The stuff just keeps coming. Now it turns out that we've simply been outsourcing torture to the Iraqis:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...ees/index.html

How are we any better than the people we're calling terrorists and trying to kill? Just because we have someone else torture people in our name doesn't make our hands clean.

Yeah, and that makes us worse than the terrorists. Riiiggghht. We're not the ones who go into the middle of crowds of children and blow ourselves up to kill as many of them as possible. And aren't you from the same side that is constantly complaining about how we need to turn more things over to the Iraqis? Guess you got what you wanted, huh? If we give them control of things, we aren't going to get to run them the way we want to.

Actually, yes, this does make us worse than the terrorists in this situation, Lord Bob (now that's the sign of a true believer in democracy of any flavor to call onself a Lord ... hehehehe) and let me tell you why -- because we KNOW better.

We know that it's wrong to torture human beings even if they are the most evil human being on the face of the earth in the whole history of mankind. And because we KNOW that it's wrong when we do it, it doesn't just make us as bad as "the terrorists" (guess what? we just became terrorists by torturing someone .. oops .. guess you forget that little detail, Lord Bob), but worse because we not only KNOW BETTER, but lie as well, when we say we never torture prisoners, then admit we have, but OH YEAH, I FORGOT, those people that tortured prisoners made a mistake - silly old me forgot that it wasn't OK to take a leak on the equivalent of the Bible for this guy I'm interrogating, but that's OK .... I'll just hold his head underwater for awhile so has freshly washed hair for the rest of the interview - oops .... is that called torture? Really? I'm just messing with the guy a bit so he takes us seriously .. after all, this m***erFU**er just missed blowing himself up in the middle of a restaurant I know the guys like to hang out in in Baghdad.

Man, this stuff's getting complicated - yes, indeedy -- funny how it always seems to get that way

We're supposed to be better than them, and if we can't bring ourselves to treat other people humanely, then we don't need to cloak our actions in all this B.S. about how we're there for humanitarian goals.

The problem is that what you claim is torture is not the same thing as what actually is torture. It's only torture if they're actually physically injured from it - and in most of these cases, that's just not what happens. It's people being freaked out or having their religion insulted - who cares? If it helps capture more terrorists, I'm all for it. You need to define what torture IS before you start claiming that the U.S. is some evil fascist country. The real torturer was Saddam - a guy who would shove people feet-first into plastic shredding machines so he could hear their screams as they died. No one ever wants to come to grip with the facts that the Iraqis are FAR better off with him out of power, even if some rogue U.S. soldier puts a guy in a dress.

No way is a defintition of torture just going to be if you are physically injured. Torture can include a lot of activities that leave no scars and not even any bruises if you know the right places to target. And then how about the all too fun method of electricty and water applied to the correct parts of your anatomy - now there's no way you can really say that isn't torture to have some guy electrocute your "equipment" (trying to be nice in case there are ladies in the house) repeatedly until you say whatever it is they want you to say to get them to stop.

OK, let's agree that Saddam Hussein may have been a little more blunt in his actions, but you wanna know who taught him how to use a shredder and who gave him those shredders that would be capable of shredding a person (got to be wood chippers though I would think) - WE DID! Yes, indeed, way back in the 1980s, we were best buddies with Saddam and we supplied and trained his army in how to beat the Iranians (who strangly now we're kind of friendly with again ....) and torture captured soldiers for info ... as we've down time and time again all over the world.

Thanks for reminding me of that, frank. I also wanted to bring up that if torture only happens if you are physically injured, then what about places like the Hanoi Hilton. Now I know there was some actual torture going on, but mostly the "guests" at the "hotel" were just kept in a very small room and "encouraged" to go crazy because of the isolation, etc.

By GOPGuy's definition, is this torture? If not, then a whole bunch of Americans who fought in Vietnam and spent upwards of years in the Hanoi Hilton and similar places were not tortured, as often no physical injuries were inflicted. If you think this is true, why don't you take a visit one day or just surf online and see what those places were like and then we can talk about "torture". BTW, wouldn't you be a little bit pissed off (sorry for the pun) if you were captured and someone took a leak all over the US flag. That would be just fine with you??

The question is what should be acceptable for our interrogators to do and what shouldn't. If it there isn't any kind of physical injury to the person, then I have no problem with it. Shocking somebody with electricity? That's fine with me as long as the levels you're doing it at are safe and can't cause heart failure or whatever. Mental stress? Go for it - that's the only way to get information out of these people. Peeing on the American flag? Yeah, it would piss me off - but that's the point. If I had killed a bunch of people, and I might know information about a future effort to kill people, then you should do everything you can to piss me off or anything that will make me talk. If we catch a terrorist who loves the U.S., a McVeigh or whoever, then I am fine with peeing on the flag in front of them if the interrogater thinks that will get them to talk. The point is that there are some cases where we need to be able to do things to get information from people. There are even some cases where I would support actual torture. What if there is a terrorist who knows the location of a nuke hidden in New York City and set to go off? I think most people would agree that it's ok or even morally required to do anything you can to get the location from him. Once you agree that sometimes torture is OK, then it's a question of what you can do and how far you can go under what circumstances.

Why don't you let me cut one of your fingers off then we will see if you are better than me!

I agree with John McCains assessment of torture.

__________________
BLIND FAITH IN BAD LEADERSHIP IS NOT PATRIOTISM