"Al-Haidari said that he and other residents from Dujail — including family members — were taken to Baghdad and thrown into a security services prison, where people from "9 to 90" were held. Blood poured from head wounds and skin was pale from electric shocks, he testified. Security officials would drip melted plastic hoses on detainees, only to pull it off after it cooled, tearing skin off with it, he said. "I cannot express all that suffering and pain we faced in the 70 days inside," he said." www.yahoo.com No comment.
Okay, after that pathetic display of sarcasm, my point is this: We are prosecuting Saddam Hussein, and individual whom we displaced as leader of his country due to mysterious WMD and the fact that he tortured people and killed political opponents. This prosecution is taking place in an Iraqi court setup by the victors, the United States. After all the atrocities Saddam has committed, the torture and murders after an attempted assasination on Saddam is the only thing we've managed to charge him with. However, the Bush administration has been in charge during some of the worst accusations of torture in U.S. History. The administration has used legal scholars to uphold the use of torture. The VP has stated that torture is necessary in some circumstances. Nobody has been fired, reprimanded, or anything. Does anyone understand the term "hypocrit?"
This is great: Probably not true (and maybe it can be proven false), but the fact that we have a long record now of systemic torture it lends credence to the accusation. Which is a bloody shame.
You're right. He would have said this anyway, though. Had we actually tortured Saddam, rather than people who were innocent, we'd probably have an easier time of it today. I'm not saying I'm in favor of torturing Saddam, I'm just saying that whatever the alleged upside of torture put forward, it definitely works better in the short run and the long run on the guilty, as opposed to the not guilty. All this is cement soccer balls under the bridge, though.