06-02-2009, 12:14 AM
Quote:Human nature is pretty consistent, so when it comes to establishing one group of people over another group of people, I believe that only when the highest scrutiny by their superiors is applied will victimization not occur.People are not always that bad, but I have to agree that war or other comparable circumstances can make them look really ugly. In fact, that is one of my motivations to oppose all kinds of torture. If you allow only 'harmless' things, it will cost a lot of effort to control and it will still get out of hand somewhere, sooner or later. If you allow nothing of the kind, everything is much easier.
As an example how a 'reasonable' interrogation technique can turn into sadistic cruelty in the blink of an eye, even when not under the pressure of war, I found the following lecture on torture techniques, by Dr. Larry Forness of the American Military University. It sounds almost too absurd to be true, imo, but the site appears reliable and the background information is correct. Students generally refer to this man as a good teacher and a helpful person.
At one point, the writer makes a pretty convincing case to use scopolamine, explaining that it keeps a subject from recognizing the interrogator as enemy. But then it continues as follows...
"To use scopolamine most effectively to get a prisoner to tell you what he or she knows, the key is where you inject it, and in what amounts. Normally it is introduced into the body by a transdermal patch or intravenously in the arm. However, if you inject it into the spine (amount classified), it causes absolutely incredible pain, accompanied by violent convulsions and seizures. If injected into the spine in the appropriate amount, more than 95% of all prisoners will tell the truth -- not something fabricated to stop the pain -- within 24 hours (Source: classified)."