Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rascal who wrote (136065)	6/9/2004 11:32:30 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

He is simply following Kerry's plan re internationalization. Great line! I nominate it for joke of the day.

To: Rascal who wrote (136065)	6/9/2004 12:52:54 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I hope the board and you, especially, have an opinion. Hawk what do you think? I think they were cutting a lot of fine lines in that memo. But they really seemed to be trying to find a definition for what constituted actual torture. Is it torture to deny sleep to the interrogation subject in order to break down his will to resist answering questions? This is controversial, because it doesn't necessarily meet the definition of lasting mental damage, because the condition is eventually alleviated by sleep recovery (how many of us have stayed up for days cramming for exams, or on military maneuvers to the point we were hallucinating?) Sexual humiliation is defintely controversial since it can be construed that the individual will experience life-long mental repercussions as a result. Hooking a guy up to wires and letting him create his own perception as to whether he will be shocked or not should he fall off a box is also controversial. The key is definitely not to inform the prisoner of what will happen. Let him create a little personal "hell" fed from his own fears. And, of course, we all know that physical torture is "verboten". But the memo also discusses the President's ability to lay aside the law by Executive order, in situations of national security. This would exonerate the actual perpetraors of such torture and place the responsibility onto the President. What remains to be seen is whether this memo was the primary influence on the creation of the final administration policies regarding treatment of prisoners. They are likely to be other memos as well.. Other than that, I can't really voice an opinion. Personally speaking, and I know this is controversial, I'm a believer in using truth serum and polygraphs. I don't like beating prisoners because then they generally tell you anything THEY THINK you want to hear in order to stop the beatings. But it's disputable as to whether drugs such as Sodium Amitol cause permanent mental damage. In any case, such controversial methods should only be relegated to the most important interrogation subjects, such as those whom we perceive to possess information that could save US lives. I know my position might not be popular, but I'm trying to provide you my opinion based upon putting myself in those interrogator's positions. And regardless of what they may publicly say, I believe most people on this thread would consider the same methods if they knew the lives of their friends and loved ones depended upon it. Hawk