Originally Posted by therick

Sources: Top Bush Advisors Approved 'Enhanced Interrogation'
Detailed Discussions Were Held About Techniques to Use on al Qaeda Suspects
By JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG, HOWARD L. ROSENBERG and ARIANE de VOGUE
April 9, 2008

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPoli...4583256&page=1


My favorite quote from the article and probably the most telling statement is on the last page.

According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."

This coming from the same administration that claims to be against torture and who actually fancies itself as having the moral high ground compared to the terrorists. There was a time when the United States of America was a beacon to much of the world for what was right and wrong and one way we did that was the humane treatment of our prisoners of war. We are now only slightly better than those we fight.

Originally Posted by Flop The Nuts

I said a while back that some high-ranking members of the administration may someday be doing the frog walk because of this. It doesn't matter if you're a liberal, a libertarian, a conservative, or whatever -- torture should sicken you. The point of torture is not to extract good information. The point of torture is torture.

Originally Posted by Flop The Nuts

I said a while back that some high-ranking members of the administration may someday be doing the frog walk because of this. It doesn't matter if you're a liberal, a libertarian, a conservative, or whatever -- torture should sicken you. The point of torture is not to extract good information. The point of torture is torture.

Originally Posted by therick

I'll use the definition in the US code


(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18...0----000-.html

So, simulated drowning would be defined as torture.

Would you consider simulated drowning as torture? Would you consider it torture if I held you on your back. Stuffed a rag into your mouth, and then poured water over your face so that the water ran into your mouth and nose and you could not breath because any attempt to do so would mean breathing in water. Keep in mind that the rag in your mouth would keep you from coughing up any of that water. Would you consider that torture if it was done to you?

Originally Posted by Flop The Nuts

I said a while back that some high-ranking members of the administration may someday be doing the frog walk because of this. It doesn't matter if you're a liberal, a libertarian, a conservative, or whatever -- torture should sicken you. The point of torture is not to extract good information. The point of torture is torture.