggles."

Alfred McCoy, professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, argues that the photographs released from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq reflect standard CIA torture techniques: "stress positions, sensory deprivation, and sexual humiliation." The famous picture of the hooded man standing on a box, with wires attached to his fingers, shows two of these techniques being used at once. Unable to see, he has no idea how much time has passed or what might be coming next. He stands in a classic stress position -- maintained for several hours, it causes excruciating pain. He appears to have been told that if he drops his arms he will be electrocuted. What went wrong at Abu Ghraib is that someone took photos. Everything else was done by the book.

Neither the military nor the civilian authorities have broken much sweat in investigating these crimes. A few very small fish have been imprisoned; a few others have been fined or reduced in rank; in most cases the authorities have either failed to investigate or failed to prosecute. The DAA points out that no officer has yet been held to account for torture practised by his subordinates. US torturers appear to enjoy impunity, until they are stupid enough to take pictures of each other.

But Padilla's treatment also reflects another glorious American tradition: solitary confinement. Some 25,000 US prisoners are currently held in isolation -- a punishment only rarely used in other democracies. In some places, like the federal prison in Florence, Colorado, they are kept in sound-proofed cells and might scarcely see another human being for years on end. They may touch or be touched by no one. Some people have been kept in solitary confinement in the United States for more than 20 years.

At Pelican Bay in California, where 1,200 people are held in the isolation wing, inmates are confined to tiny cells for 22-and-a half hours a day, then released into an "exercise yard" for "recreation." The yard consists of a concrete well about 12 feet in length with walls 20 feet high and a metal grill across the sky. The recreation consists of pacing back and forth, alone.

The results are much as you would expect. As National Public Radio reveals, 10% of the isolation prisoners at Pelican Bay are now in the psychiatric wing, and there's a waiting list. Prisoners in solitary confinement, according to Dr Henry Weinstein, a psychiatrist who studies them, suffer from "memory loss to severe anxiety to hallucinations to delusions ... under the severest cases of sensory deprivation, people go crazy." People who went in bad and dangerous come out mad as well. The only two studies conducted so far -- in Texas and Washington state -- both show that the recidivism rates for prisoners held in solitary confinement are worse than for those who were allowed to mix with other prisoners. If we were to judge the United States by its penal policies, we would perceive a strange beast: a Christian society that believes in neither forgiveness nor redemption.

From this delightful experiment, US interrogators appear to have extracted a useful lesson: if you want to erase a man's mind, deprive him of contact with the rest of the world. This has nothing to do with obtaining information: torture of all kinds -- physical or mental -- produces the result that people will say anything to make it end. It is about power, and the thrilling discovery that in the right conditions one man's power over another is unlimited. It is an indulgence which turns its perpetrators into everything they claim to be confronting.

President Bush maintains that he is fighting a war against threats to the "values of civilized nations": terror, cruelty, barbarism and extremism. He asked his nation's interrogators to discover where these evils are hidden. They should congratulate themselves. They appear to have succeeded.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,224 • Replies: 31
No top replies

 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2006 09:57 pm
I don't see how any American could read clear through that piece of trash without gagging. The first couple of sentences made me lose my dinner.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2006 10:21 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
I don't see how any American could read clear through that piece of trash without gagging. The first couple of sentences made me lose my dinner.


Oh? Surely not.


I thought that, unlike you, most Americans were able to comprehend and use the written word?
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2006 10:22 pm
dlowan wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
I don't see how any American could read clear through that piece of trash without gagging. The first couple of sentences made me lose my dinner.


Oh? Surely not.


I thought that, unlike you, most Americans were able to comprehend and use the written word?

Again, what the hell does a foreigner know about most Americans
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2006 01:05 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
I don't see how any American could read clear through that piece of trash without gagging.


Gagging because of the descriptions, or gagging because we were responsible for these actions?
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2006 01:12 am
Quote:
US torturers appear to enjoy impunity, until they are stupid enough to take pictures of each other.


This is where I disagree with the author of the article. If an American serviceman or prison guard is willing to break the code of "us against them" enough to expose the truth to the world, I would not label him/her "stupid".

