Anyone heard the voice of reason lately?
No? Me neither. But let's try some ventriloquism...
1. Why the hell does Article III of the Geneva Conventions suddenly need 'clarification'? Its intent has been clearly understood for decades: treat prisoners decently and humanely. George W. Bush, self-proclaimed 'born-again' Christian, you mean you don't understand the Golden Rule?
2. Waxing pragmatic for a moment, has anyone demonstrated any benefit from the use of 'alternative techniques'? Experts on the subject say torture is ineffective and dehumanizes both the victim and the perpretrator. Don't you think, given the high price paid by all involved in torture, that someone would demand proof of undeniable, significant benefit to national security from such practices?
3. How many '24'-style 'breakthroughs' have we achieved by torturing 'high-value' suspects? What, a bunch of wackos plotting to demolish the Brooklyn Bridge with--blowtorches?!?
4. Conversely, how much time and money and how many lives have we wasted chasing totally bullshit information wrung out of tortured suspects, suspects who had been broken to the point where they would admit to killing Christ if that's what their interrogators wanted to hear?
5. How many terrorists have we convicted through the use of waterboarding, shock treatment, cold rooms, sleep deprivation, dogs, truncheons, and Louisville Sluggers? Zero?
On Rough Treatment, a Rough Accord - washingtonpost.com
Draft legislation to create a new system of military courts for terrorism suspects would allow prosecutors to introduce at future trials confessions that were obtained through "cruel, unusual, or inhumane" interrogations by the CIA or the military before 2005, but not afterward.Technorati Tags: GOP, torture, Bush, lies, national security, IMPEACH
The legislation would also allow defense attorneys to challenge the use of hearsay information obtained through coercive interrogations in distant countries only if they can prove it is unreliable, a daunting task if the information consists of written statements from people the lawyers have no right to confront in court.
