No, I'm not talking about having to listen to Bush speak. I'm not even talking about all the 'God' diaries foisted on us. And let me say that I, for one, am tickled pink for Armando not having anything to do with that one. But, I digress.
Everyone says they're against torture, and then someone brings up the 'ticking time bomb', and what would you do then. A legitimate question, but a canard. Because the truth of the matter is, (according to Mark Bowden, and I agree) if there was a real time bomb ticking, there isn't a prosecutor in the land who would even consider bringing a charge against someone who did try to prevent that bomb going off.
Mark Bowden, author of Black Hawk Down, has written extensively on torture. The guy did his homework.
Sorry, it's subscription only. Do yourself a favor, look at their ads for a moment, cause reading this article is worth it.
More.....
here is one country who has legimized 'torture lite', defined as such:
...these include sleep deprivation, exposure to heat or cold, the use of drugs to cause confusion, rough treatment (slapping, shoving, or shaking), forcing a prisoner to stand for days at a time or to sit in uncomfortable positions, and playing on his fears for himself and his family. Although excruciating for the victim, these tactics generally leave no permanent marks and do no lasting physical harm.
That country is Israel. In 1987, the Landau Commission, headed by the Israel's former Supreme Court President Moshe Landau, codified what was 'acceptable' torture lite. So what happened then?
Since the commission submitted its recommendations, in 1987, GSS interrogators have tortured thousands of detainees, intentionally inflicting severe pain and suffering. The torture was neither extraordinary nor limited to "ticking bombs." Quite the opposite; torture was a bureaucratic routine: there was standard equipment for inflicting torture, and careful recording of the times the pain and suffering were inflicted. Even the state's response in petitions against torture repeated, paragraph after paragraph, the routine justification for what were supposedly extraordinary acts. Supervision of the GSS did not succeed in preventing torture in Israel from becoming routine, systematic, and institutionalized.
The legitimized versions of 'torture lite' created such havoc that the Israeli Supreme Court prohitited the use of torture.
Now, back to Mark Bowden. He lists numerous experiments, and according to him,
One thing all these experiments made clear was that no matter what drugs or methods were applied, the results varied from person to person.
So there is no definitive answer that torture, even torture lite, obtains results.
It may be clear that coercion is sometimes the right choice, but how does one allow it yet still control it? Sadism is deeply rooted in the human psyche. Every army has its share of soldiers who delight in kicking and beating bound captives. Men in authority tend to abuse it--not all men, but many. As a mass, they should be assumed to lean toward abuse. How does a country best regulate behavior in its dark and distant corners, in prisons, on battlefields, and in interrogation rooms, particularly when its forces number in the millions and are spread all over the globe? In considering a change in national policy, one is obliged to anticipate the practical consequences. So if we formally lift the ban on torture, even if only partially and in rare, specific cases (the attorney and author Alan Dershowitz has proposed issuing "torture warrants"), the question will be, How can we ensure that the practice does not become commonplace--not just a tool for extracting vital, life-saving information in rare cases but a routine tool of oppression?
Did you recognize Abu Ghraib in there? Read his article. We don't need torture, or torute lite. We need good interogators.
And, Mark Bowden gets it exactly right.
Torture is repulsive. It is deliberate cruelty, a crude and ancient tool of political oppression. It is commonly used to terrorize people, or to wring confessions out of suspected criminals who may or may not be guilty. It is the classic shortcut for a lazy or incompetent investigator.