“It’s Just A Matter of Time Before [Torture] Spills Back Into Domestic Territory..."

[Lucille]

As an aside, when the read the defenders of torture in comments sections, they never talk about the value (or rather, lack of) of the information gleaned. They only bring up the brutality of their enemies. This leads me to believe that, for most Americans, it's about revenge.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/%E2%80%9Cit%E2%80%99s-just-matter-of-time-before-torture-spills-back-into-domestic-territory-historically-it-always


"It always has…for thousands of years. Indeed, all of the facets of militarization abroad are coming home."

War always comes home.

Military and constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley notes:


The cost of our torture program — and the failure to prosecute a single official for it (or the destruction of evidence and false statements revealed in its aftermath) will continue to cost this country dearly. Countries like Iran, North Korea, and China have already cited our use of waterboarding to defend against their own abuses. When our soldiers or citizens are waterboarded in the future, countries will play back Cheney’s words and others to say that such abuse is not torture. When we demand that officials in other countries be prosecuted for torture, they will mock our hypocrisy and own history.
[...]

To practice torture is to self-identify as a repressive police state, even if the practice is reserved only for conduct outside one’s own borders. But it’s just a matter of time before it spills back into domestic territory. Historically, it always has.
[...]
It always has…for thousands of years.

Indeed, all of the facets of militarization abroad are coming home.

Postscript: Torture is already arguably occurring occurring in U.S. prisons.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/12/why-us-embraced-torture.html


I am astonished by the fact that those who are capable of grasping that government control of guns in the name of crime will inevitably be used against the people do not recognize that the government use of torture in the name of fighting terrorism will also be used against the people. And Millman's observation that support for torture is more a public statement about one's self-perceived toughness than anything else is particularly astute, and is supported by the language observed to be used by many of those who endorse torture.
[...]
It's remarkable that anyone is still willing to defend the use of government torture, especially at a time when opposition to government gun control is at a two-decade high, having recovered 7 percentage points from the post-Sandy Hook dip. The libertarian rule is pretty simple. Don't permit the government anything you don't permit the citizenry. And don't permit the government to do anything you don't want it doing to any of its citizens.

[Suzanimal]

As an aside, when the read the defenders of torture in comments sections, they never talk about the value (or rather, lack of) of the information gleaned. They only bring up the brutality of their enemies. This leads me to believe that, for most Americans, it's about revenge.


I've noticed that too. I can't tell you how many stupid photos of 9/11 with a caption that reads something like "This is why I don't care if terrorists are tortured.":rolleyes: Oddly enough they're all conservatives who piss and moan about fitting the profile of a terrorist. Dumbasses...

[milgram]

Speaking of gun control, 9/11 is used by Republicans just like Democrats use Sandy Hook. The goal is to exploit tragedies and change policy based on emotion over facts.

[Ronin Truth]

Nah, it's much easier, quicker and cheaper to just shoot them. :p

[William Tell]

I've noticed that too. I can't tell you how many stupid photos of 9/11 with a caption that reads something like "This is why I don't care if terrorists are tortured.":rolleyes: Oddly enough they're all conservatives who piss and moan about fitting the profile of a terrorist. Dumbasses...

Yes, and they are cowards. REAL men understand that we should follow the whole Constitution, especially due process. We have to remind people about the 8th amendment, and the fact that we tried the Japanese for war crimes when they pulled this stuff.

We are up against evil that threatens to engulf us. Our political costs are far less than what are predecessors had to pay, many of them lost their lives.:(

[specsaregood]

If torture for is a valid interrogation method for suspected terrorists, then it should is also a valid interrogation method for domestic suspects/criminals.

[fisharmor]

Yes, and they are cowards. REAL men understand that we should follow the whole Constitution, especially due process. We have to remind people about the 8th amendment, and the fact that we tried the Japanese for war crimes when they pulled this stuff.

The US constitution was a broken document from the get-go. The basic premise of it is to create a strong central government, and things couldn't have progressed any differently from the way they did.


We are up against evil that threatens to engulf us. Our political costs are far less than what are predecessors had to pay, many of them lost their lives.:(

I'm sorry to be hard on you, but I have no time for this type of talk anymore.
We're not at a crossroads.
We're not on a slippery slope.
Things aren't dangerously close to going horribly wrong.

