If you're really against torture...
 

...you're angry at the Obama administration and Clinton's State Department for re-engaging with Syria in 2009, creating a closer relationship between the US and these people:

At this point the State Department has figured it out, but when you read this, you realize they seem totally certain they will change Syria by isolating it. Two years ago they were totally certain they could change Syria by engaging with it. Ah, well. you make mistakes, you learn.

There's a new enhanced interrogation technique in which detainees are required to lie perfectly still, face down, stiff as a board, with their arms against their sides while balancing themselves on top of some object until they fall off and hurt themselves. The origin of the technique is uncertain; however, it appears that if detainees are photographed during the procedure and the pictures posted to a certain Facebook account, those events can be classified as recreation by the international community.

No, that's torture for those who have to encounter an endless barrage of these photographs and are told its some kind of self-expressive art. You know, like tattoos.

this

tats are over

I am disappointed and angry (but not surprised) by some of Obama's national security policies.

I certainly approve of his first actions in office of ending the policy of enhanced interrogation and rendition to countries that torture.

But I'm not angry for reengaging with Syria, while at the same time, keeping it on the terrorist supporter list and extending Bush sanctions.

And not for the engagement with NATO in Libya, which I still believe will be successful in driving Ghaddafi out of the country at little $ cost to the US and no US military losses.

We have little influence with Syria, but it was worth a shot. I dont see a good outcome there regardless of the US strategy.

Serbia? As a result, Milosevic literally negotiated himself out of a job. No military invasion necessary. Engagement is always the best solution. But only when done properly.

George Jr said enemies must earn the right to be engaged. How many thousands of American soldiers were wasted uselessly for the greater glory of that political agenda? How many Americans lost jobs in a recession created by a greater glory?

The best way to defeat an enemy is engagement. 'Baby Doc' Duvalier? Idi Bitty Amin? Carter almost disarmed the Korea conflict using engagement.

The UN needs to impose sanctions on Syria. Only then will sanctions have a chance of being effective. Unfortunately, it is usually the people of a country who suffer rather than their leaders when sanctions are imposed. :(

Water-planking?

Then they would have to place sanctions on most nations on Earth, including the United States.

And in regard to the original post, President Obama is just as barbaric as President Bush was. Torture is barbaric, whether you do it yourself, or have vassal states do it ("Extraordinary Rendition").

There is no acceptable excuse or justification for torture.

The US is morally identical to Syria and all torture is morally identical, whether the victim is the planner of 9/11 or, you know, some kid off the street. Whether the information sought is to prevent catastrophic attack, or just having fun in a dungeon in Damascus, it's really all the same.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...REH_story.html

In fact the young al-Khateeb, nearing the end of his life, would not want to trade places with anyone in Guantanamo or even with KSM being waterboarded in a CIA hideout in Algeria. Because all torture is identically, morally barbaric. It's all the same.

Which is why nothing will be done. We must look the other way; we must turn inwards; we are just as bad. Our shame will fill the history books. We must immediately repent on behalf of young Hamza. If we can admit responsibility we can begin changing ourselves, and then Syria will have no other path except to change as well. Once they see the beauty of the West's non-torturing approach they will certainly and wholly change.

I see it now, and I will pray for repentance at nightfall if the local cops don't cut my dick off first.

This is true. There is precisely zero difference.

You wish to make Syria your role model or barometer for what is acceptable? "If we beat them a little less than Syria does, we are okay"?

Also, America uses Syria to torture people, via "Extraordinary Rendition", so I am having trouble understanding your comparison.

You are confused. If we used a barometer to measure the scales in the US and Syria, it would have an identical reading. Sending them to Syria or to Guantanamo is exactly the same.

This is correct. I was simply questioning your justification.

I would answer you except that my left nut has just been crushed in a vise and it's too painful to think.

I think U guys are both being disingenuous.

Undertoad, with the OP suggesting that one cant oppose the US use of enhanced interrogation (torture), which btw, Obama ended with an executive order, while ignoring Syria's treatment of its citizens over which the US has no control.

Uday, for suggesting that human rights violations of US and Syria are equal in any way.

Torture is torture.

I have an even lower opinion of my own nation, in this respect.

Obama revoked Bush's policy of enhanced interrogation (torture) by Executive Order, which carries the force of law.

And while he didnt end rendition, he did put additional policies in place to end the practices of the previous administration. As far as I know, there has not been an extraordinary rendition to a country that tortures its own citizens since he took office, unlike the 10-15 that occurred under the Bush administration.

So, no, US policies and practices regarding torture are not at all like Syria.

While I read your entire post, the really important part is right there.

President Obama did not end extraordinary rendition.

First, I agree with you on torture.

I think it is immoral, illegal and ineffective and we no longer have a policy that allows a president to unilaterally interpret our treaty obligations (Geneva Conventions, etc) to allow torture.

As to rendition, the new policy requires the U.S. rendition practices comply with applicable international standards and do not result in the transfer of persons to face torture. That works for me.

But the bottom line is that actions speak louder than words and there have been no detainees sent to countries that torture since the last administration.