There is a real dichotomy re this issue

Post #155,408 by dmarker 5/16/04 7:09:24 PM Reply	There is a real dichotomy re this issue Ceratinly for me. If someone was known to have participated in a plot to do harm on a large scale and the person gets captured, I can't bring myself to oppose him being tortured to gain information. I am totally opposed to torture for revenge or just for torture's sake. I would prefer techniques that force the victim to give information without having to mutilate of physically attack them. That of course is possible but not all the time. The dichotomy is that once we accept the right to torture, someone has to make the call & sadly, not everyone given that power seems to get it right & thus we have the spectacle in Iraq of citizenry caught in sweeps, being subjected to forms of torture then being released because there was never any charge or issue against them, just a need to milk information. I have no easy answer to this problem & can see the difficulty faced by the US military in Afghanistan & Iraq. But, can't condone what was being done to people who were merely swept rather than known targets for questioning. Doug M
Post #155,422 by deSitter 5/16/04 10:29:40 PM Reply	CIA's policy ..before 9/11 was - torture not only strictly prohibited by operatives, but even association with it tangentially was grounds for termination (job-loss). This from Bob Bahr, in a Salon article. Torture as policy is the work of Rumsfeld and his brownshirts (Hersch, NewYorker.com). The man is a scum stain on the toilet bowl of history. Torture is not only morally reprehensible, it doesn't work. This has been known for a long time. Torture is used not to gain information, but to terrorize and spread fear by tyrants (such as the Rumperor). There is never any context in which it is justified. Even shooting prisoners for logistical reasons is more moral. Once again the CIA is being scapegoated for the sins of this administration. How long will they allow themselves to be sodomized by Bush and his swinging dicks? -drl
Post #155,428 by JayMehaffey 5/16/04 11:47:44 PM Reply	Re: CIA's policy CIA's policy ..before 9/11 was - torture not only strictly prohibited by operatives, but even association with it tangentially was grounds for termination (job-loss). That is rather optimistic, it would be better to say that publicity of any connection with torture was grounds for termination. And in theory the rules still say no torture. Still, evidence suggests that somebody in the PNAC crowd is responsible for markedly lowering the regulations and enforcement of torture rules. It seems to have become a "don't ask, don't tell" situation where the lower level intelligence officers produced intelligence and nobody talked about how they got it. Torture is not only morally reprehensible, it doesn't work. Depends on how you are using it. If your goal is to extract information through fear of more torture, then no. But the goal in this case was to mentally disorient the victems and prepare them for interrogation sessions. Disorient them and make them willing to talk. My understanding is that the CIA intelligence officers feel that if they can get you talking they can get information out of you, one way or another. But they need something to get you talking, and preferably in a state where you are not real coherent. Jay

Welcome to IWETHEY!