The problem with ceding to the government the right to keep people detained without any recourse is that anything can happen to the detained, and that can lead to this:
Unlike the soldiers who are being held for the incidents at Abu Ghraib, the officers in this incident face no prosecution:
So, given that it was a Federal decision to hold people caught in the post-9/11 sweeps without right of habeas corpus, and that it was a Federal decision not to prosecute the perpetrators of the above torture, we can all rest comfortably now in the knowledge that it is Federal policy to torture when it can where it can, as long as the fig leaf of the war on terror can be used to justify the action.
Full text here: Two Men Charge Abuse in Arrests After 9/11 Terror Attack
I don’t know about the rest of you, but there are a few people in this world I wouldn’t mind slamming against walls, humiliating, kicking, and dragging across a prison floor, bleeding from the head.
On a different note though…could it be that the decision not to prosecute was based on the fact that there wasn’t a shred of evidence except for the words of the prisoners that it ever happened at all? There weren’t any graphic photos for them, like there are now.
You can describe in graphic detail all of the horrible, humiliating abuse you can imagine, but simply describing it doesn’t prove that it actually happened.
This is out of my area of expertise, but I’m going to go out on a limb and venture that a flashlight up your ass leaves a sign or two of its vist, even after its gone…
That aside, I don’t really think it wise for us to draw up our defensive position on the “prove it really happened” line.
I think we will do better to try the “a few rotten apples” line,
Do not underestimate the ability of the human body to take in sizable objects without permanent damage. Frankly, people are more afraid of things going up their asses than they really need to be. You can actually take fairly large objects without much trouble (though maybe some discomfort).
But that is willingly. A rough-handled flashlight without lubrication, however, would still be very painful at the time. Additionally, in rape situations, there is usually bruising to the surrounding muscle tissue, which may be what you are referring to.
As I mentioned elsewhere, as practical policy goes, I’ve read torture isn’t all the effective, for the simple reason that it generates false confessions.
Though it seems, in this case, nobody was trying to get a confession, which is perverse on many levels.
Reminds me of a movie…
“What did they tell you?”
“They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.”
“Are my methods unsound?”
“I don’t see any method…at all, sir.”
[QUOTE=Zagadka]
Do not underestimate the ability of the human body to take in sizable objects without permanent damage. Frankly, people are more afraid of things going up their asses than they really need to be. You can actually take fairly large objects without much trouble (though maybe some discomfort).
[QUOTE]
Well, I, for one, am certainly relieved on that score…
I wish to take a moment to thank friend Zad, on behalf of the SDMB in general, for his efforts in the cause of combatting ignorance. I freely admit that I was entirely unaware of the capacity of the human anus for expansion, and subsequent capacity to withstand the introduction of any number of foreign objects.
I feel quite advanced on the subject, however, and hasten to note that I do not feel any further education on the subject is desireable or neccesary. That will do nicely, thank you. No, no, that’s quite enough.
