This is nuts! I agree with you, CitizenSugar, our foreign diplomacy skills need to be revamped. Don't even get me started on the human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay.

This just goes to show that even our allies sometimes view us as the wolf in sheep's clothing, and for good reason. This has to stop.

:rotfl" the truth comes out mwahahaha. Everyone knows the US tortures it's prisoners whoever doesn't believe that is deluded.

The whole "waterboarding" fiasco really put the nails in our "Nice Country" coffin, huh?

Well, if is looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and acts like a duck, why not call it a duck? I know if someone stood over me and made me feel like I was drowning, I would sure say it was torture. The sad thing is that when our interrogation techniques include torture, we lose all moral superiority to insist our own soldiers not be tortured.

I saw this home video of several Iraqi men who had formerly been prisoners of Saddam's regime... they were laughing about how the United States has apologized for "torturing" prisoners (many of which, their former captors) because they know what real torture is like.
If a prisoner obviously has information they're not willing to hand over regarding national security, I think it would be obscene and irresponsible NOT to obtain this information any way possible. Afterall, in cases where a subject is known to have information, it really is THEIR choice whether to subject themselves to torture or not.

Studies have shown time and again that tourture DOES NOT provide reliable information. All it does is produce false leads, which do far more harm than good.

The US agreed to the UN's Convention Against Tourture, and the Geneva Conventions. We need to stand by our word, and accept the agreements we have pledged to uphold.

Our credibilty in the world has far more of an impact on our national security than the lies of a tourtured man, IMO.

foxie idf someone is electrocuting me because they think i have information they want i wll tell them ANYTHING to get away. have you ever had electrodes shoved up your genitals and been electrocuted, tried sitting in a room with no light, no sound nothing to touch but four bare walls for over 24 hours, been punched until your head is 5 times its sixe, been beaten underneath your feet so badly the skin peels off? Intil then never think torture is acceptable it isn't!!!!!!!!!!!!

Considering that information gained from torture would be classified, I don't think these "studies" would be reliable. I'll agree that some subjects of torture would lie initially, but eventually it would catch up to them and they'd be put right back in the same position with the same choice.

I think it's easy to sit back and say yes or no to torture when you're not in the situation. I sway between both sides but ultimately the question that needs to be answered is whether we as a society want to merely survive and manage the daily drudgery and or do we want to transcend these basic primal instincts and build civilization.

I think the first step is to at least recognize that this is happening and for the US to stop pretending that the United States is some shining city on a hill. We do not have a monopoly on virtue.

And ummmm...Well-trained interrogators, within the military, the FBI, and the police have testified in front of the senate that torture does not work, is unreliable and distracting from the hard work of interrogation.

And if the Us wants to police countries like mine and condemning them as torturers then it better have a spotless record.

Foxie, how would you feel if it was you being tortured, or one of your comrades? Hopefully, you aren't all for it as long as some sort of information is gained, truthful or not. The reason why it is a smart idea to condemn torture is because we don't want our soldiers treated that way. If we are participating in torture, how can we logically stand up for our own soldiers against the use of torture.

Torturing puts or own soldiers at risk. War is a terrible thing, that goes without saying, and there was a reason the Geneva Conventions was created. We can only hold those accountable to the standards we too are willing to abide by.

Foxie, you don't have to release classified information in order to say whether or not the information was credible. And as onabanana said, very credible sources from our government have testified that tourture produces false leads before the Senate.

How do we know that torture does not work? Well the CIA itself says so. See there's this policy The Freedom of Information Act. After so many years information paid for by the public must be made available to the public.

The CIA operatives wrote this lovely little manual which available via the US Library of Congress called the KUBARK CIA TORTURE MANUAL. Strangely enough was followed by some rogue soldier at 'Getmo' if we are to believe their COs. It was published or produced in 1963 yet soldiers on the America base in Cuba followed the techniques described inside to a T. Techniques described as not working to achieve the desired effect of retrieving intel.

