Mark,
If I knew for a fact torture would save a life, I would support it on a personal level. No problem whatsoever.
The rub is that proffessionally I can not and therefore do not support it. All of my training and studies support that torture is not as reliable as other methods. Example: You have two perps. You can separate them and question them using each statement to support, deny, or confirm what the other says until you find the truth. Or you grab one and wristlock him until he starts squealing. When he is hurting, he will to whatever it takes to make you stop. He will say anything....sometimes it's the truth, sometimes it's just something to make you stop, sometimes it's what he thinks you want to hear. I call this pain avoidance, some thinks it's pain compliance.
Charles,
Blind obediance? Unaware of what our governement is doing? What is our government doing that is so wrong? We are strickly enforcing the standards of the Geneva Convention even though we did not sign it. Ensuring detainees are well fed, clothed, clean, given excellent medical care, allowed to pray and given materials and clergy to support their religous requests.
Amnesty Int.'s definitions of torture do not match mine or the US governments. Flex-cuffing, shackling, and putting a coth bag over someone's head so they don't spit on you - try to run - or record the location of US forces to attack later is not torture. Shaving the head or face for sanitary and safety reasons is not torture, nor is strip searching. All of these things are used and condoned in every jail and prison in the US.
I personnally don't think having a dog bark at you is torture. If it is, can I sue my neighbors? Their dog has tortured me for years.
Have you read the accounts of how many detainees are happy to be at Gitmo? How they prefer to be there instead of housed by their own countrymen? Or do you only focus on the bad.
I don't think we are blind, I think you are not fully informed.
Paul
