Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[--Pete]

Hi,

Perhaps we can have a discussion (with Pete --j/k Pete ;)) on when sexual humiliation techniques cross that tricky gray area from "professional" to "unacceptable."

Sexual torture of all types have been part of "professional" torture techniques pretty near always (the Inquisition being an exception -- fornication, apparently is a sin, other torture is not). Some of the biggest users of those techniques are the Islamic nations since Islam makes the Roman Catholics look like swingers. The more repressed a society, the more effective sexual torture is because the of the embarrassment factor. That axis runs from "amateur" to "professional" -- and the professionals do what it actually takes.

The "acceptable" to "unacceptable" axis is different. And, in my opinion, none of it is acceptable.

One is a question of effectiveness, the other of justice and morality. Don't confused them. B)

. . . "war on terror" . . .

This is a (I sometimes think 'the') fundamental problem. War on terror. War on poverty. War on drugs. War on damned near everything. Bah!

"War" is too often misused. The problem with calling something a "war" is that it sets up a mind set. That mind set is right for invasions but not necessarily right for criminal acts. Bombs and guns and tanks are fine for taking ground but you need a target for using them. Terrorists and drug dealers don't make good targets for military hardware. They make great targets for police proceedings. Wrong solution to the problem.

Yep. The whole processes, including torture and random invasions work so well that Osama Bin Laden has been captured, tried, and jailed for years; Al Qaeda is completely shut down; and the Taliban is on the run. Oh, wait, none of that is true. That's what happens when the wrong solution is applied to a problem.

--Pete