chris matthews is wrong, the question is not 'does torture work?'

more like who ordered torturing?....imo

:eyes:

"It was doctor supervised." Some one care to explain to me why having a doctor's supervision makes it okay?

didn't he go to jail for that?

Confidential!
To: Chief Public Prosecutor in Düsseldorf .
Subject: Mistreatment of Political Prisoners

Meeting at the Reich Ministry of Justice on June 4, 1937

It has been recognized by government leaders at the highest levels that more rigorous interrogations are necessary and indispensable. In such cases, it would be nonsensical to prosecute the officers carrying out the interrogation for exceeding their authority. However, public prosecutors must carry out the letter of the law and have no possibility of choosing to prosecute or not as they may judge fit ... At present, we thus have a situation which cannot continue: a deficient sense of what is right on the part of judicial officers; an undignified position for police officers, who try to help matters by foolish denials . The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the possibility of relevant limits. There followed a discussion of individual questions:

Question 1: For which offenses are more rigorous interrogations permissible?
There was general agreement that, in principle) interrogations of this kind may be undertaken in cases where charges involve the immediate interests of the state. ... chiefly treason and high treason. Representatives of the Gestapo expressed the opinion that a more rigorous interrogation could also be considered in cases of Jehovah's Witnesses, explosives, and sabotage. ... It was unanimously agreed that charges under paragraph 175 of the Criminal Code should not be considered as grounds. A more rigorous interrogation is, as a general principle, never permissible in the case of foreigners. ...

Question 2: Nature of corporal punishment?
As a general principle, in more rigorous interrogations only blows with a club on the buttocks are permissible, up to 25 such blows. The number is to be determined in advance by the Gestapo (see
Question 3). Beginning with the tenth blow, a physician must be present. A standard club will be designated, to eliminate all irregularities.

Question 3: Who may order a more rigorous interrogation?
As a general principle, only Gestapo Headquarters in Berlin. Local state police stations must obtain permission in advance from Berlin. Without permission a more rigorous interrogation may not be conducted.
...

Question 5: What assurance exists that innocent persons will not be interrogated with the more rigorous measures?
This question is answered by the measures named under Question 3.

Question 6: How are judicial officers to deal technically with cases:

(a) in which permissible corporal punishment has been inflicted under the terms stated above? If an office of public prosecution receives a complaint, it contacts the state police and confirms that permission was granted (by the Gestapo Berlin). If said permission is shown to have been given, no charges are pressed, and a formal announcement should be made: "Investigation has shown that a criminal act was not committed."

(b) in which corporal punishment has been inflicted that is not permissible under the terms stated above?
If it transpires that permission was not obtained, commence investigation immediately and report at once to the Central Office of Public Prosecutions . ...

The Gestapo will receive a copy of from the Ministry , whereupon it is to act on them immediately ... and issue instructions to state police stations. The Ministry of Justice will for its part then issue instructions to public prosecutors.

That was a great question Tweety just asked.

Robbery works too. Just because something works isn't a sign it's a good thing to do. I don't believe torture "works" unless you are looking for lies and you are forcing someone to tell you what you want to hear, but that is beside the point.

What an asshole he is.

It really doesn't surprise me.

Look who we had as president for the past 8 years.

is alleging, that it works so it should be used.

Both questions are valid imo.

immanent disaster is raised only to divert us from addressing the fact that they were attempting to institutionalize torture. Were that to occur I fear we would see it slowly creep into local law enforcement as an accepted practice.

The whole debate about its effectiveness has no bearing on the issue. We have laws that proscribe certain activities are illegal, it appears they may have been broken, if so, what laws were broken and who broke the laws?

One could follow the Repub's logic in the case of a bank robber. So in a court of law the accused bank robber, could say, "It worked! I got $10,000 to buy a new car, thank you!"

Let's focus this on the law.

The administration should absolutely not reveal any information about the results of torture as it would provide our foes with information about what we know or do not know. We don't care if it worked, we were not supposed to be doing this.

Geneva Convention "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions"

Also what about 5th amendment rights?
You have the right to remain silent, as long as you do we're going to keep dumping buckets of water.