Yes, what is in the Liberal Mind, Milk and Cookies for Interogation of Al Queda.

Dems: Bringing A Knife To A Gunfight
By: Michael P. Tremoglie, The Bulletin
07/22/2008

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties conducted a hearing May 6, about interrogation techniques of terrorists. One of the witnesses was Marjorie Cohn, the president of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), an organization that passionately defended attorney Lynne Stewart, who was convicted of aiding terrorists. Ms. Stewart is an NLG member.

During her congressional testimony, Ms. Cohn was asked by ranking Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona, "If you were writing a statute on severe interrogations or interrogations of any kind ...If (terrorists) were unwilling to give information ...critical to save lives. What kind of techniques ...would you recommend the government to use what is the severest thing we could do ...."
Ms. Cohn responded, "I would write a statute that says that when you're interrogating a prisoner and you want to get information from him, you treat him with kindness, compassion, and empathy. You gain his trust. You get him to like and trust you. And then he will turn over information to you. Torture does not work."
This statement represents one school of thought about interrogating al-Qaida terrorists. However, it is not the gospel truth - it is just opinion.

There was a line in the movie "The Untouchables," starring Kevin Costner and Sean Connery. Mr. Connery, playing the part of a veteran Chicago police officer refers derisively to the intelligence of a gangster. He says that the gangster is stupid because he "brings a knife to a gunfight."

You have to wonder if Democrats are doing the same thing.

The most important line in that extract is "Torture does not work."

The most important line in that extract is "Torture does not work."

Your proof?

Common sense. If you were tortured, you'd tell your torturers whatever you thought they wanted to hear.

Think about it.

Common sense. If you were tortured, you'd tell your torturers whatever you thought they wanted to hear.

Think about it.

Your common sense is not proof, now show me real proof that torture doesn't work.

Not your, supposition as to it doesn't work.

The most important line in that extract is "Torture does not work."
”
Your proof? Might want to qualify that: torture does not work as well as other strategies for getting information.

It works quite well for destruction of personality and "brainwashing", intimidation by terror of subject peoples, obtaining false confessions for propaganda and show trials, and so forth.

It is the effectiveness of torture that needs the proof, of course, not the other way around - and look at the goofball arguments advanced in its favor: all these emergency situations where the ticking bomb is hidden and the evildoer refuses to cooperate. None of the thousands of people tortured under US auspices over the years (and recently even by US government agents) had anything to do with such situations, or any other crimes in most cases. That's not why governments torture people - never has been, never will be.

The most important line in that extract is "Torture does not work."
The validity of that proclamation is dependent on what work is the aim of the torture.

For relevant information, perhaps not so much.

For entertainment value, perhaps much.

When not so much work is its own torture. :roll:

Torture sometimes has different purposes. Whether for information extraction, pleasure, punishment, intimidation, etc

So we can't say it "doesn't work"

Is it righteous? That's the real question, and even then, is dependent upon the purpose. However, liberals will, of course, ignore this in their attempt to live out in la-la land.

Torture doesn't work:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-torture-does-not-work-as-history-shows-777213.html

Torture doesn't work:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-torture-does-not-work-as-history-shows-777213.html

It doesn't work to do what?

To extract truthful information from a detainee.

It doesn't work to do what?
To get us to reliably vote Democratic.

Cutting off our nuts is no assurance of voter loyalty that works.

Cutting off our heads is no assurance that our nuts can't still kick Dem asses into the next galaxy.

Your common sense is not proof, now show me real proof that torture doesn't work.

Is this proof that conservatives have no common sense? ;)

Is this proof that conservatives have no common sense? ;)

No, liberals have no grasp of reality;)

No, liberals have no grasp of reality;)

Which is why modern life came about due to progressive (ie. liberal) thinking.

Which is why modern life came about due to progressive (ie. liberal) thinking.

No, it came about due to technological advances. Social order is still very similar to how it was centuries ago

Which is why modern life came about due to progressive (ie. liberal) thinking.

What?

Social order is still very similar to how it was centuries ago

What?

Is this proof that conservatives have no common sense? ;)

You still haven't provided any information to show that torture doesn't work.

What?

Apart from the introduction of equality, much remains the same in terms of social classes, norms, etc

You still haven't provided any information to show that torture doesn't work.

I asked you to think. It's potentially a more useful exercise than me spoon feeding you.

Apart from the introduction of equality, much remains the same in terms of social classes, norms, etc

I suggest you take an economics class some time, and pay close attention to whenever the Prof. discusses private property with you.

I suggest you take an economics class some time, and pay close attention to whenever the Prof. discusses private property with you.

Then please, enlighten me on the social differences between now and 1700

Then please, enlighten me on the social differences between now and 1700

How about getting rid of serfdom

Then please, enlighten me on the social differences between now and 1700

I have to confess to laziness. If you won't take a class, go and buy Economics Explained: Everything You Need to Know About How the Economy Works and Where It's Going (http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Explained-Everything-About-Economy/dp/0684846411/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216793908&sr=8-1) by Misters Robert Heilbroner and Lester Thurow (only 10 bucks shipped). Read the first chapter, Capitalism: Where Do We Come From?.

Disclaimer: it's in parts certainly a biased book, but it does adequately answer your question and it does give a basic understanding of certain economic concepts.

EDIT: Placing this in an edit because I don't want to create more posts on the topic. I know what you're talking about Norsefire, and I'm telling you the answer lies in economics and the introduction and spread of private property. That's the last I'm going to say on the topic, if you want to continue the discussion we can do so in a separate thread or via PM.

I was talking about social order, not economy

Torture doesn't work:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-torture-does-not-work-as-history-shows-777213.html

Again, you haven't provided any relevant information, the Tortures of the inquisition were to extract confessions, nothing else, confessions used as proof to confiscate the property and wealth of the accused individuals, and then condem them to death.

The purpose of a agressive interogation is for information, they are not looking for a confession.

That information will be verified, unlike the confessions of the Inquisition, different end purpose.

The agressive interrogation for military purpose is for information.

Ask or read any information on prisoners who have been tortured, they will tell you there are different purposes for such action, if it is for information, you will eventually tell every thing you know and make up things that you don't, but it will be verified, and if you lie, it starts all over again.

Bit by Bit the information will come out from you and others, and it will be crossed checked and verified.

If you are looking for information that is how it is done.

