Lakhdar Boumediene: “They torture me in the Obama time more than Bush.”

I guess it depends on how a person defines torture. Does he give any examples of the torture inflicted, or does he just make a blanket statement? Given that 0bozo has continued the policies of Bush, including the renditions... I would say it is not torture, merely business as usual.

I don't see force feeding as torture, as it isn't done with intent to harm, rather, it's done with the intent to save their life. Does it hurt? Heck yeah. Can it cause major health problems and potentially kill a person? Of course. It could cause heart failure. I don't think their being made to undergo force feeding to gather information, which is a key component to torture, so it really shouldn't qualify as torture.

If having a barking dog is torture then force feeding is torture. If questioning by a female is torture then force feeding is torture. I don't remember the press asking what the torture was that these people claimed but even water boarding is calm compared to breaking of bones, removing teeth and removing fingers and toes. You can spin it any way you like but if they claim torture then it has to be considered torture. It was with President Bush so it should be with President Obama.

I guess I'll give you something I doubt you'd give me if the situation were reversed - the benefit of the doubt regarding your claim that you "forgot" to supply the link after another poster did so. I suppose I COULD say you no doubt didn't want us to know what the "torture" Lakhdar Boumediene was subject to after Obama took office actually was or that when he said "was tortured recently, he is not referring to interrogation but to the force-feeding, which he believes was deliberately made “as painful and uncomfortable as possible.” Boumediene also believes that once the guards knew he had been ordered released for lack of evidence, some of them were looking for an opportunity to “take their last shots.”" (The part in quotes is from the article in the link supplied by the other poster.) Also from the article is this: "“When you’re in his presence, when you see the interview, he seems believable,” Rather replied. He added, however, that the admiral who’s been in charge of Guantanamo for the last year “says, ‘Listen, this is untrue. These things are not still going on.’”" "Does he have credibility now?" Maybe, maybe not. Dan Rather feels he "seemed believable" but the admiral in charge says he's not. What do YOU think, Taskr, does the admirable have more credibility than the detainee or not? "Does anyone believe he was tortured under Obama?" think it's at least possible that what he said was true. We can argue until we're blue in the fact about whether "force feeding" is torture. It's also possible the ones doing the force feeding did want to get their last shot in and that President Obama wasn't aware of what was being done to this ONE particular detainee. After all, you believed nobody above the soldiers at abu Graib knew what THEY were doing, right? They were just sadistic rogues who enjoyed making their prisoners suffer, weren't they? Annie

Either way this is proof of Bush Administration torture, right? MORE torture now means there was torture before. AND that's only if you believe the dude AND you think any of that really is torture. The bottom line is noone should have been detained in such a way without the normal American civil liberties because if we stoop to the level of "evil" in the world than we are no better. Also, if Bush's Administration put him there and Obama's Administration moved him out, that's one point for Obama, no matter how the Obama-haters want to spin it. Obama-haters want to slam Obama supporters all the time, but this story isn't going to do it.