Instead, I would congratulate him/her for having enough decency in their soul to seemingly "betray" their friends perpetrating these horrors for the greater good of what America truly stands for.

It cannot be easy to go against your friends, many of whom come from backgrounds like you, when they slide bit by bit into barbarism.

Thankfully, there are people with an ingrained sense of principle who will do it, however painful it must be for them.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2006 01:26 am
kelticwizard wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
I don't see how any American could read clear through that piece of trash without gagging.


Gagging because of the descriptions, or gagging because we were responsible for these actions?

gagging because of the lie!!
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 09:29 am
FBI E-Mail Refers to Presidential Order
FBI E-Mail Refers to Presidential Order Authorizing Inhumane Interrogation Techniques (12/20/2004)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: [email protected]
3/12/07

Newly Obtained FBI Records Call Defense Department's Methods "Torture," Express Concerns Over "Cover-Up" That May Leave FBI "Holding the Bag" for Abuses

NEW YORK -- A document released for the first time today by the American Civil Liberties Union suggests that President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq. Also released by the ACLU today are a slew of other records including a December 2003 FBI e-mail that characterizes methods used by the Defense Department as "torture" and a June 2004 "Urgent Report" to the Director of the FBI that raises concerns that abuse of detainees is being covered up.

"These documents raise grave questions about where the blame for widespread detainee abuse ultimately rests," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Top government officials can no longer hide from public scrutiny by pointing the finger at a few low-ranking soldiers."

The documents were obtained after the ACLU and other public interest organizations filed a lawsuit against the government for failing to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request.

The two-page e-mail that references an Executive Order states that the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc." The ACLU is urging the White House to confirm or deny the existence of such an order and immediately to release the order if it exists. The FBI e-mail, which was sent in May 2004 from "On Scene Commander--Baghdad" to a handful of senior FBI officials, notes that the FBI has prohibited its agents from employing the techniques that the President is said to have authorized.

Another e-mail, dated December 2003, describes an incident in which Defense Department interrogators at Guantánamo Bay impersonated FBI agents while using "torture techniques" against a detainee. The e-mail concludes "If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [sic] the 'FBI' interrogators. The FBI will [sic] left holding the bag before the public."

The document also says that no "intelligence of a threat neutralization nature" was garnered by the "FBI" interrogation, and that the FBI's Criminal Investigation Task Force (CITF) believes that the Defense Department's actions have destroyed any chance of prosecuting the detainee. The e-mail's author writes that he or she is documenting the incident "in order to protect the FBI."

"The methods that the Defense Department has adopted are illegal, immoral, and counterproductive," said ACLU staff attorney Jameel Jaffer. "It is astounding that these methods appear to have been adopted as a matter of policy by the highest levels of government."

The June 2004 "Urgent Report" addressed to the FBI Director is heavily redacted. The legible portions of the document appear to describe an account given to the FBI's Sacramento Field Office by an FBI agent who had "observed numerous physical abuse incidents of Iraqi civilian detainees," including "strangulation, beatings, [and] placement of lit cigarettes into the detainees ear openings." The document states that "[redacted] was providing this account to the FBI based on his knowledge that [redacted] were engaged in a cover-up of these abuses."

The release of these documents follows a federal court order that directed government agencies to comply with a year-old request under the Freedom of Information Act filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace. The New York Civil Liberties Union is co-counsel in the case.

Other documents released by the ACLU today include:

An FBI email regarding DOD personnel impersonating FBI officials during interrogations. The e-mail refers to a "ruse" and notes that "all of those [techniques] used in these scenarios" were approved by the Deputy Secretary of Defense. (Jan. 21, 2004)

Another FBI agent's account of interrogations at Guantánamo in which detainees were shackled hand and foot in a fetal position on the floor. The agent states that the detainees were kept in that position for 18 to 24 hours at a time and most had "urinated or defacated [sic]" on themselves. On one occasion, the agent reports having seen a detainee left in an unventilated, non-air conditioned room at a temperature "probably well over a hundred degrees." The agent notes: "The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his own hair out throughout the night." (Aug. 2, 2004)

