I don't consider sleep deprivation to be torture, do you? I know they do stuff worse than that but would you consider that type of thing to be torture?

Ask the Nazis, why don't you? They did experimentations with prisoners in concentration camps. And it killed some of them.

Isn't that nice? Look at the company we're keeping.

Yes, sleep deprivation can kill you. And if it doesn't kill you it can severely hamper your immune system, causing you to die of something that your body might otherwise have fought off.

Rupert,
I've not studied "sleep deprivation", so I'm not qualified to answer.
My guess it would depend on the duration if it is to be considered torture.

I do know that far worse things go on. Some of my friends worked in Army Intelligence during Vietnam. Helicopters and lack of parachutes were key to finding answers, though this kind of stuff never was reported in the press.

One study I recently read is that torture doesn't provide the answers that are sought. The claim was made that developing a "trust" relationship, though more time consuming, provided more accurate information.
I'm unable to cite the study, as I didn't write it down.
I read a lot about "psychological topics".

I'm certain that "torture" will be a topic at many sites. Many definitions will be presented.

I wasn't aware you were a neurologist, Rupert. Amazing the things you learn about people on this board! Senator Frist isn't, you know.

Did you read the results of the autopsy? Her brain was liquified. For that matter, did you watch all the hours and hours of tapes, or just the highlights the family cut together to make it look like she was responding? From what I read, the many hours of tape included lots of stuff they didn't show-- they only showed the moments that made it look like she was responding... you know, blind squirrel and all that.

I also do not oppose euthanasia, and would prefer someone being allowed to die be given drugs to let them die, but in Schivo's case, I sincerely doubt she felt anything.

If it were you, Rupert, would you want to be trapped in a body that couldn't think, couldn't move, couldn't do anything, or would you want to be let go?

In any event, sixteen (I think it was sixteen) judges, over half of them conservatives, had heard the case and found repeatedly in favor of the husband. But clearly the current man in the White House has no respect for separation of powers (see "torture" and "court finds against it"). Did you like how he spent our tax dollars on his special midnight flight back to Washington to sign that bill about her?

Hey now... he's allowed his opinion as well. :p Only Schivo knows what she felt... and we'll never know that, will we? I would rather her have been put to sleep in Kevorkian style than starved to death. JMO.

There were plenty of doctors and nurses that examined her that would disagree with you.

I have no idea what she felt or didn't feel.

That's a ridiculous thing to say that Bush has no respect for separations of power. I guess you could say the same thing when they use to try KKK guys in the south back in the 1960s on federal charges after they were acquitted by juries. The courts were obviously not doing their jobs back then when they let KKK members go free for lynching people so the federl government stepped in and acted.

With regard to the autopsy on Schiavo, did the doctor who did the autopsy have an agenda? I don't know the answer to that. I'm not saying he did, but I don't know that he didn't.

I too would have much rather seen Terri Shiavo euthanized because their were some discrepancies between doctors considering what she felt and what she didn't feel. In fact, I did an argumentative speech in my public speaking class on this topic while it was going on because I thought that people like Terri should allowed to be euthanized and not staved to death. I think that it is an ethics question...

That whole situation was a mess...

My apologies, Rupert; Cajun's right; what I wrote did sound snarky and I try not to be excessively snarky.

Unfortunately, euthanasia is not permitted in Florida, so there was nothing to do other than pull out the feeding tube in her stomach and let her die of natural causes. I think Slate did an article on what it's like-- I'll see if I can find the link.

You guys are right, no one, other than Schiavo, knows what she felt or didn't feel over the last 14 years of her life.

Here's the Washington Post article on the autopsy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061500512.html

Rupert, this wasn't a case of the feds stepping into a state case (which is what I assume the KKK stuff was-- state cases where the jury voted to acquit. Can you give me specifics about the cases to which you're referring? I may be completely wrong in my assumption here, so I need more info from you about it, please?) This is a case where several FEDERAL judges-- federal, not state, decided in favor of removing the feeding tube. The Supreme Court twice declined to hear the case. And the Republican-controlled legislature stepped in, writing a bill pertaining ONLY to this specific person and Bush flew back to Washington to sign it. The same Bush who is unwilling to get warrants before eavesdropping, and signed the Congressional legislation on torture by adding an addendum that he'd ignore it if he felt like it. What do you call a President who publicly says he's going to ignore laws? I call it something starting with a "K" and ending with an "NG" (Vanna, may I buy a vowel?) Rupert, his entire presidency has been about subverting the separation of powers. I'm happy to find you links and specifics if you'll read them and not skim them (and I'll find ones with facts, not just generalized statements. I don't like essays masquerading as serious articles, either). Let me know.