If you want a confession, all they do is put you in pain untill you sign anything, no cross check, no verification of information, just pain untill you confess.

We have no choice but to lower ourselves to the level of the enemy we are fighting. If we wish to defeat an enemy who engages in mass slaughters of civilians, massed suicide attacks (including suicide attacks using aircraft against ships), and are ruled by oppressive dictators who answer to no one, we have to be exactly the same in order to defeat them; otherwise they would have an insurmountable advantage.

Looking over the last century of warfare, it is obvious that the most brutal and least democratic regimes always won.

We have no choice but to lower ourselves to the level of the enemy we are fighting. If we wish to defeat an enemy who engages in mass slaughters of civilians, massed suicide attacks (including suicide attacks using aircraft against ships), and are ruled by oppressive dictators who answer to no one, we have to be exactly the same in order to defeat them; otherwise they would have an insurmountable advantage.

Exactly right, I dare anyone to go into a fight and follow the Marquis of QueensBerry rules, while his opponent fight under Ultimate Fighting rules and see who get their ass kicked.

Now get your self in a steet fight, and follow the Marquis of QueensBerry, and you will end up dead.

Looking over the last century of warfare, it is obvious that the most brutal and least democratic regimes always won.

Actually, no, Japan and Germany lost, and the reason that Germany and Japan lost, is that we learned, after getting our ass kicked to get just a nasty and mean as the people we were fighting.

So does that mean the US is the most brutal and least democratic regime? Or are they the losers?

So does that mean the US is the most brutal and least democratic regime? Or are they the losers?

Really obtues aren't you, typical SAM.

We have no choice but to lower ourselves to the level of the enemy we are fighting. If we wish to defeat an enemy who engages in mass slaughters of civilians, massed suicide attacks (including suicide attacks using aircraft against ships), and are ruled by oppressive dictators who answer to no one, we have to be exactly the same in order to defeat them; otherwise they would have an insurmountable advantage.

I think this is a dangerous slippery slope. Part of the reason we hate our enemy so much is what they're willing to do to win. Besides, this isn't a conventional war. The stated goal of our enemies' leaders hasn't been to bleed America of blood but to bleed us of treasure. In that war, they're winning. That they happen to find it easier to reach American blood thanks to our being on their home turf only makes it sweeter for them.

So does that mean the US is the most brutal and least democratic regime? Or are they the losers?
”
Really obtues aren't you, typical SAM. It's a valid point. You are claiming that brutality and sadism beats strength of character and fidelity to principle in the long run - that one must outdo one's opponent in these matters, or lose. So which is it, for the US ?
You still haven't provided any information to show that torture doesn't work. Doesn't work for what ?

If you want evidence that it is a poor way to get information, look at the poor information and serious blowback penalties in Iraq under the US, or the war on terrorism in general. Would you say that US intelligence agencies have been doing better since they started training torturers in South and Central America , or that there was another big improvement in US intelligence after Gitmo was established ?

Most of the published stuff from KSM was garbage, for example, and meanwhile the "aggressive interrogation" at Abu Ghraib had created blowback in Iraq severe enough that administration officials were referring to the half dozen principals in the photos as "the six people who lost the war".

AFAIK torture has never been - certainly very seldom - employed by a State with the primary result of gaining information. The information loss is severe, and the creation of an official torturing agency at the service of the government undermines the validity and reliability of that information not lost. States that have tortured have done so with other results, intended (most often) or not - and the US is probably not the first exception in history.

Further, as the US is discovering, States that begin torturing do not stop merely because they find it counterproductive in gathering information, if that was ever the actual goal.

The stated goal of our enemies' leaders hasn't been to bleed America of blood but to bleed us of treasure. In that war, they're winning.

Why do you think this fact escapes all the strategists? Is it because they think body counts constitute victory?

It's a valid point. You are claiming that brutality and sadism beats strength of character and fidelity to principle in the long run - that one must outdo one's opponent in these matters, or lose. So which is it, for the US ?

Get involved in a battle for your life, and then ask that question?

Strength of character and fidelity to principle, is what take place after the fight is over.

It is what re-establishes civil behavior after the war is over.

If Hitler and the Nazis had won WWII would the extermination camps have closed? would the Untermensch, have ceased to be killed?

No, they didn't have Strength of character and fidelity to principle, civilized principles of charter, freedom for all, and equality of all.

Would Japan have stopped murdering Chinese, enslaving the rest of the pacific nations for labor, and whore houses?

No, they didn't have Strength of character and fidelity to principle, civilized principles of charter, freedom for all, and equality of all.

You must win first, and then, Strength of character and fidelity to principle will bring back normalcy of state.


Doesn't work for what ?

Gathering intelligence

If you want evidence that it is a poor way to get information, look at the poor information and serious blowback penalties in Iraq under the US, or the war on terrorism in general. Would you say that US intelligence agencies have been doing better since they started training torturers in South and Central America , or that there was another big improvement in US intelligence after Gitmo was established ?

No new attacks in the U.S., and a major reduction of violence in Iraq.

Now as to your definition of Torture, vs: aggressive interrogation, there is a vast difference between the two.

Most of the published stuff from KSM was garbage, for example,

Example please?

So you are privileged to the information garnered by the aggressive interrogation of KSM? What Level of Security clearance do you carry?

I would love to know what was gathered by that interrogation? please enlighten us to that information.

Your barking in the dark, and using third and fourth hand speculation for you opinion.

and meanwhile the "aggressive interrogation" at Abu Ghraib had created blowback in Iraq severe enough that administration officials were referring to the half dozen principals in the photos as "the six people who lost the war".

Examples please?

Example please?

So you are privileged to the information garnered by the aggressive interrogation of KSM? What Level of Security clearance do you carry?

AFAIK torture has never been - certainly very seldom - employed by a State with the primary result of gaining information.

Very true, it is used very seldom by the U.S.

The information loss is severe, and the creation of an official torturing agency at the service of the government undermines the validity and reliability of that information not lost.

And you can prove this? example?


States that have tortured have done so with other results, intended (most often) or not - and the US is probably not the first exception in history.

Yes many States who have torture do so for many other reasons, take Saddams Iraq, terror for the sake of power and control, they weren't worried about information for the population.

Further, as the US is discovering, States that begin torturing do not stop merely because they find it counterproductive in gathering information, if that was ever the actual goal.