An e-mail stating that an Army lawyer "worked hard to cwrite [sic] a legal justification for the type of interrogations they (the Army) want to conduct" at Guantánamo Bay. (Dec. 9, 2002)

An e-mail noting the initiation of an FBI investigation into the alleged rape of a juvenile male detainee at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. (July 28, 2004)
An FBI agent's account of an interrogation at Guantánamo - an interrogation apparently conducted by Defense Department personnel - in which a detainee was wrapped in an Israeli flag and bombarded with loud music and strobe lights. (July 30, 2004)

The ACLU and its allies are scheduled to go to court again this afternoon, where they will seek an order compelling the CIA to turn over records related to an internal investigation into detainee abuse. Although the ACLU has received more than 9,000 documents from other agencies, the CIA refuses to confirm or deny even the existence of many of the records that the ACLU and other plaintiffs have requested. The CIA is reported to have been involved in abusing detainees in Iraq and at secret CIA detention facilities around the globe.

The lawsuit is being handled by Lawrence Lustberg and Megan Lewis of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C. Other attorneys in the case are Jaffer, Amrit Singh and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Art Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the NYCLU; and Barbara Olshansky and Jeff Fogel of CCR.

The documents referenced above can be found at: http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/fbi.html.

More on the lawsuit can be found at: http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/.
0 Replies
 
anton
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2007 03:33 am
Undisputedly the US has reintroduced the barbaric practice of torture, designed to get confessions from innocent people, this from a supposedly civilized society.
Recommended reading for doubters is British author David Rose's book titled, "Guantanamo: America's War on Human Rights".

The only thing this barbarism will achieve is a deeper, more widely spread hatred of American society.
Torture will achieve nothing but falsehoods, victims will say anything they think will stop the pain and terror; torture has never worked in the past and it certainly won't work in the future , anyone who thinks differently is a fool.
Below is a review of Rose's book taken from this site:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-3-77-2110.jsp

Reviewer: A reader
In Guantanamo: America's War on Human Rights David Rose provides the most lucid and detailed account of the experiences of those detained in Guantanamo produced to date. It tells of the shocking ways in which detainees are 'recruited', methods which virtually guarantee that the majority will be innocent of any meaningful connection with al-Qaida, interrogated by officers whose most distinguishing credential would seem to be utter incompetence, and tortured by American soldiers given almost carte blanche by their government to use the most deplorable and sadistic means of extracting what will inevitably be false information from them. This book made me angrier than anything I've ever read. As the Guardian Review of Books put it on October 30, "Of all the books I have recommended this year, Guantanamo is the one I press upon you the most urgently. You must read it. It's as simple as that."
I fully concur
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2007 04:17 am
The article in the opening post has a lot of adjectives, but is lacking in specifics. Putting someone in solitary confinement is not torture. The only two actual instances of torture mentioned are (1) forcing someone to stand for days, and (2) the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

I'd like a citation for the first of these. I don't believe it happened as described here, because, as a matter of policy, the US does not torture prisoners, although I'll admit some of the interrogation practices are close. As for Abu Ghraib, the individuals who did this were acting contrary to US policy and were severely punished for what they did.

Half of the countries in the world torture prisoners routinely, particularly including Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but your outrage appears to be confined to the United States, and, as I say, the whole article only includes one instance of sanctioned torture, for which I'd like to see a reliable citation.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2007 05:06 am
Brandon, what's your point? One act of torture is too much. You can't seriously defend, for instance, a wrongdoing by your family member by saying the rest of the neighborhood does it more.
0 Replies
 
anton
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2007 07:16 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
The article in the opening post has a lot of adjectives, but is lacking in specifics. Putting someone in solitary confinement is not torture. The only two actual instances of torture mentioned are (1) forcing someone to stand for days, and (2) the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

I'd like a citation for the first of these. I don't believe it happened as described here, because, as a matter of policy, the US does not torture prisoners, although I'll admit some of the interrogation practices are close. As for Abu Ghraib, the individuals who did this were acting contrary to US policy and were severely punished for what they did.

Half of the countries in the world torture prisoners routinely, particularly including Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but your outrage appears to be confined to the United States, and, as I say, the whole article only includes one instance of sanctioned torture, for which I'd like to see a reliable citation.