In any event, wouldn't you know it, I found an essay looking at both the Schiavo case and the Abu Ghraib situation (neatly bringing the tangent I'm responsible for introducing back to the main thread, which was torture). It's interesting reading:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/C...l_santner.html

Again, apologies for snarkiness in my earlier post! :(

I am the QUEEN of snarkiness. :D

You? Pshaw! Never did snarky come in a nicer person. :)

In this case, the feds did step into a state case but in a different way from the cases back in the 1960s. In the Schiavo case, aside from the state legislature trying to intervene, the US congress actually stepped in and passed a law to try to prevent them from killing her. Florida ignored the law that the US Congress passed. I don't remeber the details and I'm too lazy to look it up but I remeber the US Congress actually did pass some type of law becasue they thought what was happening to Schiavo was such an injustice.

I agree with you guys that if she was going to be put to death, she should have been euthanyzed rather than dying of thirst.

I don't care what any of you guys say. I'm no right-to-lifer or anything like that and I thought that what they did to that woman was one of the most outrageous things I have ever seen.

And you know what; in more research, I'm wrong about the legal path-- the law Congress passed demanded the case be taken out of state court and handed to a federal judge. Who declined to overturn the state courts numerous decisions on the case. And then the Supreme Court refused to hear the case (twice in one week, six times since 2001).

Here's the pertinent part on the decision:

"The Supreme Court's rejection came hours after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia, rejected the parents' petition 9-2. That court denied three similar requests from the parents last week.

In a concurring opinion of the Atlanta court's latest ruling, Judge Stanley Birch said Congress "chose to overstep constitutional boundaries" by passing a law to force the Schiavo case into federal courts. "

In the end, I think it was the right decision, legally. Her husband was her legal guardian, and he was the one with the legal right to decide what her wishes would have been. But, regardless, it sure serves as a warning to all of us to get our own wishes about our care in such situations down on paper, doesn't it?

Genuine Risk said, "In the end, I think it was the right decision, legally. Her husband was her legal guardian, and he was the one with the legal right to decide what her wishes would have been. But, regardless, it sure serves as a warning to all of us to get our own wishes about our care in such situations down on paper, doesn't it?"[/quote]


That was another thing that I found so disturbing. Why should her husband, who has a new girlfriend, be the legal guardian? Some of Terry's friends claimed that she and her husband were possibly on their way to either separation or maybe even divorce. Then she has this mysterious accident and he gets a sizable amount of money which is supposed to go towards her medical bills. Her husband had a financial interest to pull the plug on her. If he pulled the plug, then he could keep the money instead of the money going towards her medical bills. I don't know if he still had a financial stake at the end because I think most of the money was gone at that point.

In addition, none of her family or friends believed the husband's story that Terry claimed she would want to die if she was ever in a state like that. Terry's husband had originally said that they had never talked about the subject and then a year later he suddenly claimed that he remembered that they had talked about it. Who would possibly believe that?

Anyway, she had a family that was willing to take care of. In that case, I don't think that the husband, who happened to have a girlfriend, should be making the decision.

Talking sense now about the Geneva Convention...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/wa.../17detain.html

We behead prisoner and show it on TV for reasons of propaganda?

No cannonn shell we dont do that. Isnt that what i said?

But...rest assured some of the methods of torture and the results are about as grizzly.

Leftists from San Franciso's opinions dont really hold much water with the rest of us Americans.

If anyone thinks that "aggressive techniques" are a new thing, they are sadly mistaken

Go back through the thread and read it. Nobody said that. Are you simply looking for an argument with a "leftist"? LOL

"interviewing" has been going on for centuries and it will continue to go on long after we are gone. America is not above it as the naive seem to think. We do it just like everyone else.

