"DSK" wrote
And you still think it's "just a few bad apples" and "it's not really
torture"?

I believe it is a combo of the two.

I used to train horses. I got excellent results by *never* hurting the horse
but instead simply convincing it that sooner or later it wound have to do my
bidding. This is a tried and proven technique. Takes more time but the
results - a horse eager to obey -are well worth it. If I got a particular
hard case I would never, ever hurt it. I'd just trip it to the ground and
tie it there, set on it and pet it, offer treats and water, sometimes for
hours until it finally understood that I had complete control and gave up.
Was that torture? Some might think so but the alternative was the glue
factory.

There in no doubt that some soft heads call the techniques that are
routinely and systematically used by pro interrogators "torture", but I do
not. We are dealing with very dangerous and committed people here, people
who will *eagerly* kill themselves in order to kill an enemies women and
children. I see nothing wrong with depriving them of sleep, insulting the
religion that drives them to these outrages, and otherwise offending and
degrading them until, like a bad horse, they begin to doubt first themselves
then their conditioning and finally realise their captors are in control.
OTOH, I disapprove of inflicting pain if only because doing so usually
strengthens the victims resistance instead of reducing it. He may tell you
what you want to hear to stop the pain but will not change his beliefs so
whatever info he provides is likely to lead you astray - intentionally. I
think our interrogators are as good at breaking men as I was at breaking
horses. If a prisoner tries to hurt them they may react and smak him like I
might a horse that bit me but it is a mistake to do so - to admit he is
capable of hurting or even angering you - soo it would not be "policy".
Quite the opposite.

Second, we all know there are sadists who enjoy hurting others and that many
find their way into the military. I don't doubt they have hurt some
prisoners. However their actions are *not* US policy - as witness the tiny
percent of prisoners who are truly abused. A few dozen, even a few 100 out
of the tens of thousands captured shows that it is not commonplace. And,
when proven, the miscreants are punished.

admitting ...that the Bush Administration has set this policy from the
highest
levels...

On the contrary. I have yet to see evidence that Bush, Chaney, Rummy, et
al, ever made it US policy to inflict physical pain or torture (ie break
anybodys legs) on anybody. Degrade, frighten, discomfit and discourage them,
sure, but torture, no. Rummy says 'I stand 10 hours/day so I don't think it
torture to make a prisoner do the same' and all the softheads say he
condoned torture. Jeeze, there's plenty of real things to blame him for,
like not giving the generals enough men to prevent looting after defeating
Saddam. It's like the Neocoms have fixated on Clinton's BJ.

You should know that I am no supporter of theirs. I believe this whole Iraq
war was the biggest blunder in US history and that we were suckered into it
by lies and propaganda just like we were suckered into Vietnam. I could
believe *almost* anything bad said about them - anything except that Bush
ever got a BJ g.

But I not believe that CIA or other professionals routinly inflict pain on
prisoners, or send them to other countries to be tortured, if for no greater
reason than that it is unproductive to do so - the equivelent of a pro
trainer beating a horse. Police and other LEOs are a different matter. If
they can beat a confession out of you they can declare a crime solved and
get a gold star by their name. But if an intel officer is told that his
victim's gang is camped at XXX by beating the guy, then our patrol gets
ambushed on the way there, his career is likely to "suffer" ... perhaps in
the form of a fragging. So ....