Again example please?, you have no access to any real information, because you don't have the security clearance, and have never been involved in any Interrogation at any level.

And you still haven't proven that Aggressive Interrogations don't provide valid actionable intelligence information.

A lot of supposition, and speculation.

There is a lot of empirical evidence to the fact that it does work, no new successful attacks in the U.S. and we are a prime target, they would love to hit us again at home, and the sad fact is that they will eventually succeed.

For them not to succeed we have to be 100% in our actions, all they need is for one slip by us, and they succeed.

So, hypocrites, we had to invade Iraq because, "Saddam tortured his own people", but liberals are living in la la land because they oppose the illegal torture of our own alleged enemies? Pass a law that makes torture legal, I dare you.

So, hypocrites, we had to invade Iraq because, "Saddam tortured his own people", but liberals are living in la la land because they oppose the illegal torture of our own alleged enemies? Pass a law that makes torture legal, I dare you.

Yes, Liberals in La La land.

Read UNSCR 687, then you will have your answer to why we invaded Saddams Iraq.

The Cease Fire always the Cease Fire, violations of the cease fire, and failure to do what was required by the terms of UNSCR 687.

Liar (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/)

Nonsense, the US cannot declare itself the unilateral enforcer of UN resolutions. That is a violation of US rules. Besides, the issue is torture, something we prosecuted our own troops for doing, something the Nuremburg trials condemned people for doing. It doesn't matter if it's effective or not. Totalitarianism usually is effective, that's the rationale for doing it.

Liar (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/)

:roflmao:

There was a specific regime that Saddam agreed to in UNSCR 687 in the disarmament of Iraq, he failed to follow that regime, and as a signatory to UNSCR we had a right to enforce The Cease Fire, if it wasn't completed in accordance to the requirements of the Cease Fire.

Saddam signed the Cease Fire and then faild to follow the Letter, let alone the Spirite of UNSCR 687.

And it still was UNSCR 687 why we went back into Iraq.

Nonsense, the US cannot declare itself the unilateral enforcer of UN resolutions. That is a violation of US rules. Besides, the issue is torture, something we prosecuted our own troops for doing, something the Nuremburg trials condemned people for doing. It doesn't matter if it's effective or not. Totalitarianism usually is effective, that's the rationale for doing it.


Now again prove that Torture has taken place.

I will conceed agressive interrorigation, but torture?

real torture:

http://search.hp.my.aol.com/aol/redir?src=image&clickedItemURN=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkhumphrys.com%2FBit maps%2Fabu.ghraib.2.jpg&moduleId=image_details.jsp.M&clickedItemDescription=Image Details

Nick Berg.

http://search.hp.my.aol.com/aol/redir?src=image&clickedItemURN=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uscrusade.com%2FIr aq%2Ftorture%2FMURDER7.gif&moduleId=image_details.jsp.M&clickedItemDescription=Image Details

Why don't you show us the video of US troops/contractors sodomizing children in front of their parents?

A judge has asked for the evidence years ago.


"Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it's going to come out."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001218842

Nonsense, the US cannot declare itself the unilateral enforcer of UN resolutions. That is a violation of US rules. Besides, the issue is torture, something we prosecuted our own troops for doing, something the Nuremburg trials condemned people for doing. It doesn't matter if it's effective or not. Totalitarianism usually is effective, that's the rationale for doing it.

I wonder if he would have been better off in Gitmo, maybe Abu Grieb under the Americans?

Probably killed by an American missile. Thats what the pieces look like even in Palestine.

Why don't you show us the video of US troops/contractors sodomizing children in front of their parents?

A judge has asked for the evidence years ago.



http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001218842

List any Terrorist on Jihad who has been brought to trial for:

Probably killed by an American missile. Thats what the pieces look like even in Palestine.

Yes Nick Berg.

And the US government is competing with them? Is that why they legalise torture, incarcerate and torture innocents, rape and murder detainees? Because they want to be better than terrorists?

And the US government is competing with them? Is that why they legalise torture, incarcerate and torture innocents, rape and murder detainees?

Yes SAM, if it is done in the Ummah by a Moslem it doesn't count, no judgement.

The Log SAM, the LOG in YOUR EYE, and your religion.

You're the one who is arguing for torture, who thinks raping children is necessary to keep your country "safe". These guys should be your heroes. This is what you want to become.

Again, you haven't provided any relevant information, the Tortures of the inquisition were to extract confessions, nothing else, confessions used as proof to confiscate the property and wealth of the accused individuals, and then condem them to death.

The inquition bit in the article was just an appetizer. Read further down about specific examples of torture for truth resulting in fantasy confession.


The purpose of a agressive interogation is for information, they are not looking for a confession.

That information will be verified, unlike the confessions of the Inquisition, different end purpose.

The agressive interrogation for military purpose is for information.

Do you have any statistics as to it's effectiveness? Everything I have seen shows very poor results.


Ask or read any information on prisoners who have been tortured, they will tell you there are different purposes for such action, if it is for information, you will eventually tell every thing you know and make up things that you don't, but it will be verified, and if you lie, it starts all over again.

I'll check it out.


Bit by Bit the information will come out from you and others, and it will be crossed checked and verified.

If you are looking for information that is how it is done.

Any information on the subject I have seen to date has not shown positive results; however, I am open to supportive evidence should it pop up.


If you want a confession, all they do is put you in pain untill you sign anything, no cross check, no verification of information, just pain untill you confess.

Agreed; however, I would place no value on such an activity as it doesn't promote truth.

How about if you rape children in front of their parents? Does that save American lives?

And the US government is competing with them? Is that why they legalise torture, incarcerate and torture innocents, rape and murder detainees? Because they want to be better than terrorists?

Again, we have brought our offenders to justice, have you?

We are leaving the Iraqis to their own ways, their own government elected by them, their justice system, and their legal system.

Abu Grieb is under Iraqi Control, and has been for over two years.

And again name any al Queda, or Jihadi brought to justice under Sharia Law, under Sharia law and The Quran, they aren't even considered criminals, but holy Warriors.

You can't even bring your self to condem Saddam.

You've legalised torture, so there is no question of bringing anyone to justice. You approve of torture so you are the face of the enemy. You think by torturing and killing people you are doing what is right. And you call yourself a Christian.

Here's another way to save American lives. Nuke every country that poses a threat to us.