Right through this forum you defend and support the indefensible and unsupportable, either you live in total isolation or you believe everyone else is a liar; I think you need to get out a lot more, most patriotic caring Americans know exactly what the government is sanctioning and they are concerned, as they should be!
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2007 08:09 am
snood wrote:
Brandon, what's your point? One act of torture is too much. You can't seriously defend, for instance, a wrongdoing by your family member by saying the rest of the neighborhood does it more.

Did you even read my post before answering it? I said that only two of the practices mentioned were torture. One, Abu Ghraib, was contrary to policy and the people who did it received severe punishment from the US government. The other, if true, is of course unacceptable, but I don't think I believe it and would like to see a reliable citation that it existed. Where in God's name did I say that one instance of torture is okay?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2007 08:10 am
anton wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
The article in the opening post has a lot of adjectives, but is lacking in specifics. Putting someone in solitary confinement is not torture. The only two actual instances of torture mentioned are (1) forcing someone to stand for days, and (2) the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

I'd like a citation for the first of these. I don't believe it happened as described here, because, as a matter of policy, the US does not torture prisoners, although I'll admit some of the interrogation practices are close. As for Abu Ghraib, the individuals who did this were acting contrary to US policy and were severely punished for what they did.

Half of the countries in the world torture prisoners routinely, particularly including Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but your outrage appears to be confined to the United States, and, as I say, the whole article only includes one instance of sanctioned torture, for which I'd like to see a reliable citation.


Right through this forum you defend and support the indefensible and unsupportable, either you live in total isolation or you believe everyone else is a liar; I think you need to get out a lot more, most patriotic caring Americans know exactly what the government is sanctioning and they are concerned, as they should be!

Irrelevant. Which statement of mine in particular do you consider to be incorrect and why? Which particular "indefensible" practice have I defended? You argue like a child.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2007 07:45 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
snood wrote:
Brandon, what's your point? One act of torture is too much. You can't seriously defend, for instance, a wrongdoing by your family member by saying the rest of the neighborhood does it more.

Did you even read my post before answering it? I said that only two of the practices mentioned were torture. One, Abu Ghraib, was contrary to policy and the people who did it received severe punishment from the US government. The other, if true, is of course unacceptable, but I don't think I believe it and would like to see a reliable citation that it existed. Where in God's name did I say that one instance of torture is okay?


...Just so I'm clear (as is possible in these circumstances)...

You don't believe that you have seen any credible evidence to date, that the US has practiced torture during the last 4 years?
0 Replies
 
anton
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2007 11:16 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Irrelevant. Which statement of mine in particular do you consider to be incorrect and why? Which particular "indefensible" practice have I defended? You argue like a child.



Throughout the Politic Forum you defend the Bush regime invasion and occupation of Iraq, which has destroyed a country killing thousands of innocent Iraqi'sa and is now accepted, by overwhelming opinion to have been the wrong decision … You now deny the US Government has ever sanctioned torture in spite of statements by British and Australian citizens, wrongfully imprisoned by the US, that they most certainly were torture in Afghanistan (Baghram US Air Force Base) Iraq, Egypt and Guantanamo; have a look around for Gods sake, the evidence is there to be seen … Bush and his neo-conservatives are up to their necks in it and should be brought to face justice at the International Criminal Court in the Hague.
They are currently trying alleged terrorists before a Military Commission being held a Guantanamo ... do you think the world will believe these men are guilty, for they will most certainly be found guilty? Forget it! These wretched people will have been subject to all forms of torture during their extraordinary rendition.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2007 11:50 pm
Quote:
The article in the opening post has a lot of adjectives, but is lacking in specifics. Putting someone in solitary confinement is not torture. The only two actual instances of torture mentioned are (1) forcing someone to stand for days, and (2) the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

I'd like a citation for the first of these. I don't believe it happened as described here, because, as a matter of policy, the US does not torture prisoners, although I'll admit some of the interrogation practices are close. As for Abu Ghraib, the individuals who did this were acting contrary to US policy and were severely punished for what they did.


