The torture memos are being released today and will undoubtedly appall us.
But keep in mind that there is precedent for the U.S. government torturing:
All eight of those brought to trial ... were locked up in single cells, each only 3.5 feet wide by 7 feet long. Six had canvas hoods pulled over their heads and tied tightly around their necks, with removal allowed only when they sat in court. Slits in the cloth enabled them to breathe and eat. Two had metal balls chained to their legs. The aim was to isolate them in a manner both merciless and unforgiving. Latitude was given for prison authorities to impose even harsher restrictions to prevent their "cheating the gallows by self-destruction."
For six weeks during the trial, detainees endured what one of them condemned as "the torture of the bag." Another tried to commit suicide by pounding his head with the ball chained to his leg. The prison doctor, recoiling at the padded hoods that pressed firmly against their eye sockets, demanded they be removed forthwith and the detainees allowed outdoors to exercise in the open air, failing which, he warned, the secretary of war would have "a lot of lunatics on his hands." Only then did authorities yield.
The prisoners in question were those involved in the conspiracy to kill Abraham Lincoln. You can read here the whole story of their trial and how the national reaction to Lincoln's killing mirrored the national reaction to 9/11.
(And to be clear: Torture is wrong. We shouldn't torture. Period.)
The hoods were a "little" extreme at that point,
I believe they stopped using such things at Eastern State Prison
in the 1850's (Scotch caps), and the leg shackles, with weights,
not considered cruel or unusual at the time.
At Gitmo, they didn't stop for years.
They got their lunatics, and a lot more.
But no trials.
Might I argue that they were more humane in 1865?
Any torture that took place before WWII is a little problematic to bring up now as being relevant -- the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Trials is all we really need -- hell, the CIA trained torturers in Vietnam and in Brazil -- remember Dan Mitrione?
Vigilante action is illegal. Don't try to punish the torturers by extra-legal means. Besides, you don't want to be like W's people. Maybe Obama will change his mind about W & Co's torturers & they would have to account for their acts before a judge. No, I don't think that a judge would punish W's torturers. It's 2009. Obama is sending more troops to Afghanistan. Somebody will tell Obama that some Afghan-Taliban people need to be tortured to get vital intelligence; Obama will 'reluctantly' approve of torture in some instances. SS/DD Obama=change you can trust---Not.
General Carlo Alberto Dalla Chiesa famously replied:
"Italy can survive the loss of Aldo Moro. It would not survive the introduction of torture."
then to bring up the fact that we have resorted to torture in the past does not
serve to persuade us that we shouldn't do so now, or in the future.
It's more of a moral or practical issue. Not only is it cruel, it also doesn't work.
.
.
Bush ordered torture.
What is the punishment for his crimes?
.
.
1. 9/11 happened 8 months into Bush's term and the administration considered all that terrorist stuff from before they were in office to be Clinton's problem and, up until 9/11, they weren't going to take any of it seriously.
2. People will say anything to make the torture stop. Is this the kind of information you're talking about? The LIES from tortured terrorist suspects has already proven to be a complete waste of time and resources when our government acts on this 'information'.
3. 30 minutes?? Maybe you've watched too many episodes of "24". The torture authorized by the Bush administration went on for months, maybe years.
4. None of the lies, or "information" gleaned from torture has ever saved even one American life. In fact, Guantanamo and what was done there has made us UNsafe.
jw