The train has arrived at the station. We're here. It's over. Done.
There's no use telling people we'd better fix things before it's too late.
We already live, today, in an anti-liberty totalitarian police state. If you're not willing to admit that, then you're part of the problem.


If torture for is a valid interrogation method for suspected terrorists, then it should is also a valid interrogation method for domestic suspects/criminals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#American_prisons_prior_to_World_War_ II

[ Waterboarding in ] American prisons prior to World War II

An editorial in The New York Times of 6 April 1852, and a subsequent 21 April 1852 letter to the editors documents an incidence of waterboarding, then called "showering" or "hydropathic torture", in New York's Sing Sing prison of an inmate named Henry Hagan, who, after several other forms of beating and mistreatment, had his head shaved, and "certainly three, and possibly a dozen, barrels of water were poured upon his naked scalp". Hagan was then placed in a yoke.[102] A correspondent listed only as "H" later wrote: "Perhaps it would be well to state more fully the true character of this 'hydropathic torture.' The stream of water is about one inch in diameter, and falls from a hight [sic] of seven or eight feet. The head of the patient is retained in its place by means of a board clasping the neck; the effect of which is, that the water, striking upon the board, rebounds into the mouth and nostrils of the victim, almost producing strangulation. Congestion, sometimes of the heart or lungs, sometimes of the brain, not unfrequently [sic] ensues; and death, in due season, has released some sufferers from the further ordeal of the water cure. As the water is administered officially, I suppose that it is not murder!" H. then went on to cite an 1847 New York law which limited prison discipline to individual confinement "upon a short allowance."[103]


Prisoners in late 19th-century Alabama, and in Mississippi in the first third of the 20th century, also suffered waterboarding. In Alabama, in lieu of or in addition to other physical punishment, a "prisoner was strapped down on his back; then 'water [was] poured in his face on the upper lip, and effectually stop[ped] his breathing as long as there [was] a constant stream'."[104] In Mississippi, the accused was held down, and water was poured "from a dipper into the nose so as to strangle him, thus causing pain and horror, for the purpose of forcing a confession."[105]
.....
By U.S. police before the 1940s

The use of "third degree interrogation" techniques to compel confession, ranging from "psychological duress such as prolonged confinement to extreme violence and torture", was widespread in early American policing. Lassiter classified the water cure as "orchestrated physical abuse",[111] and described the police technique as a "modern day variation of the method of water torture that was popular during the Middle Ages". The technique employed by the police involved either holding the head in water until almost drowning, or laying on the back and forcing water into the mouth or nostrils.[111] Such techniques were classified as "'covert' third degree torture" since they left no signs of physical abuse, and became popular after 1910 when the direct application of physical violence to force a confession became a media issue and some courts began to deny obviously compelled confessions.[112] The publication of this information in 1931 as part of the Wickersham Commission's "Report on Lawlessness in Law Enforcement" led to a decline in the use of third degree police interrogation techniques in the 1930s and 1940s.[112]



As you can see, torture of citizens by domestic authorities is already ground we've covered in the US.


There is NO BABY in this bathwater.

[pcosmar]

Just a matter of time

Too late.


If torture for is a valid interrogation method for suspected terrorists, then it should is also a valid interrogation method for domestic suspects/criminals.

It is and has been common..
Only rarely is it exposed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Burge

[Ronin Truth]

If torture for is a valid interrogation method for suspected terrorists, then it should is also a valid interrogation method for domestic suspects/criminals. But it's not, and it's not.

[specsaregood]

Only rarely is it exposed.

Right, it shouldn't have to be exposed. In fact it should be bragged about and promoted --if it is a valid interrogation method that is. I mean if the public says torture is valid, effective and moral for terrorist suspects. Then why isn't it valid and effective for all murder suspects? Robbery suspects? Rape suspects? Heck, if you are suspected of conspiring to commit a crime of any sort, why can't the cops torture you until you admit your guilt? If you are walking down the street and meet the rough description of somebody that just committed a crime in the area, why shouldn't the cops be able to take you back to their precinct and waterboard you to find out if you are the suspect?

I think these are the questions we should be asking the pro-torture supporters.


But it's not, and it's not.
I happen to agree.