Torture Revisited
A few weeks ago I wrote about the interrogation methods used on terror suspects, specifically my post discussed the changing definition of torture and how the methods used currently, in my opinion, fail to fit into my definition of torture.
Kirsten Powers of PowersPoint agrees:
|
To me torture is amputating limbs or digits, ripping out fingernails, drilling holes in feet, starving people...you know, the things Iraqi insurgents and the Hussein clan do/did to people). |
She also provides a link to an example of waterboarding, the controversial yet highly effective method used on Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, who gave up info on a plot to destroy the Liberty Tower in L.A.
Once again, I believe these methods are perfectly acceptable if used for interrogation purposes and not for revenge. As many have pointed out, our enemies have done far worse to civilians for what seems to be the sheer pleasure of killing.
Via: Hot Air
Comments
I agree with you. Putting underwear on a mans head may be humiliating and great as a college fraternity induction but it is not torture. Having it done by guards as opposed to the real interrogators is not right either.
I always think of torture as something like putting someone in a box and hammering in long nails one at a time. First on one side, then another side, then another side etc...
But the trick is to not hammer them all the way in. Just a couple knocks in for each.
That is at first anyway...
The problem with using this type of torture is that real quick the victim will admit to or say ANYTHING to get you to stop. From a military standpoint ANYTHING SAID is pretty much useless as intel.
These guys know what they are doing and should be allowed to do their jobs. That is what they are paid to do.
Posted by: prying1![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.thebrokenchair.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 31, 2006 01:09 AM