There is good reason to think we stopped it long ago.

Stopped what, handing over prisoners for turture by other countries, or
torturing them ourselves?

I'd be interested in hearing your reasons to think either has stopped.


Vito wrote:
I don't think we ever handed anyone over for the *purpose* of having them
tortured.

It's not proven AFAIK, but then in a number of cases it sure looks that
way. Like the guy we just got back from the Saudis, who confessed while
being tortured and now that confession is the primary evidence against
him in a U.S. court.

But hey, at least he's getting a day in court. Lots of other folks are
just locked up for who knows how long.



I can't say that beatings have entirely stopped - that no young Marine will
ever knock the crap out of a prisoner who insults him

Actually, on the radio a few days back they had one of the Abu Ghraib
guards who was involved in a case of a prisoner who was fatally
beaten... and the one who did the beating was an "OGA guy." That
happened Afghanistan too.


Then why were those who set the policy not punished?


What policy? The worst I've heard is that Rummy said "I stand at my desk
12-16 hours/day. It is not torture to have a prisoner do likewise." I tend
to agree. To me "torture" inflicts real pain but remember I think setting
one's ass on fire is a great joke.

The Abu Ghraib (or however you wanna spell it) scandal is just the tip
of the iceberg. Mistreatment of prisoners is on the rise in the U.S., by
the military and by police. It is partially due to the eroding of
professional & moral standards, and it's also directly due to corrosive
& amoral leadership.


I'm not sure it is any worse or simple better reported. If anything, I
suspect that true torture - inflicting pain - is less common in intel
circles because it seldom yields truth. Police are a different story. They
want confessions not truth. OTOH I agree on the causes you cite.

Well, why is the whole Bush Administration insisting on torturing
prisoners as a method of fighting the "War On Terror?"



For example, Sec'y of Defense Donald Rumsfeld issued a series of
memoes... at least one of which has been tracked directly back to him...
stating that he wanted to replace the U.S. policy of treating prisoners
scrupulously within boundaries, to "pushing the envelope" and treating
prisoners in ways that may be open to interpretation.

In other words, he issued orders for the troops to become bad guys who
torture prisoners. And then he puts them on trial.

Nice.


Sad, but completely normal for politicians.


And you still think it's "just a few bad apples" and "it's not really
torture"? You seem to have a curious double-sided attitude, admitting
that torture is bad and also not likely to produce desired results; and
also that the Bush Administration has set this policy from the highest
levels... and you're totally willing to deny that it really happens or
that anybody other than the poor grunt offered up for sacrifice ought to
be punished. I wonder if this is how 51.5% of the voters last year felt?

DSK