Again, we have brought our offenders to justice, You have to be joking.

We haven't arrested them, removed them from power, fired them from their jobs, put letters of reprimand in their files, or even named them in public.

And it still was UNSCR 687 why we went back into Iraq. No, that wasn't why. We can all remember back to 2003, and a strong desire to enforce the technicalities of UN resolutions had nothing to do with the US invading Iraq.

Mod Note: Sorry Buff. Pictures were gross. Post the links next time, not the pics.

You've legalised torture, so there is no question of bringing anyone to justice. You approve of torture so you are the face of the enemy. You think by torturing and killing people you are doing what is right. And you call yourself a Christian.

You call your self a Moslem.

Islam uses torture, on Jihad, Moslems use Torture, rape sodomy and murder, and you call them Holy, doing Allah's work, and not one word from you, in condemnation, only pointing the log, Yes SAM the LOG, in Your EYE, and your religion, clean up your country, and your religion, and remove the Log from Your EYE.

I am not a Zimmis, and the only Jizya I will pay comes in lead, Islam is not a religion of peace, and you are not on Jihad, and what dives you nut is that a infidel dares to question a Believer, this is your law and your it sticks in your craw:

Zimmis cannot testify against Muslims.

And I testify against you and your fellow Moslems everyday:

Christian Girl Beheaded.

And you're embracing Islam?

And you're embracing Islam?

No you do, I embrace taking care of business, and Islam brought the business to us.

Ah so you're ditching Christianity.

Exactly right, I dare anyone to go into a fight and follow the Marquis of QueensBerry rules, while his opponent fight under Ultimate Fighting rules and see who get their ass kicked.

Now get your self in a steet fight, and follow the Marquis of QueensBerry, and you will end up dead.



Actually, no, Japan and Germany lost, and the reason that Germany and Japan lost, is that we learned, after getting our ass kicked to get just a nasty and mean as the people we were fighting.


Heavy sigh. We never came close to matching the brutality of our enemies in WW-2. Though there were some curtailments of civil liberties, elections weren't suspended, many aspects of life were business as usual. But the allies still won. It's almost as though you could draw the conclusion that it isn't necessary to be as brutal as your enemy in order to be victorious. Even with enemies as formidable as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

Now again prove that Torture has taken place.

I will conceed agressive interrorigation, but torture?



We all know it's being done, and in such a way so no legal evidence can be found. They are professionals after all. Innocent people have come back from "rendition" and reported what happened. Dozens of detainees have died in our custody be our own military's reports. You endorse whatever it takes to get information, and you and I know what that means. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. When you say liberals are too weak to do the right thing in the war on terror, you don't mean everything within the law, because liberals accept actions within the law.

If you condone aggressive interrogation, and not torture, then why not? If "aggressive interrogation" achieves the same results as torture, why does anyone torture? Are terrorist suspects that weak?

I asked you to think. It's potentially a more useful exercise than me spoon feeding you.

Yes, the exercise of a man who knows he has no proof.

Torture is indeed morally deficit, I will agree. in an ideal world it would never, ever be used. However we do not live in an ideal world. We are fighting an enemy who so doggedly believes what they have been spoonfed that all convential reason is thrown out the window. You cannot gain the trust of these individuals as you are the Devil. You cannot appeal to their better natures as they believe you have no right to live. You cannot appeal to their desire to live, becuase death gives them great reward. You are hogtied by the terrorist's very beliefs. What have we got left for information gathering?


Sleep deprivation: Hoping this tires out the will of the terrorist. Very dangerous as a psychotic break is right around the corner.
Inducing Insanity: Draving one completely insane and then hammering them with questions and sorting out the useful parts.
Physical Torture: Inducing pain until the will snaps. Problematical becuase ift hey know nothing they will just tell you what they think you want to know.
Temporal Dislocation: Making the subject believe more time has passed than actually has, then acting as if you have received grave news. This might fool them into exhultant speaches.
Funeral Desecration: We start using their own religion against them. eg Muslims buried with a pig or part of a pig denies them access to Paradise, even if they are a Martyr. We use this information to encourage appeals to life.
There are more but all of them involve varying degrees of torture, most of which are well beyond Physical Torture in the scale of moral depravity.


Of course any of this is only condonable if there is evidence of plan that would take lives. If you find evidence of plans that do anything less severe than a life threatening strike, none of these methods is required. But if even one life is threatened then you may need to resort to morally repugnant methods. It is no different than killing a person who is intent on killing someone else, sometimes you just have to do something rather than nothing.

Ah so you're ditching Christianity.

No, Jesus only said turn the cheek once. We did that. Now it is time to defend ourselves and our loved ones.

I agree torture is not a desirabkle act. Not in the least, but when it comes to saving lives there are times when you must set aside morals. It's just the way it goes. It's a hard choice and not one I envy. My gut reaction would be to try the methods that have given the most failure and attempt to win trust and respect. I don;t have the stomach for torture of any kind. However i do not condemn those that make such a choice to save lives.

As for the indivdual crimes commited by a small fraction of our troops, the US military has not failed once in it's duty to fully investigate and prosecute such crimes. We pursue the lawbreakers with even more fervor than we hunt terrorists. We even came close to convicting some wrongly accused men until some Intelligence video coroborated their story and put lie to people who claimed they witnessed a massacre. Has the muslim world even condemned the terrorists who have attacked and killed innoccents?

So Jesus said turn the cheek once then torture? Heh, I bet the guys who crucified him had the same twisted logic when they added the crown of thorns. Read any of the books written by returning detainees?

I asked you to think. It's potentially a more useful exercise than me spoon feeding you.

Oh, this is a gem right here...

So Jesus said turn the cheek once then torture? Heh, I bet the guys who crucified him had the same twisted logic when they added the crown of thorns. Read any of the books written by returning detainees?

I thought as a Moslem you didn't believe that Jesus was Crucified and Died for you.

ps: the crown of thorns came long before the Crucifixion.

Report: Christians crucified by terrorists in Iraq
Jul 17, 2007 ... Christians in Iraq, including converts from Islam and people involved in mixed-faith marriages, are being crucified by Muslim terrorists, ...

