Most Americans are in favor of harsh Interrogation of "Terrorists".

[Disturbed]

Perhaps most are not in favor of Torture but that depends upon the exact method of Torture, does it not?

It seems that most Americans believe that any people caught by the US are "Terrorists" whether these "Detainees" are guilty of anything seems not to matter. The Bush Regime is pushing "harsh Interogation" avoiding the lable "Torture". The RW is consistently better at framing most issues and get their framing out to the Media then everybody else must counter the frame, the setup.

[Karenina]

1. The underlying issue is

racism. Once folks get a handle on how racism perpetuates classism then maybe we can talk.

[Disturbed]

3. There are various underlining issues.

A major one is fear. The RWing are perpetuating fear at a massive scale.

[Karenina]

8. Indeed there are

But the easiest "hook" is that anyone who looks different is the enemy. The "avaricious ruling class," as we called them in my day, have ALWAYS made use of it.

http://www.socialismtoday.org/33/slavery33.html

[never_get_over_it]

2. Most Americans are STUPID

and have knee jerk reactions to things without thinking them through.

Bernie Ward had a caller last night and said he was perfectly fine with us torturing middle easterners. Then Bernie said then if one of our soldiers is captured are you perfectly fine with them being tortured. The caller said no - then Bernie said why is it all right for us but not for them and his answer was because they wear turbins.... then he went on to say God is on our side and Bernie is a fat ass - cheats on his wife and hangs out in bars and ranting about Leviticus and the gays....

I kid you not it was astonishing....

[walldude]

5. Unreal... Bill Mahr made a good point last night

He said "has anyone noticed that all the people who are for this torturing are the chickenhawks who never served a day and the ones against it are the guys who actually served McCain, Graham, Powell, etc..."

[treestar]

19. Which was also what the reporter was asking Bush in the Rose Garden

And did you notice Bush never answered? The reporter asked what if and enemy interprets the Geneva Convention as it chooses and tortures and American soldier. Bush simply never answered that point and went off on another tangent.

[etherealtruth]

4. Aside from my fervent belief that torture/harsh methods ...

...are morally reprehensible; I am of the belief that if you torture a person they will tell you whatever they think you want to hear (without regard to truth or reality). I don't understand how anyone could believe that anything "good" could come from this.

[lawladyprof]

11. The counter argument--how many people confessed to witchcraft

And to acts of witchcraft we now know to be absolutely false and impossible--flying through the air, etc. under torture. This is the prima facie example of people desperate to end the pain saying whatever they thought their tormentors wanted to hear.

And bear in mind that torture of these poor souls was justified in the law and by ordinary people because they were considered such a dire threat.

[treestar]

21. It is ridiculous when you think about it

Why would people tell you anything if you treat them as badly as possible?

It almost seems as if the thing to do is to treat them as nice as possible in the hope guilt would arise due to that and they'd tell if they knew anything.

It's just stupid to assume they will reveal a terrorist plot via torture, if they know of one. In fact, these people are suicidal, so killing them is fine with them.

[Bluerthanblue]

6. maybe its time to stop

letting the media speak for "most americans"-

Lets find a way to have each one of us chime in personally- rather than leave it to the 'representatives' who vote with thier lobby interests, or 'polls' that can be 'freeped' and un 'DU'ne as we all know from experience.

I personally do not know anyone who favors 'harsh interrogation' of people that have been imprisioned without basic rights.

Hell, I know dogs who are given more of a chance to live at no-kill shelters than * wants to give fellow human beings.

And I like dogs more than quite a few people I've known in my life.

[RandiRhodesArchives]

7. Like this poll

http://www.sun-sentinel.com
Vote for the FIRST choice! I wonder, do people read it or skim it too fast and vote for the WRONG choice??????? Or are the freepers on this on like white to rice?

[Disturbed]

10. Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"

The CIA sources described a list of six "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" instituted in mid-March 2002 and used, they said, on a dozen top al Qaeda targets incarcerated in isolation at secret locations on military bases in regions from Asia to Eastern Europe. According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques:

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

The Busholini Regime have approved the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"

[BeFree]

17. Well, that ought to do it

Besides bombing Baghdad with the shock and awe campaign, these six things should seal the fate of the outlaws. Whoever gave the ok now faces criminal charges. We know who gave the ok.

