As my dear ol' nana woulda said ".....so if this boy, Sam, told you to jump off a cliff you'd think it's a good idea and do it, would you?"
On Sunday, Ruddock said that using sleep deprivation to extract information from a terror suspect was not torture. "I don't regard sleep deprivation as torture . . . it would be seen as coercive."
The distinction he drew between "torture" and "coercion" referred to the new US laws that ban the use of torture when interviewing terror suspects, but give the OK to something called "aggressive interrogation techniques". It was in the interests of providing clarity about which was which that Ruddock volunteered his considered view.
……..for he admitted that sleep deprivation could extract dud information. "Obviously the question would be looked at as to whether the evidence obtained that way had any probity value," he said.
Curiously, this inconsistency in his logic drew little attention. For if the legitimacy of the information you extract might be affected by the very means with which you extract it, surely that distinguishes your process from any legally sanctioned "aggressive interrogation technique".
Well, there you have it. The thing that reeely boggles my mind is that there are folks (see above) who actually believe that the US torture act and the way that the Howard Govt. blindly follow will in benefit us and be a valuable contribution to the "War on Trrr". Fuckin' Morans!!!