As i stated earlier, the geneva convention was created to protect the basic grunts from cruel mistreatment without purpose. As for those with potentially sensitive information, all is fair in love and war.

Remember that a lot of unpleasant things and decisions have had to be made over the last 250 or so years that allow us to live the way we do. We on this board have not been privy to any of these things but we have the right to discuss them. A lot of what goes on behind the scenes concerning the CIA and other intellegence groups may be "illegal" according to the Geneva convention, but as long as we are being made safer by these acts, I wont complain. The higher ground arguement is hollow to me because we must deal with terrorists on their level or we will continue to lose these battles. The international community be damned if they dont like it. The WSJ had an article on how business ties are keeping santions away from Iran concerning thier "illegal" nuclear program. France, Russia, China, and Germany all have hundreds of millions invested in Iran, mostly because of the absence of US competition there. Negotiating with power mongers like the the Iranian Pres and Il Jung of N. Korea is seemingly as big a waste of time as would negotiating with captured terrorists.

Anytime I see the words "rights" and San Francisco connected it gives me pause.

From Keith Olberman's show-- transcript of last night, I think it was:

"The President of the United States owes this country an apology.

It will not be offered, of course.

He does not realize its necessity.

There are now none around him who would tell him or could.

The last of them, it appears, was the very man whose letter provoked the President into the conduct, for which the apology is essential.

An apology is this President's only hope of regaining the slightest measure of confidence, of what has been, for nearly two years, a clear majority of his people.

Not "confidence" in his policies nor in his designs nor even in something as narrowly focused as which vision of torture shall prevail -- his, or that of the man who has sent him into apoplexy, Colin Powell.

In a larger sense, the President needs to regain our confidence, that he has some basic understanding of what this country represents -- of what it must maintain if we are to defeat not only terrorists, but if we are also to defeat what is ever more increasingly apparent, as an attempt to re-define the way we live here, and what we mean, when we say the word "freedom."

Because it is evident now that, if not its architect, this President intends to be the contractor, for this narrowing of the definition of freedom.

The President revealed this last Friday, as he fairly spat through his teeth, words of unrestrained fury directed at the man who was once the very symbol of his administration, who was once an ambassador from this administration to its critics, as he had once been an ambassador from the military to its critics.

The former Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, had written, simply and candidly and without anger, that "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."

This President's response included not merely what is apparently the Presidential equivalent of threatening to hold one's breath, but within it contained one particularly chilling phrase.

"Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," he was asked by a reporter. "If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?"

"If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic," Bush said. "It's just -- I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.

Of course it's acceptable to think that there's "any kind of comparison."

And in this particular debate, it is not only acceptable, it is obviously necessary, even if Mr. Powell never made the comparison in his letter.

Some will think that our actions at Abu Ghraib, or in Guantanamo, or in secret prisons in Eastern Europe, are all too comparable to the actions of the extremists.

Some will think that there is no similarity, or, if there is one, it is to the slightest and most unavoidable of degrees.

What all of us will agree on, is that we have the right -- we have the duty -- to think about the comparison.

And, most importantly, that the other guy, whose opinion about this we cannot fathom, has exactly the same right as we do: to think -- and say -- what his mind and his heart and his conscience tell him, is right.

All of us agree about that.

Except, it seems, this President.

With increasing rage, he and his administration have begun to tell us, we are not permitted to disagree with them, that we cannot be right, that Colin Powell cannot be right.

And then there was that one, most awful phrase.

In four simple words last Friday, the President brought into sharp focus what has been only vaguely clear these past five-and-a-half years - the way the terrain at night is perceptible only during an angry flash of lightning, and then, a second later, all again is dark.

"It's unacceptable to think," he said.

It is never unacceptable to think.

And when a President says thinking is unacceptable, even on one topic, even in the heat of the moment, even in the turning of a phrase extracted from its context, he takes us toward a new and fearful path -- one heretofore the realm of science fiction authors and apocalyptic visionaries.

That flash of lightning freezes at the distant horizon, and we can just make out a world in which authority can actually suggest it has become unacceptable to think.