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_I

Report: Christians crucified by terrorists in Iraq
Believers in Jesus said to be nailed to crosses, tied with ropes, set ablaze

Posted: July 17, 2007
9:26 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

Dutch lawmaker Joel Voordewind

Christians in Iraq, including converts from Islam and people involved in mixed-faith marriages, are being crucified by Muslim terrorists, according to a Dutch member of Parliament studying the war-torn country.

Several Iraqi Christians "are nailed to a cross and their arms are tied up with ropes. The ropes are put on fire," Joel Voordewind told BosNewsLife, an online news agency focusing on Christians and Jews in difficult circumstances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boy slave 'crucified' by Sudanese Muslim
Sep 28, 2006 ... A Sudanese slave who was assigned to watch his Muslim master's camels was "crucified" when he was caught sneaking out to attend a Christian ...

www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52181
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Egyptian police 'crucify' and rape Christians
Egyptian police 'crucify' and rape Christians By Christina Lamb ... Egypt after suspected retaliatory killings involving local Muslims and Christians. ...

www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Far

ISSUE 1248 Sunday 25 October 1998

Egyptian police 'crucify' and rape Christians
By Christina Lamb

Religious persecution continues in Egypt [24 Oct '98] - Maranatha Christian Journal

EGYPTIAN Christians have been subjected to horrific crucifixion rituals, raped and tortured by the security forces during a crackdown on the ancient Coptic community, according to international human rights and Christian groups.

Hundreds of Copts have been rounded up in southern Egypt after suspected retaliatory killings involving local Muslims and Christians. Apart from the crucifixions, teenage girls have been raped and babies as young as three months savagely beaten.

No, Jesus only said turn the cheek once. We did that. Now it is time to defend ourselves and our loved ones.
No, he said not once, not 7, but 70 times 7, a rhetorical way of saying all the time.

No, he said not once, not 7, but 70 times 7, a rhetorical way of saying all the time.

Thats forgiveness not turning the cheek.

No, he said not once, not 7, but 70 times 7, a rhetorical way of saying all the time.

Yes and that is when it comes to insult. eg slapping your cheek. He also admonished his followers to get their swords and if they did not have one to sell their cloak and buy one. Jesus never meant for his followers to lay down for the slaughter, merely not to inflict harm over petty things.

So Jesus said turn the cheek once then torture? Heh, I bet the guys who crucified him had the same twisted logic when they added the crown of thorns. Read any of the books written by returning detainees?


No he said nothing of the sort. Where did you come up with that? Basically he told us to turn our cheeks to slights and insults. However he has never once spoken against defending yourself or your loved ones. In that case you do what you have to do.

Also if you'll read what i wrote, i would much prefer that we never resort to torture in any form to bring information to the light. However, I am a realist and I do realize that with some people it is the only choice left becuase they do not cooperate with any other choices.

As for books written by former detainees, i am sorry but that is like asking a career criminal how the penal system is. You're not going to get an acurate picture no matter what the prisoners claim. It may not be far off, but we'll never know.

No he said nothing of the sort. Where did you come up with that? Basically he told us to turn our cheeks to slights and insults. However he has never once spoken against defending yourself or your loved ones. In that case you do what you have to do.

Also if you'll read what i wrote, i would much prefer that we never resort to torture in any form to bring information to the light. However, I am a realist and I do realize that with some people it is the only choice left becuase they do not cooperate with any other choices.

As for books written by former detainees, i am sorry but that is like asking a career criminal how the penal system is. You're not going to get an acurate picture no matter what the prisoners claim. It may not be far off, but we'll never know.

Luk 22:35 ¶ And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

No he said nothing of the sort. Where did you come up with that? Basically he told us to turn our cheeks to slights and insults. However he has never once spoken against defending yourself or your loved ones. In that case you do what you have to do.

But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Do not resist an evil person is a very broad rule. The cheek is also struck, physically.

Of course any of this is only condonable if there is evidence of plan that would take lives. Oh, that's never been a problem for torturers. There's always some bullshit "evidence" of some evil afoot that only their extreme measures have a hope of combating.

That's why the US taxpayer paid some contractor to install ceiling hooks in the little room just down the hall from Caroline Woods command office at Bagram - in case a passing taxi driver exhibited evidence of evil plans, which the fate of America depended on extracting by torture if they were present.

They weren't, as it turned out. They never are, as it has always turned out in torture centers worldwide throughout history.
We are fighting an enemy who so doggedly believes what they have been spoonfed that all convential reason is thrown out the window.

That's the same excuse used by every filthy pack of torturing scum since dirt was invented. Show a little imagination, for chrissake.

The question is not what you are fighting against. The question is what you are fighting for. Can it be achieved through torture ? If it can, are you sure you want to fight for it ?

The techniques being used by the US to torture its captives are direct descendants of the brainwashing techniques and forced confessions of the Korean and earlier wars, as improved and modified by the CIA through the research of people like Ewan Cameron and the developers of SERE training, and informed by the practical experience gained in South and Central America over many years of training torturers and supervising their results. They are not designed - obviously not designed - to elicit reliable, accurate information. They are designed to break the captive, destroy their will, make them amenable to suggestion, utterly confused and desperate and unresistant, willing to say whatever the torturer wants them to say - even believe what the torturer wants them to believe.

No State in history, examined in hindsight, has ever employed torture primarily, or even significantly, with the result of gaining information. The United States is not the very first one ever to do so. Torture is being used by the United States in achievement of the same results as always, by any State.

The only possible, lame, pathetic excuse, is that the people creating the official US torture programs and facilities do not know what they are doing.

Do not resist an evil person is a very broad rule. The cheek is also struck, physically.

Well, never did trust King james translations of the bible, Hebrew to Aremaic, to greek, to latin, to german, to english.....That's just asking for some problems Especially when you add in King James mysogyny and other beliefs.

Some other translations hold more with the spirit of "You get one for free."

Oh, that's never been a problem for torturers. There's always some bullshit "evidence" of some evil afoot that only their extreme measures have a hope of combating.

That's why the US taxpayer paid some contractor to install ceiling hooks in the little room just down the hall from Caroline Woods command office at Bagram - in case a passing taxi driver exhibited evidence of evil plans, which the fate of America depended on extracting by torture if they were present.

They weren't, as it turned out. They never are, as it has always turned out in torture centers worldwide throughout history.

Whatever you are smoking please don't share. In fact just stop smoking it and get yourself checked out please.

