>>A suspect is only a suspect, not a terrorist. When the government starts treating suspects as already convicted terrorists, then we no longer have democracy. How is any of this different from the goings on in Russia during the cold war that the U.S. was railing so hard against .
>>
>
>Again assumptions are being made of the goings-on. How is it different? No reports of people getting "eliminated" in prisons.

Being that the proceedings there are secret, it stands to reason that there are no reports about anything at all.

>
>>If they do it it's evil totalitarianism. If we do it, it's a requirement of democracy? Sorry, not in this lifetime. Wrong is wrong.
>
>Well I can't argue with that last sentence.. but:
>
>You focus on the treatment, I focus on the purpose. Perhaps it's because you have not been the target of terrorism? And I'm not saying the ends justify the means, but we have to worry about those ends.

If the means we use are no different than the means they use, then how are we better than they are? Why would the US administration want to write the ban on abuse law to exempt the CIA if 'American Values' are supposedly always in play in the treatment of prisoners?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102402051.html
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051025-085239-4576r