The findings - One - good people when placed in power will torture, innocent people or any person when given the opportunity because they have the power to.
Two information glean from torture is 99% worthless and you never know when you're getting that 1% and risking losing 100% of your humanity in the process.

@brandy, There's a difference between the way to treat a POW and a way to treat an insurgent/terrorist.
@everyone else, Obviously torture must be doing something, otherwise we wouldn't be using it. How can any of us know the true nature of this interrogation technique when the government keeps it so secret? I don't pretend to act like I know exactly how effective it is, how often it's used, what specific good it's done because I don't KNOW. And neither do any of you. If it's a last resort employed against people known to have evil dealings, then it doesn't bother me one bit.

"How can any of us know the true nature of this interrogation technique when the government keeps it so secret?"

Did you even read the KUBARK manual? It is the CIA manual on torture and what you can except to happen and why you won't actually get what you think you'll get. Logging in at the Library of Congress or FBI or CIA database and reading through declassified documents will actually teach you a lot about what's been going on during your time on earth.

The reason we know what happens in current torture sessions is the soldiers who are forced to do the torturing later feel they incredible guilty for what they've been asked to do have come forward to their congressman or senators and admitted what they've done.

We've had CIA operatives who's job is was to obtain information from enemy combatants and others have come forward and said it does not work.

Interpol and other foreign agencies have found that trying to obtain intel via torture is like trying to screw for virginity. It does not work.

And our own police forces across the United States are coming to the same conclusion - people under extreme emotional or physical duress will say whatever it is they think you want them say to get you to stop hurting them. That's why those great 24 to 48 hour straight interrogations had innocent people claiming they committed crimes they could not possibly have committed.

The decision to pretend that the US is not torturing people is yours to make as is the decision that the our government is actually obtaining useful information from those torture sessions despite strong evidence to the contrary.

How can we go to another country and say stop torturing our soldiers or our CIA or FBI operatives for intel, when we are now stooping just as low as our lowest enemy. Our claiming that we have some sort of exemption is wrong especially when it violates the Geneva Convention, which is suppose to help protect our own soldiers. It sets a dangerous precedent.

I don't believe that any country's hands are clean when it comes to the issue of torture, even ours. What I do believe is that unless you're directly involved in the process, there's no way for us to either judge, or truly know about it.

Wack, you're talking about us torturing people we don't know for certain HAVE information and you're talking about other countries torturing our soldiers. Torturing POWs, I say again, is another issue entirely. As for us torturing possibly innocent subjects, that's not in the realm of what I'm comfortable with either. As I said before, I'm talking about people who are KNOWN to have information. I mean, honestly, I'd reply to your post but I'd just be copying and pasting what I said before, so I guess I'll just ditto Jovian's post.

Ignorance must be bliss.

As I have pointed out before Foxie - stop skimming and start reading. It would do you some good to read things in entirety before dittoing someone else's comment.

If you read my post or even the first page of the CIA policy manual on torture you'd know - the who,when,why and how of the US policy on torture. But you cannot be bothered with actually knowing what the government does because then you couldn't say you do not know anymore.

Again, ignorance is bliss. The choice to be ignorant is also called stupidity.

You have zero tact. Calling me stupid doesn't make you look smart or classy and it sure as heck doesn't make me agree with you.

My God. It just completely blows my mind that this is even being debated at all.

onabanana, loved your comments on this. Agreed 110%.

nyaradzom - Are you accusing our soldiers of doing things like that?

I just want to say one thing here. Please educate yourselves on the Geneva Convention before you invoke it regularly. The entire point of the Geneva Convention is to encourage all combatants to follow certain rules for the safety of civilian populations in war zones by offering them protection under the same rules they agree to follow. Allowing combatants who choose NOT to adhere to the terms of the Convention to still be protected by the Convention completely nullifies its point and will lead to more danger and suffering for innocent civilians caught up in conflicts.

wow
that's shameful

The USA have Allies ?!?!? I mean, real ones?

