It just keeps getting worse

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001350021-2001364909,00.html

[Dante wrote:]
>http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001350021-2001364909,00.html

Thanks so much for providing this link, Dante! Here is yet another
example of the U.S. news media wimping out, unless I've completely
missed it.

In doing a search on yahoo news, I came up empty, but did find the
following:

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/wisn/20011015/lo/926192_1.html

Which describes the unfortunate tendency of Israeli police to detain
(three years and counting for this guy) and torture suspects, with or
without trial.

The idea of "fighting terror" by torturing captives is so barbaric,
words almost fail to describe the irony.

If as a nation we fall into this trap, how can we act outraged or
baffled when others around the world hate us?

JdL

--- In metatuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

> Which describes the unfortunate tendency of Israeli police to detain
> (three years and counting for this guy) and torture suspects, with
or
> without trial.

Why don't you take a look at how the 50 large Islamic nations treat
their crime suspects too? I believe you'll find that the Jewish state
in the middle of them, which is barely visible on the map, is far
more civilized than every single one of them. It's just that much of
the corporate media, not to mention extreme left-wing and right-wing
media, have decided to focus their magnifying glass on this tiny
little state and blow everything up WAY out of proportion.

[I wrote:]
>>Which describes the unfortunate tendency of Israeli police to detain
>>(three years and counting for this guy) and torture suspects, with or
>>without trial.

[Paul E wrote:]
>Why don't you take a look at how the 50 large Islamic nations treat
>their crime suspects too? I believe you'll find that the Jewish state
>in the middle of them, which is barely visible on the map, is far
>more civilized than every single one of them. It's just that much of
>the corporate media, not to mention extreme left-wing and right-wing
>media, have decided to focus their magnifying glass on this tiny
>little state and blow everything up WAY out of proportion.

Paul, I am sorry if I seem to be dumping on the Israeli practices
unduly. Let me make clear:

. Islamic nations surrounding Israel are as guilty of brutal police
practices as Israel is. Worse, perhaps, in many cases.

. Israel is in a tough spot, with very difficult choices to make.

. What else have I left out?

At the same time, torturing prisoners, and holding people without charge
and without trial, is indefensible in my book, no matter what the police
think the people have done, and no matter what challenges face the
nation. This is surrendering to the evil that one is allegedly
fighting. Victory of any meaningful sort is no longer possible.

The Israelies have done a terrible job of building a future of peace
for their children, as bad a job as the Islamic states around them have.
Surely you are not going to try to justify the provocative building of
"settlements" in occupied foreign lands by anyone of any nation?

There is plenty of blame to go around in the Middle East. My immediate
concern is that the U.S. not emulate the mistakes of the Israelies _or_
the Palestinians (Syrians, Egyptians, Saudies, etc., etc.).

JdL

--- In metatuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

> At the same time, torturing prisoners, and ....

Not to make any blanket justification for anything else, but... The
article headline is grossly misleading. If you read the original
article closely (and a similar one at the Washington Post-- can't
find it right now) no one is actually suggesting that the US should
torture prisoners. They said they are thinking about options such as
"truth drugs" and the threat of extraditing them to other countries
who would treat them more harshly than we will. I won't even try to
publicly ponder the morality of these options, but just wanted to
point out the dishonest headline of the article.
kp

[I wrote:]
>>At the same time, torturing prisoners, and ....

[kris peck:]
>Not to make any blanket justification for anything else, but... The
>article headline is grossly misleading. If you read the original
>article closely (and a similar one at the Washington Post-- can't
>find it right now) no one is actually suggesting that the US should
>torture prisoners. They said they are thinking about options such as
>"truth drugs" and the threat of extraditing them to other countries
>who would treat them more harshly than we will. I won't even try to
>publicly ponder the morality of these options, but just wanted to
>point out the dishonest headline of the article.

True. The article seemed vague as to any particular _limits_ being
considered by the FBI, but the two options most explicitly mentioned
were: truth drugs, and extraditing the suspects to harsher countries for
rougher treatment.

My specific words quoted above were in reference to Israel (and the
Islamic countries surrounding it), where actual physical torture is
apparently commonplace. Maybe not as bad as, say, in the Inquisition
(molten lead into your boots, etc.), but bad enough. People do die from
it, even though the interrogators are trained to be adept at hurting
without killing.

I consider forcible injection of mind-altering drugs for purposes of
extracting confessions to be a serious violation on the level of
physical torture: a betrayal of civilization. Perhaps others would
disagree.

JdL

--- In metatuning@y..., "kris peck" <kris.peck@t...> wrote:

> They said they are thinking about options such as
> "truth drugs"

There is, at present, no such thing:

http://slate.msn.com/Code/explainer/explainer.asp?
Show=10/23/2001&idMessage=8458

--- In metatuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@y..., "kris peck" <kris.peck@t...> wrote:
>
> > They said they are thinking about options such as
> > "truth drugs"
>
> There is, at present, no such thing:
>
> http://slate.msn.com/Code/explainer/explainer.asp?
> Show=10/23/2001&idMessage=8458

Sodium pentathol is effective at lowering inhibitions to the point
that a person can talk about things he never would under ordinary
circumstances. Depending on the dose, the subject may not even be
aware that he is talking. In that case, it really would be a "truth
serum" of sorts, if important truthful information were revealed. I
say go for it. In my opinion it is not so great a violation of a
person that I am concerned. This is wartime interrogation at its
mildest.

John Starrett