SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (46649)5/24/2004 6:12:46 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793975
 
If by "torture" you mean "cause excruciating physical or mental pain, agony and anguish" then it's torture. By definition.

But, you see, it's not as bad as maiming or mutilating, and, as the author points out, there are no marks so it never actually happened, did it?

Why does our 5th amendment prohibit the use of torture on criminal suspects? Not for the reason you might think, that it's not nice.

No, the real reason is that confessions obtained by torture are notoriously unreliable. We've actually known that for centuries, but we keep hoping . . . .



To: JohnM who wrote (46649)5/24/2004 6:33:01 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793975
 
He is doing what Sy Hersh did, conflating the abuse at Abu Ghraib, which as is becoming clear, guards run amok without supervision amusing themselves, with whatever MI had ordered for getting information. We never learn what was ordered or practiced because Hochschild and Hersh are too busy implying and inferring as hard as they can that the worst of the Abu Ghraib abuse was ordered. There is no evidence for it and mounting evidence against it.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News