We should have allies considering we bailed Europe out of a few messes but alas good will has been squandered and memories are short.

i am not accusing your soldiers of doing anything jenna76 i just believe the US tortures civilians. I don't know who does it could be the CIA, FBI, Secret Service anyone but the US does torture and abuse prisoners. And the Geneva Convention is not worth the piece of paper it was written on. I have never known of countries to not engage in some form of torture and abuse during wars, ever. Torture is a way to exert power and intimidate.

FOXIE I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU!

I believe the torture of suspected terrorists goes on.
I remember seeing pictures of it. But I believe many countries are guilty of such actions.

What's the difference between an insurgent/terrorist and a POW? POW's are American's, and terrorists/insurgents are anyone who disagrees with us? Half of the "terrorists" that are sitting in Gitmo are there because we handed out cash rewards, equivalent to a year's salary, to people who turned in terrorists in Afghanistan. Personally, I know a few people I'd turn in for torture for a year's worth of pay.

I would turn in my boss for free.

That was a joke, (sort of, my boss is terrible) Don't send me hate mail.

@ brandy - What? POW is not an American-only designation. You really don't see a difference between MILITARY POWs and terrorist insurgents?

The difference between a POW and a terrorist/insurgent is clearly defined by the Geneva Convention. People who follow the rules of the Geneva Convention are POWs, people who don't are terrorist/insurgents. Easy peasy.

OK, so I looked up and read the Geneva Conventions Criteria for a POW, and I must say that it is out of date, and can disqualify a lot of people. Let's say that the US was attacked on our land (I mean another nations forces, like Mexico deciding they want Texas back, not like 9-11) Now, I don't wanna join with the army, but if someone comes anywhere near my home, I'm gonna blow their effing head off. Therefore, I would be considered an enemy combatant, rather than a POW, because I was not answering to anyone above me, I had no uniform, I'm not a part of a militia or any force, because I'm just protecting my property, and I'm not openly displaying arms. I would not be gauranteed that the attacking force would be required to treat me humanely. I'm sure this is how a lot of captured Iraqis came about being captured. Scared sh*tless, gun in hand at the angry foreign soldiers breaking in my door.
Now, the definition or toture, which is what this post is about, is whole nother thing, of which we are guilty of.

Brandy, that seemed so wrong I looked it up. I assumed that there would be something that distinguishes between an aggressor and a defender, but it is much more explicit according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant):

"To qualify for prisoner of war status persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war: ... or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."

On a separate note, the Democrat controlled congress just approved an Attorney General who would not name water-boarding as torture. The powerpoint in question gave significantly less latitude including blindfolding as torture. And the NYT headline for the same story: "Canada to Rewrite Manual Linking U.S. and Torture"

This is what I was basing off of:
Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Exactly. Category 6 addresses your hypothetical invasion from Mexico precisely and states that the civilian is to be treated as a prisoner of war under the Geneva convention. Which is exactly the opposite of your comment: "Therefore, I would be considered an enemy combatant, rather than a POW ... I would not be gauranteed [sic] that the attacking force would be required to treat me humanely."

Good. That thing is hard to read, and harder to understand when you do read it. So, then most are POWs, not enemy combatants. Thank goodness. I didn't want to be contradicting my own thoughts, which I soooo was. After a few lines, my eyes started glazing over, and I couldn't remember what I was reading. LoL! I;m sure that's George W felt.

This is ridiculous. Canada is one of the most liberal countries in the world. Why do we care one way or the other what they are saying about us? The only reason they apologized for lumping us into that group is because they got caught. Just because we don't baby our POW's we are accused of mistreating them. Torture should only be used in the most extreme cases and frankly the American people have no business knowing about it one way or the other. I trust our military to protect us and whatever methods they need to use to achieve that are fine with me but for the record, what countries like Canada call torture is laughable. This world is spinning out of control. No one seems to understand what it takes anymore to keep a country safe.

Brandy, I hear you, that stuff is like reading stereo instructions! I hope you didn't find my comment mean. I was afraid it came off mean, but you prompted me to go check it out, so thanks for that!!