Unless you have proof of what you posted, please just stop making yourseldf sounf like one of those loons who claim we never landed on the moon.


That's the same excuse used by every filthy pack of torturing scum since dirt was invented. Show a little imagination, for chrissake.

Actually no imagination is needed as in this case it the truth. Now i would love to get it out of them some other way, but if lives are on the line and there is a deadline, I wouldn't want the interrogators them held back.

The question is not what you are fighting against. The question is what you are fighting for. Can it be achieved through torture ? If it can, are you sure you want to fight for it ?

I have said quite plainly the only time i would use torture. In a case where lives are at stake and limited time. If saving lives is not worthy of action hen perhaps you need to reexamine your priorities.

The techniques being used by the US to torture its captives are direct descendants of the brainwashing techniques and forced confessions of the Korean and earlier wars, as improved and modified by the CIA through the research of people like Ewan Cameron and the developers of SERE training, and informed by the practical experience gained in South and Central America over many years of training torturers and supervising their results. They are not designed - obviously not designed - to elicit reliable, accurate information. They are designed to break the captive, destroy their will, make them amenable to suggestion, utterly confused and desperate and unresistant, willing to say whatever the torturer wants them to say - even believe what the torturer wants them to believe.

LOL. Actually that is just the stuff we tell people we allow. My guess, given that we see many of these people after interrogation, that different methods are used. It would be kind of hard to hide the signs of the types of torture you are referring to.

No State in history, examined in hindsight, has ever employed torture primarily, or even significantly, with the result of gaining information. The United States is not the very first one ever to do so. Torture is being used by the United States in achievement of the same results as always, by any State.

That would be incorrect. Yes torture has overwhelmingly been used for garnering confessions. However, torture in it broadest terms is used by every state and state agency in the quest for information.

The only possible, lame, pathetic excuse, is that the people creating the official US torture programs and facilities do not know what they are doing.

Or, like my thoughts earlier. Tell them you allow X then do Y. Terrorist are so worried about X they train themselves to resist it. Unfortunately X is very dangerous if you do not have professionals Thus terrorists off themselves.

Now i would love to get it out of them some other way, but if lives are on the line and there is a deadline, I wouldn't want the interrogators them held back. Hollywood fantasy has nothing to do with Gitmo, Bagram, Abu, or any of the other USA torture prisons, rendition programs, training centers (originally for the SA and CA "dirty wars", "El Salvador Options" and so forth). There has never been a ticking bomb with a deadline involved in any of what the US has been setting up and doing, so far. The torture of the Abu and Gitmo and Bagram detainees was not done in emergency, with lives on the line and and a deadline; it was begun before interrogation even started, and continued over weeks, months, and even years, and inflicted on people that apparently were - in the majority of cases - completely innocent of involvement in anything threatening to the US.
My guess, given that we see many of these people after interrogation, that different methods are used. It would be kind of hard to hide the signs of the types of torture you are referring to. They are visible. They are visible in the attempted suicides, the false confessions, the eyewtiness, perpetrator, and victim testimony; the medical records, the interrogation manuals, the petitions of lawyers for psychiatric evaluation of clients mentally unable to assist in their own defense; and so forth.

You are denying something that's right in front of your face, and defending something that you yourself claim not to support: I have said quite plainly the only time i would use torture. In a case where lives are at stake and limited time. No State has ever set up a torture program actually designed and operated for such a situation. The US torture program and facilities are no more designed for such a situation than any other State's have ever been.
However, torture in it broadest terms is used by every state and state agency in the quest for information. Baloney. When States want information they spy, corrupt, bribe, plant agents, persuade turncoats, and so forth. When they set up torture programs, they have other goals. Or they are incompetent - the opportunity cost of lost information alone invalidates torture for information, let alone the unreliability factor, the revenge factor, etc.
Or, like my thoughts earlier. Tell them you allow X then do Y. Terrorist are so worried about X they train themselves to resist it. Unfortunately X is very dangerous if you do not have professionals Thus terrorists off themselves. Write it up, sell it to Hollywood. Work a naked woman in there somehow, so the implausibility of the plot doesn't matter.

How about if you rape children in front of their parents? Does that save American lives?

Let me ask you SAM. Purely hypothetically. Did you get that? Let me say it again: purely hypothetically. If someone raped your children, because they posessed information on the location of an armed WMD, and it elicited useful information that "saved the world", would you condone it? Remember, this is hypothetical, but they are your own children and the information elicited was vital and averted horrendous catastrophe.

What would you do? This is an old philosophical question. I realize that. I just want your take on it....

If someone raped your children, because they posessed information on the location of an armed WMD, and it elicited useful information that "saved the world", would you condone it? Regardless of the answer to that question, the "look inside the liberal mind" here - that actually appears to be much more an examination of the authoritarian mind's fantasies - was based generally on real life situations actually before us.

So let's consider more the original question: we have apparently reasonably believable accounts of raped children, and indubitably verified accounts of raped and tortured adults, done in furtherance of declared policy, and none of them involving saving the world from catastrophe or anything like that. They were instances of garden variety junta-rule State terrorism. So the question is what, according to those who don't find the "liberal mind" response appropriate, should be done about an administration that behaves in this fashion - that arranges, facilitates, encourages, supports, conceals, protects, and institutionalizes, such actions ?

Regardless of the answer to that question, the "look inside the liberal mind" here - that actually appears to be much more an examination of the authoritarian mind's fantasies - was based generally on real life situations actually before us.

So let's consider more the original question: we have apparently reasonably believable accounts of raped children, and indubitably verified accounts of raped and tortured adults, done in furtherance of declared policy, and none of them involving saving the world from catastrophe or anything like that. They were instances of garden variety junta-rule State terrorism. So the question is what, according to those who don't find the "liberal mind" response appropriate, should be done about an administration that behaves in this fashion - that arranges, facilitates, encourages, supports, conceals, protects, and institutionalizes, such actions ?

I'm sorry, I honestly did not know that was the intent of the thread.

But now that you ask, that administration, even though it happpens to be the one of the country I reside in, will fall. Nay, let me retract. Any (country, dictatorship, regime, philosophy, so help me I can not think of the right word) that supports "terrorism", which I believe is what you are referring to, is ultimately doomed to failure. Do you disagree?

