Published on November 7, 2005 By InfoGeek In Current Events
There is a current proposal by the Senate to ban torture. Most people agree that torturing someone is a bad thing. Now, we are not talking about the police interrogation techniques that have passed legal muster, what I am talking about its torture.

Let’s say. For example, taking a hammer and whacking the boys a few times.

In general most people don’t like torture, so the Republican controlled Senate says, “OK, we’ll pass a law. No torture.”

And Bush just said recently that “We do not torture!” So this should be an easy pass. We don’t like torture, Bush says we don’t torture. Slam Dunk. Right?

No. The shot is rejected by Richard “hidden location” Cheney who wants an exemption for the CIA from the new law.

My question is, “If the president is saying we don’t torture, and Cheney wants an exemption, who is this “WE” the President is talking about?

IG


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Nov 07, 2005
I think they should define it, but if it does not include chemicals (not acid!  truth stuff), it has already been demonstrated that physical torture is not effective.  If they want answers, there are chemicals to get it.  Violence is not necessary.
on Nov 07, 2005
True, but if your compatriots can't hear your screams, it is not as effective as violence.

on Nov 07, 2005
mmmm sodium pentothal. Sounds like a good night out to me.
on Nov 07, 2005

True, but if your compatriots can't hear your screams, it is not as effective as violence.

Still, why?  They dont need to hear you scream.  Just dope them up.  There is no shortage of SP. (dont ask me to spell it!)

on Nov 07, 2005
True, but the violence get's your point across a lot quicker than drugs to those enemies that are watching you "question" the one prisoner.



on Nov 07, 2005
well IG it should be limited to one simple act with Muslim terrorists, Roll them up in fresh pigskin and threaten to let them die that way if they do not talk.
on Nov 07, 2005

True, but the violence get's your point across a lot quicker than drugs to those enemies that are watching you "question" the one prisoner.

It gets a point across, but that is not the reason (or at least should not be) for it.  It is for gathering information!  torture is just pure Sadism!  Nothing more. It accomplishes nothing well, and other methods are more effective.

on Nov 07, 2005
It gets a point across, but that is not the reason (or at least should not be) for it.


You don't think they use some "unusual" methods to control the population?

But my original quesiton was" Is Bush using the royal "we" when he says "We don't torture? As in I have never taken a hammer to a prisoner's tallywhacker, or is he saying 'we' meaning the he and his staff?

IG
on Nov 07, 2005
amytal or scopolamine are considered more effective than pentathol as so-called truth serum. i don't know about you but i'd consider having a drug involuntarily administered intravenously as morally abhorrent as any other invasive technique, especially since i don't imagine the inquisitors would worry much about me contracting aids, hep c, etc.

furthermore, truth drugs and hypnotic regression have a lot in common when it comes to generating reliable results. add in the trauma of 'rendition' (what we south americans call 'disappearred'*) to a comfy former soviet bloc prison cell, and you may, at best, discover a way to put 'st francis'--the loving christian pacifist personality who's been in hiding all these years--to emerge and take control of mpd victims who've been giving too much sway to their inner saladin.
on Nov 07, 2005

But my original quesiton was" Is Bush using the royal "we" when he says "We don't torture? As in I have never taken a hammer to a prisoner's tallywhacker, or is he saying 'we' meaning the he and his staff?

Royal.  Sorry to stray.

on Nov 07, 2005
here's a fresh idea. why not recruit and train several companies of qualified personnel who could then be offered instead of cash or other material goods in return for information? admittedly, giving each person of interest his own personal 73 virgins may be overkill, but upping the ante--even by 1--has worked well in most other negotiation situations.

after all, 73 virgins in the converted fema trailor in romania has gotta be worth 72 in the bus...umm heavenly hareem, no?
on Nov 07, 2005

i don't know about you but i'd consider having a drug involuntarily administered intravenously as morally abhorrent as any other invasive technique,

No one ever said it was not.  However it is not torture.  We are not talking due process here.  We are talking extracting information from known terrorist. and as much as you would love to afford them the protection of the constitution, that just does not exist.  As IG said, stay on topic.

on Nov 07, 2005
Sorry to stray.


No problem. It was an interesting discussion.

IG
on Nov 07, 2005
if you think #11 is out in space, hopefully you can see it's nowhere near as far out in space as passing a ban on torture that exempts the cia.

admittedly it would help to prevent the recurring problem of torture abuses by the department of the interior as well as most local weights & measures authorities, but still...
on Nov 07, 2005
you would love to afford them the protection of the constitution, that just does not exist.


unless you've figured out a way to get around the supreme court, it does.
2 Pages1 2