Thus the lightning flash reveals not merely a President we have already seen, the one who believes he has a monopoly on current truth.

It now shows us a President who has decided that of all our commanders-in-chief, ever, he alone has had the knowledge necessary to alter and re-shape our inalienable rights.

This is a frightening, and a dangerous, delusion, Mr. President.

If Mr. Powell's letter -- cautionary, concerned, predominantly supportive -- can induce from you such wrath and such intolerance, what would you say were this statement to be shouted to you by a reporter, or written to you by a colleague?

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government."

Those incendiary thoughts came, of course, from a prior holder of your job, Mr. Bush.

They were the words of Thomas Jefferson.

He put them in the Declaration of Independence.

Mr. Bush, what would you say to something that anti-thetical to the status quo just now?

Would you call it "unacceptable" for Jefferson to think such things, or to write them?

Between your confidence in your infallibility, sir, and your demonizing of dissent, and now these rages better suited to a thwarted three-year old, you have left the unnerving sense of a White House coming unglued - a chilling suspicion that perhaps we have not seen the peak of the anger; that we can no longer forecast what next will be said to, or about, anyone who disagrees.

Or what will next be done to them.

On this newscast last Friday night, Constitiutional law Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, suggested that at some point in the near future some of the "detainees" transferred from secret CIA cells to Guantanamo, will finally get to tell the Red Cross that they have indeed been tortured.

Thus the debate over the Geneva Conventions, might not be about further interrogations of detainees, but about those already conducted, and the possible liability of the administration, for them.

That, certainly, could explain Mr. Bush's fury.

That, at this point, is speculative.

But at least it provides an alternative possibility as to why the President's words were at such variance from the entire history of this country.

For, there needs to be some other explanation, Mr. Bush, than that you truly believe we should live in a United States of America in which a thought is unacceptable.

There needs to be a delegation of responsible leaders -- Republicans or otherwise -- who can sit you down as Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott once sat Richard Nixon down - and explain the reality of the situation you have created.

There needs to be an apology from the President of the United States.

And more than one.

But, Mr. Bush, the others -- for warnings unheeded five years ago, for war unjustified four years ago, for battle unprepared three years ago -- they are not weighted with the urgency and necessity of this one.

We must know that, to you, thought with which you disagree -- and even voice with which you disagree and even action with which you disagree -- are still sacrosanct to you.

The philosopher Voltaire once insisted to another author, "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." Since the nation's birth, Mr. Bush, we have misquoted and even embellished that statement, but we have served ourselves well, by subscribing to its essence.

Oddly, there are other words of Voltaire's that are more pertinent still, just now.

"Think for yourselves," he wrote, "and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too."

Apologize, sir, for even hinting at an America where a few have that privilege to think and the rest of us get yelled at by the President.

Anything else, Mr. Bush, is truly unacceptable."

GR,
Thanks for putting up this view.
Seems to me that events are unfolding a bit quickly.
McCain cut a deal and came out in a "supportive" manner.
Looks like he wants the repubs to consider him for '08.
What's the famous line about politicians and whores?
And what's the difference?
I knew how Warner would shake out, Graham also showed his hand.
Powell still holds his cards, and I don't think he has any intention to fold 'em.
We'll see. Right now...lots of kissy, smooch, smooch.
I'm so surprised that many don't even see it.
Bets are coming down very soon.
My advice, don't bet on fools, clowns, whores or thieves. They're losers.
Look at what we've gotten from the last hand that was dealt.

I agree with you. That's why I would never vote for Hillary.

What do you dislike about her voting record, Rupert? Her vote for the PATRIOT Act? Her vote giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq? I hate both of those, too.

Or is it the amendment she tried to put on the port security bill to provide $2 billion to sick 9/11 responders? But then, for right-wingers, people are on their own, so it's just tough that they're getting ill now after working down there in air the gov't told them was safe, right? Well, that's how the Republicans see it; they shot down the amendment.

Or is it that the two major NYC Firefighters' unions announced their support for her re-election in April (before the primaries, even)? They didn't endorse her in 2000, but she's worked very hard for them since 9/11. The president of the Uniformed FIrefighters said, "Firefighters are skeptical of everybody," he said. "In general, politicians have to win our support, and she has done that."

