If it involves dogs, thumbscrews, submersion, or things of those nature then I am, by all means, opposed to it.
If it involves loud music (within reason), warmer or cooler rooms (again within reason), or things that are not truly torturous then, why not?
I have heard both arguments and I am inclined to believe that aspects of both are true.
It also seems like if they have to have secret CIA camps (which have been formally acknowledge by Bush) then the actions taking place at those locations cannot be very legitimate.
Does anyone have any knowledge of this subject, preferably with a reputable source that they can reference?
I apologize for the repost, but since Answers went down for awhile, I'm not sure that anyone actually saw this question. Here it is again.
2006-10-20 09:54:41 · 5 answers · asked by I am all that is man 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
-forced ro read multiple postings of the same question.
2006-10-20 09:56:37 · answer #1 · answered by Duque de Alba 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Torture in any form is not allowed since it s a violation of the Geneva Convention which governs the rules to follow in the handling of prisoners.
2006-10-20 16:58:27 · answer #2 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It means making the prisoners listen for hours on end to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld speeches. Anyone would break and admit to anything after that form of torture.
2006-10-20 16:57:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Psychologically and physically harming and damaging a prisoner.
2006-10-20 17:13:02 · answer #4 · answered by Crito 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/12/us1227.htm
2006-10-20 16:58:08 · answer #5 · answered by St♥rmy Skye 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