Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[kandrathe]

They went far beyond that (e.g. in claiming that in order to qualify as torture: "When the pain is physical, it must be of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure. Severe mental pain requires suffering not just at the moment of infliction but it also requires lasting psychological harm" and it's not even clear they stayed within their own bounds) into things that were clearly illegal.

You are quoting from the Memo from Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo to the White House Counsel . This is a lawyer reading the law and telling someone how close to the edge they can walk without being convicted of a crime by the ICU. That is what I meant when I said, "I think the administration painted the grey area about as far as you can go without being definitely illegal."

But --- to repeat again --- that is a side issue. The main point is that this was the result of official policy, and most of it went exactly as intended.

And... this is your opinion? To me it appears, as a nation, the people made it clear in the last election that it did not go "as intended".

Or, to return to the CIA black prisons, in Khalid Sheik Mohammed's case, one man's torture is another man's torture (including yours --- I guarantee it).

The CIA is center stage on this one, with the tacit backing of the Bush Justice Department, although torture via rendition has been practiced by all of our allies including Canada and the UK, and directly by many.<blockquote>Berliner Zeitung wrote: "Speaking with a forked tongue is something Europeans are masters at. They criticise torture by the US and then enquire about visiting hours in the dungeons, they condemn the torture centers in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and offer to set up their own ones in Eastern Europe."</blockquote>