I'm curious as to how familiar you are with her voting record-- she's quite hawkish on defense, which I think is something that usually appeals to you, yes? Is your dislike based on her record or based on what you hear about her? Because in the end, how they vote is the only thing that really affects us.

I don't buy the "carpetbagger," "riding on her husband's coattails," blah blah blah stuff as justification because in the end, if she's doing a good job, which I think she is, that's what matters to me. Bloomberg more or less bought the mayorship of NYC, and you know what? He's doing a pretty darn good job. So what is it about her voting record that you don't like, Rupert?

I actually think you're right. I think she has done a decent job as Senator. I was referring more to her character. DTS was saying to never trust "thieves".

Rupert,
So nice to see that you and I agree again.
Hillary has to do some 'splainin' ( as Little Richard would sing...Wooo!).
On a side note, I really don't trust any of 'em.
They're pretty obvious.
Not pretty.
Just obvious.

Keith is the biggest twit on any stage! If he had the formula for gold...I wouldn't trust him or believe him! Total Whack-job! I still like you,GR!

Timm, we can disagree; I still like you, too. :)

But this torture thing is wrong, wrong, wrong. It's never okay. Never. Didn't work in the Spanish Inquisition, didn't work in Salem in 1692 and isn't going to work now. It's wrong.

I find it verrrrry interesting this "compromise" BS on torture goes through the Friday before the Monday in which the released prisoners will finally tell their stories to the Red Cross. Methinks the Bush cabal is trying to avoid getting indicted by changing the law before the prisoners get to tell their stories. But we'll see on Monday.

And it once again shows me McCain is a total political animal and will do anything to be the candidate in '08. I'm quite disappointed, but not surprised.

I am against torture for tortures' sake? Where's JACK BAUER when you need him? I'm OK with truth serums....not necessarily the psychosis-inducing ones tho!

Olbermann is the only legitimately sane voice on television right now. The immorality of the twits running our government right now so overwhelms the immorality of the twits running the previous administration it is hard to believe this is still the United States of America. It is unfathomable that the congress, so entranced with morality of the last administration to push for impeachment isn't doing the same thing right now. There is a heckuva lot more to morality than what you do with your penis. Morality covers lots of things other than the exact location of your penis. Ahh...that duplicitous Congress...what can we do with them!!!!

Olbermann sane? Yeah, he's so believable he has 1% of the audience!

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0928-20.htm

Sorry Timm, I couldn't resist.
Molly's got it right.
Read it first, crap your pants later.

DTS: I read the link but I'm not sure what you wanted me to see. I've stated in a previous thread that I'm against torture,and that I don't consider truth serum to be torture. I'll wait for a reponse from you before I comment further.

Timm,
There's really no need to continue.
I won't convince you, and you won't me.
Hope your leg is ok.

DTS: Are you saying(by the article) that the agreement is flawed or that it has been changed after the fact?? I'm not trying to argue,honest! Thanks for the wishes...the leg will continue to be ongoing,but I'm keeping a stiff upper lip,er,something!

Timm,
This is only my opinion.
If habeus corpus is being changed, does it seem a little suspicious that it's being done now? Have we been invaded? Is there a rebellion?
Those are the only conditions whereby it can be suspended.
So, is this being done to cover something else before "charges" are lodged?
hmmmmmm...
Good to hear about your leg, and lip.

Thank you,DTS! I want to say that this isn't about what happened, but what might happen. I don't think this a time where we can NOT be ready, so we must be diligent in our efforts to effectively get info(I still don't like torture). I would like to think that it's better to protect from A great calamity, than to miss "by that much". The harm done to our country has been a slow slide(all parties at fault) but if we can prevail against terrorism and its' agents, then we stand a good chance.

Hey Rupert-

I am watching Mclaughlin group right now and there were two new polls done amongst the Iraqi people.

Poll 1:

Do you see attacks on American soldiers as justified?

61% said YES

Poll 2:

Do you see the US military as a stablizing force?

78% said NO



Now, do you still think they want us there??????

I know it's not this simple but, people voted leaders in-leaders want US in to secure the country. BADA-BING BADA BOOM!