Hollywood fantasy has nothing to do with Gitmo, Bagram, Abu, or any of the other USA torture prisons, rendition programs, training centers (originally for the SA and CA "dirty wars", "El Salvador Options" and so forth). There has never been a ticking bomb with a deadline involved in any of what the US has been setting up and doing, so far. The torture of the Abu and Gitmo and Bagram detainees was not done in emergency, with lives on the line and and a deadline; it was begun before interrogation even started, and continued over weeks, months, and even years, and inflicted on people that apparently were - in the majority of cases - completely innocent of involvement in anything threatening to the US.

Well, I was making a point, but of course you kinda just glazed over that. Fine. Whatever.

As for Abu and Gitmo I have yet to see any proof of Sanctioned torture. Yes i have heard and seen reports of soldier disobeying orders and humilating detainee's, but no sanctioned torture of any type to be seen. Yes, we have reports from former inmates, but they are inconsistant and highly suspect in the first place. So untill you have proof that they are actually doing what you think they are just let it rest.

They are visible. They are visible in the attempted suicides, the false confessions, the eyewtiness, perpetrator, and victim testimony; the medical records, the interrogation manuals, the petitions of lawyers for psychiatric evaluation of clients mentally unable to assist in their own defense; and so forth.

Okay,
Attempted Suicides: Lots of people attempt suicide for any number of reason. This in it's own right is not proof of anything other than the detainee attempted suicide.
False Confession: Many people do make false confession when not under duress. Some people also mistakenly believe that if they make a false confession they can sway a trial. In and of it's self nothing.
Eyewitness: Would htis be another fellow inmate or detainee. Does the detainee know and have influence over the witness. Does the witness have any proof.
Victim Testimony As above incionsistant and possibly misleading. Not proof unless backed up by several sources and hard evidence.
Medical Records. Never heard of people inflicting harm on themselves? Unless you have hard evidence this means nothing again.
Interrogation Manuals: Again, a so what. I have a recipe for Duck Ala Orange, still never made it.
Lawyers: A yes, the paid witness. Reliability factor in the negative double digits.

At best you have got hearsay or circumstantial.

You are denying something that's right in front of your face, and defending something that you yourself claim not to support: No State has ever set up a torture program actually designed and operated for such a situation. The US torture program and facilities are no more designed for such a situation than any other State's have ever been.

Just becuase you aren't adept enough to see it does not mean it is false. Yes, i will admit many states in the past have used them to secure false confessions. however torture was also a form of interrogation since before Hammurabi. Had to get enemy scouts to talk somehow.

Baloney. When States want information they spy, corrupt, bribe, plant agents, persuade turncoats, and so forth. When they set up torture programs, they have other goals. Or they are incompetent - the opportunity cost of lost information alone invalidates torture for information, let alone the unreliability factor, the revenge factor, etc.

They do all this and they torture. I'm not narrow minded enough to think it is either or, like yourself. I understand it is both. Just like any other fully rational person.

i do not like the idea of torturing people. Just not my thing, but i also recognize I am not the only cictizen of the USA.

Write it up, sell it to Hollywood. Work a naked woman in there somehow, so the implausibility of the plot doesn't matter.

Damn, you really do have no clues to human psychology. Either that or you don;t think that people train themselves to resist torture. Either way it does not matter. The truth of it is, since we must document everything we are allowed to use and such documents are easy to acquire, people who mean this country harm can train themselves to resist interrogation/torture. yes one of the less violent ways is preferrable, but what happens when that is just not a choice.

Damn, you really do have no clues to human psychology. I know denial when I see it.

This is incredible: Attempted Suicides: Lots of people attempt suicide for any number of reason. This in it's own right is not proof of anything other than the detainee attempted suicide.
False Confession: Many people do make false confession when not under duress. Some people also mistakenly believe that if they make a false confession they can sway a trial. In and of it's self nothing.
Eyewitness: Would htis be another fellow inmate or detainee. Does the detainee know and have influence over the witness. Does the witness have any proof.
Victim Testimony As above incionsistant and possibly misleading. Not proof unless backed up by several sources and hard evidence.
Medical Records. Never heard of people inflicting harm on themselves? Unless you have hard evidence this means nothing again.
Interrogation Manuals: Again, a so what. I have a recipe for Duck Ala Orange, still never made it.
Lawyers: A yes, the paid witness. Reliability factor in the negative double digits.
Just to point to two: the eyewitnesses include FBI agents, medical examiners, NGO personnel, US soldiers, official military investigators, photographers, and so forth.

The medical records include scars, chronic joint and nerve disability, kidney, ear, and lung damage, and a variety of diagnostic mental damages such as severe depression, memory loss, and PTSD.

I suppose the prisoner observed shackled naked to the cement floor in a stress position (this was Gitmo - there were and are "interrogation" rooms fitted with floor shackles and the other necessities, just as Bagram's "interrogation" room had at least one heavy duty suspension hook installed in the ceiling, and a floor drain) who had pulled out most of his own hair in the time he had been kept there (it was lying next to his head in a bloody pile) would be counted by you as "self-harm".

btw: That account is from an FBI agent - the FBI, the most experienced and skilled interrogators in the US, told the Gitmo command they would have nothing to do with the practices at Gitmo.

To get us to reliably vote Democratic.

Cutting off our nuts is no assurance of voter loyalty that works.

Cutting off our heads is no assurance that our nuts can't still kick Dem asses into the next galaxy.

For a self proclaimed independent, it's amusing how party-conscious you are.

For a self proclaimed independent, it's amusing how party-conscious you are.

A Independent is not a Liberal, you need to adjust your party conscious perceptions.

A Independent is not a Liberal, you need to adjust your part-conscious perceptions. An independent certainly could be a liberal. Independent simply means the two main party candidates in a given election are not satisfactory. If you are an independent in general this means you do not vote either party line, but you could be a Marxist, a conservative, a Green, a liberal, a radical. You could even be middle of the road or a one issue kind of voter - like legalize pot supporters who can't vote Dem or Rep most of the time if they are focused on their pet issue.

An independent certainly could be a liberal. Independent simply means the two main party candidates in a given election are not satisfactory. If you are an independent in general this means you do not vote either party line, but you could be a Marxist, a conservative, a Green, a liberal, a radical. You could even be middle of the road or a one issue kind of voter - like legalize pot supporters who can't vote Dem or Rep most of the time if they are focused on their pet issue.