[Bucky]

9. There's a big difference between harsh interrogation & torture

I think anyone serious about dealing with the international terror networks agrees there's a time and a place and a way to employ harsh interrogation methods. That's not illegal and it causes no damage or injury to the prisoner. Moreover, if done right, it can yield reliable information that can advance our security interests.

Torture is a different matter. Besides being illegal and immoral, it doesn't work and--once word gets out that it's being done--it gives aid and comfort to our enemies. It betrays our values, our cause, and our security. It's like the new trifecta.

There's nothing wrong or immoral about getting tough with fanatics who mean us harm. The problem with Bush and Cheney is that they want us to become the bad guys rather than defeat them.

If the polls you look at only ask voters if we should use "harsh" methods, it may well be a word game played by conservatives to bolster support for the president's sick, sadistic torture policy.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

12. Yes, I heartily approve.

Every White House Republican terraist should have the living shit kicked out of them.

Repeatedly.

[MikeH]

13. I remember a good friend seemed to not be bothered by torture

He was a long time good friend, who was a fundamentalist Christian, but I never thought of him as having fit the worst stereotypes of people of that persuasion.

He did support * in 2000, and is strongly against abortion, which at the time I tried to accept.

I got together with him one last time in October 2004, right before the election. I found out, much to my disappointment and consternation, that he was still for *, and did not seem to have any serious second thoughts about voting for him a second time.

I was particularly bothered that he felt that our actions in Iraq were the right thing for us to do, i.e. removing a dictator with a character like that of Hitler.

I was especially bothered when he said he felt it was OK that we did not find weapons of mass destruction, since intelligence is not an exact science. That sounds like an outright excuse for someone who is "his type" of president.

And if I remember correctly, he seemed to not be bothered by reports of torture, such as at Abu Ghraib. However I do not recall his reasons.

After * got his second term, I felt I had to let my friend know how I felt, and he and I agreed to end our friendship.

[Disturbed]

14. Laura Ingram said most Americans agree with the

actions taken in the TV drama 24 against terrorists. She implied that those agreements extended to the real world. I tend to agree with her assesment, even though I usually disagree with her on mostly everything she spouts.

[CarlVK]

15. Then we are not doing a good job of educating the public...

as to the difference between "terrorist" and "suspect". It's the same with the annoyingly persistent myth that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. We must relentlessly reshape the public's thinking at every opportunity - from LTTE to just speaking it loudly enough when you are in the grocery line or at a restaurant. Memes work. Memes SINK IN better than the most furious podium pounding speech ever made. Let's use them to our advantage for a change.

Public pedagogy should not be a dirty word. If you doubt me, read P. Friere's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed".

[baldguy]

16. How about cabdrivers? Should cabdrivers be tortured?

Should bakers be stripped naked & have human shit thrown at them? Should shoe salesmen be water boarded? Should warehouse clerks have electricity run through their testicles?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

18. Your post almost makes clear the fundamental parameters of any

system of justice or crime prevention: the levels of Type I and Type II error the system is set up to tolerate. Unless there is a very clear video of the incident, along with unambiguous DNA or fingerprint evidence at the scene, no one can ever be 100% sure of a suspect's innocence or guilt, even if a confession.is extracted without torture or harsh treatment.

In all candor, any honest government offficial has to admit that every system is subject to error, of two types.

Type I error (letting a guilty person get away scot-free or avoid harsh treatment) is what Dubya seems to focus upon.

But there is another kind of serious mistake a justice system can make--namely punishing or treating harshly an innocent person (Type II error).

There often is a trade-off between the two types of error that a system will tolerate.

The key question in setting up a system that must be prone to levels of error is, how many innocent people are to be executed, punished, or treated harshly for every guilty person who is not executed, punished, or treated harshly?

Dubya's answer would appear to be, "An unlimited number". I think it's a shame no member of the White House "press corpse" has asked him this question directly.

[Disturbed]

20. I doubt if Busholini could answer that question.

He is not intelligent enough to understand the concept of your question. Did you hear his answer to the questions posed to him already about this topic?

If so, please summarize what you believe that his replies were?

My summary: Terrorists are evil doers and I will protect the American people from them however I deem fit.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

22. He has a Harvard MBA. He must have gotten credits for a course

in Statistics.

The concepts are not that advanced. There is a very excellent book called, "The Cartoon Guide to Statistics" that even Dubya could find someone to explain to him.