|
|
| |
|
|
| |
comments: trickbumper-submit@yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Monday, March 17, 2003
We have all been listening to speculation on the TV news about whether the "non-combatants" that the US has captured in its war on terrorism are being tortured to make them give out information about plans for terrorism. Some of the captured terrorists (and I call them terrorists assuming that they are guilty -- which some of them may not be -- though the idea of being "guilty" raises its own questions about how to define and judge the crime) have been brought to or kept in foreign countries or perhaps given to foreign governments to interrogate. Torture is a hot issue partly because of the moral implications, but also because of the international agreements preventing the torture of prisoners of war (thus the term, ""non-combatants").
One thing I have not heard any discussion about, and which anyone who has watched a spy movie or read a spy book in the past 20 years knows about, is the use of truth serums to make the prisoners talk. It is virtually inconceivable that the US is not pursuing drugs as a method for getting the prisoners to talk. Yet not a word about it in the media.
Why? The answer is obvious to those who know how censorship works in the US: the media has been asked by the government not to discuss the subject on the grounds of "national security". And the media comply, as they almost always do.
Why do the TV and newspapers go along with the "national security" gag? That I am not too sure about; perhaps the big companies are afraid of losing licenses. Perhaps they want to avoid lawsuits and possible prison time. Perhaps they do not want to appear unpatriotic. Perhaps they really believe that the national security will be threatened by open discussion of using drugs to find information.
Monday, March 17, 2003
|
|
| |
|
|
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home