Spin........nice job, independents are people who ascribe to neither party,
and are the people who generally decide the elections in this country.

That is why after the primaries, the liberals swing to the right to try a capture as much of the Independent vote as possible.

That is why after the primaries, the liberals swing to the right to try a capture as much of the Independent vote as possible. Because there are no left Independents ?

And the "liberals" are left of the right Independents, by assumption ?

This kind of confusion is part of the penalty we pay for allowing words like "liberal" to be emptied of meaning, and used to assign relative status only.

Because there are no left Independents ?

And the "liberals" are left of the right Independents, by assumption ?

This kind of confusion is part of the penalty we pay for allowing words like "liberal" to be emptied of meaning, and used to assign relative status only.


No, ice, there is The American Independent Party, and are not a Liberal Lite Party, they stand on their own platform.

http://www.aipca.org/

http://www.aipsbdo.org/

No, ice, there is The American Independent Party, and are not a Liberal Lite Party, they stand on their own platform. I'm sorry, I did not realize who you were talking about. I was confused by this: Spin........nice job, independents are people who ascribe to neither party,and are the people who generally decide the elections in this country.

I'm sorry, I did not realize who you were talking about. I was confused by this:

The ignoramus is you, there is a vast middle of independent voters, that ascribe to neither the Republicans or the Democrats, but to their own ideals,

The Pew report has it:

The Democratic Party has also built a substantial edge among independent voters. Of the 37% who claim no party identification, 15% lean Democratic, 10% lean Republican, and 12% have no leaning either way.

Its that 12% that will decide the election, Independents.

Its that 12% that will decide the election, Independents. So we're back to the first version. Sounds good. Lots of lefties in there, of course - hard to get their votes by "swinging to the right".

So we're back to the first version. Sounds good. Lots of lefties in there, of course - hard to get their votes by "swinging to the right".

No not at all, and the Energy Issue, $4.00 + a gallon gas, well that isn't good for the Democrats.

The independents are also fairly well informed about politics, so I am waiting for the Campaign add that show the Democrats in Congress sitting on their hand about drilling the OCS, and ANWR, and building new refineries, and Nuclear Power Plants.

What's ANWAR? I see it bandied about all the time, but I'm having trouble figuring out what it is.

What's ANWAR? I see it bandied about all the time, but I'm having trouble figuring out what it is.

Anwar is a Muslim name (http://www.behindthename.com/name/anwar), from the Arabic for "bright". You mean ANWR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy)

Anwar is a Muslim name (http://www.behindthename.com/name/anwar), from the Arabic for "bright". You mean ANWR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy)


And that was what Anwar Sadat was, and the Islamic hit men killed him for it.

Anwar is a Muslim name (http://www.behindthename.com/name/anwar), from the Arabic for "bright". You mean ANWR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy)

I think buffleblow means ANWR.
Though he might want to drill an Anwar.

A Independent is not a Liberal, you need to adjust your part-conscious perceptions.

Um, I know you are but what am I?

Seriously, come up with comebacks that actually make sense.

Um, I know you are but what am I?

Seriously, come up with comebacks that actually make sense.

Typo, but you need to do some serious research as to the different factions of the American Political system.

I mean as a so called "Independent", G-money spends all his time complaining about "Dems" and rah-rahing Republican party-lines. I think he's being a little... self-deceptive.

I mean as a so called "Independent", G-money spends all his time complaining about "Dems" and rah-rahing Republican party-lines. I think he's being a little... self-deceptive.

No, I have many Independent friends that have a definite conservative streak.

But they are not Republicans, I am not a Republican, I am a conservative, and until the Democrats return to the being the party of JFK and Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, I can't vote for them.

I started life as a Democrat, then I went to Vietnam, and watched the democrats in congress screw us in the field, and when we returned home, and waste the lives, and sacrifices of 58,196+ soldiers who died, and those who served honorably.

The sad fact is that all of those who died because of wound in Vietnam are Not on the Wall, even though they sacrificed all for country.

I cannot vote Democrat as long as the likes of Kerry are in office, and Obama, who don't know up from down about military matters.

And the Democrats in Congress, and the likes of John (90 day wonder) Kerry, John( They are Guilty)Murtha, Jay(guided missiles from 35,000 feet)Rockefeller, Pete Stark, Charles Rangel, who spit on their memory, and all of the Troops who served honorably for their country.

Just to point to two: the eyewitnesses include FBI agents, medical examiners, NGO personnel, US soldiers, official military investigators, photographers, and so forth.

Alright name them, list their terms of service, background, their sword affidavits and it's still hearsay.

The medical records include scars, chronic joint and nerve disability, kidney, ear, and lung damage, and a variety of diagnostic mental damages such as severe depression, memory loss, and PTSD.

All of which can be self induced and from most reports the cuase is "Indeterminate, possible selff affliction or pre-existing condition."


I suppose the prisoner observed shackled naked to the cement floor in a stress position (this was Gitmo - there were and are "interrogation" rooms fitted with floor shackles and the other necessities, just as Bagram's "interrogation" room had at least one heavy duty suspension hook installed in the ceiling, and a floor drain) who had pulled out most of his own hair in the time he had been kept there (it was lying next to his head in a bloody pile) would be counted by you as "self-harm".

First of all, I do not believe the floor shackles were installed to be used the way that they were used. A soldier disobeying higher orders decided to be sadistic and was charged for this. As for the hook above we have on in my fathers room for hanging special slings to help move him around when he especially weak. The floor drain is just smart as prisoners can decide to urinate and defecate themselves. I do beleive the prisoner was mistreated, but by a small group of individuals and not a larger conspiracy.

btw: That account is from an FBI agent - the FBI, the most experienced and skilled interrogators in the US, told the Gitmo command they would have nothing to do with the practices at Gitmo.

For completely other reason, like technically it is not US soil so it charter does not apply there. In fact the FBI has no power to do anything outside US jurisdiction, and that included native American Reservations. They can sometimes be invited by foreign powers. Another thing is that the military has it's own CIS corps which are drawn from the armed forces as well as FBI, CIA, and police forces. They have jurisdiction if crimes are commited in military bases.

Also since you did not cite your sources and provide evidence, then all you've got is hearsay.

For completely other reason, like technically it is not US soil so it charter does not apply there.

Which nation is responsible for Gitmo, if it's not under US control?

Really, give me a break!