Solitary confinement IS torture. Not only criminal prisoners state this, but legitimate POW's. I just finished a biography of a WW2 pilot (Nicky Barr) who spent time in Italy's most notorious POW prison, where he was told about countrymen who'd gone insane in solitary confinement...when he ended up in there himself, he was told 'your only enemy in here is your own mind'.

Sensory deprivation is also torture. The CIA found many years ago that a person physically tortured is likely to tell you anything they think you want to hear, just to stop the torture, but a person who can be convinced he's torturing himself, and the only way to stop the torture is to just tell the truth...is much more likely to spill the beans.

Abu Graib isn't the only place torture has been photographed. I've seen photo's of rows of prisoners at Guantanamo strapped into a feotal position with bound and gloved hands & feet, and hoods over their faces, with nooses around their necks.

Such things aren't abberations, because it's too easy for too many people to know about it, and prisoners coming out all speak of the same things...for which photo's occasionally are leaked to the mainstream media. Considering that most people are decent people, the only way to get majority co-operation would be through one or more of the following methods :

1. orders
2. brainwashing (of the torturers)
3. peer pressure
4. selection of people with torturer characteristics

Peer pressure culture is lead from above, orders come from above, selectors come from above, and brainwashing happens from above to below.

While I don't think that most americans condone torture, nor do I think that most americans quite understand this torture, as it leaves no physical marks.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 05:29 am
snood wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
snood wrote:
Brandon, what's your point? One act of torture is too much. You can't seriously defend, for instance, a wrongdoing by your family member by saying the rest of the neighborhood does it more.

Did you even read my post before answering it? I said that only two of the practices mentioned were torture. One, Abu Ghraib, was contrary to policy and the people who did it received severe punishment from the US government. The other, if true, is of course unacceptable, but I don't think I believe it and would like to see a reliable citation that it existed. Where in God's name did I say that one instance of torture is okay?


...Just so I'm clear (as is possible in these circumstances)...

You don't believe that you have seen any credible evidence to date, that the US has practiced torture during the last 4 years?

I know that the US has performed or considered practices that walk a very thin line between torture and aggressive questioning. I believe that we have usually eventually come down on the right side of the issue. I do believe that some American interrogators have used torture, but that when detected, they have been punished. I do not believe that the US is much culpable on this issue. Those wishing to disagree with me, would, of course, have to provide a reliable counter-example. I also think that for the sake of perspective, although not as a justification, it should be born in mind that many, many, many other countries, notably Iraq, has been massively guilty of the systematic use of torture, so why do I hear so little outrage about them?
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 05:47 am
Quote:
many, many, many other countries, notably Iraq, has been massively guilty of the systematic use of torture, so why do I hear so little outrage about them?


That would be because the US names itself 'The leader of the free world', and 'the home of justice'...would it not? It would also be because torture is against the US and internation laws (at least, I would presume so), yet it is done with impugnity.

The US insists other countries follow international law (at least when it is in the US interests to so insist), but doesn't follow the same code.

The US often takes the moral highground when dealing with other countries (killing millions of Iraqi's for the same of some 3,000 Americans is an example), but doesn't feel the need to itself stay on the moral high ground.

It is the manner and hypocrisy that gets the criticism, not the fact that other countries conduct more in the way of torture than the US.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 07:22 am
vikorr wrote:
Quote:
many, many, many other countries, notably Iraq, has been massively guilty of the systematic use of torture, so why do I hear so little outrage about them?


That would be because the US names itself 'The leader of the free world', and 'the home of justice'...would it not? It would also be because torture is against the US and internation laws (at least, I would presume so), yet it is done with impugnity.

Really? For the sake of rational discussion, give one example that can be debated thoroughly.

vikorr wrote:
The US insists other countries follow international law (at least when it is in the US interests to so insist), but doesn't follow the same code.

The US often takes the moral highground when dealing with other countries (killing millions of Iraqi's for the same of some 3,000 Americans is an example), but doesn't feel the need to itself stay on the moral high ground....

When did the US military kill millions of Iraqis? And, by the way, the motivation was not the saving of 3,000 Americans, but a desire to resolve the question of whether or not an evil madman was still pursuing and hiding the development of weapons so powerful that one could obliterate a major city.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Torture Is Now Part of the American Soul
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 10:52:07