REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Torture Question

POSTED BY: CANTTAKESKY
UPDATED: Sunday, October 30, 2005 11:30
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5915
PAGE 2 of 4

Sunday, October 23, 2005 6:18 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
So if you were a prisoner, and the interrogator masturbates on the picture of your 5 year old daughter while mouthing obscenities, that would infuriate and scare you, but it wouldn't be torture.

Hmmm. I can live with that.

It would certainly infuriate me and one could argue that it might be cruel and unusual, but it wouldn’t necessarily constitute torture.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 6:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

You mean sort of like a culture that thinks it is okay to rape someone to death, eat their flesh and sew the victims' skins into their clothing, and not necessarily in that order?
Nice dodge Finn. Yes, like cultures who believe in painful inititations: clitorectomy, penis-splitting, scarification, starvation to the point of hallucination... that sort of thing. An honor in their culture, a torture in ours.

Quote:

CAN'T: So if you were a prisoner, and the interrogator masturbates on the picture of your 5 year old daughter while mouthing obscenities, that would infuriate and scare you, but it wouldn't be torture.

FINN: It would certainly infuriate me and one could argue that it might be cruel and unusual, but it wouldn’t necessarily constitute torture.

By the way, how do you feel about people raping or near-drowning or electrocuting your child in front of you? Is that torturing the parent?


Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 7:56 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
By the way, how do you feel about people raping or near-drowning or electrocuting your child in front of you? Is that torturing the parent?

I’d say it definitely is torturing the child, regardless of the impact it has on the parent.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 8:38 AM

SEVENPERCENT


Ok, I think I'm beginning to see Finn's answers in a more clear light; tell me if I'm mistaken. Canttakesky, Signy, and I are arguing that torture exists in forms other physical (i.e., emotional and psychological); Finn is arguing that only extreme physical abuse is torture. Correct?

If that's not correct, Finn, where do you draw the line on what constitutes emotional or psychological torture? Or is there one?

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 8:47 AM

HKCAVALIER


Seems to me the important context here is the administration's interest in finding ways around the torture ban; the ongoing search for ways of torturing detainees that Americans won't think of as torture. Seems to me we play right into their hands when we have these kinds of quibbling arguments.

The point is that Rummy wants these people tortured. The only problem Rummy has is that the more overt methods are forbidden. So, let's study their culture and find psychological weaknesses to exploit. I think the sticks and stones type arguments discount a whole array of humiliation that constitutes psychological torture. There's a whole array of abuse that whitebread America can't even comprehend. How many folks does the average American know who have gotten pissed and deficated on? People have very deep irrational reactions to that kind of thing. Now, what if the ones doing the pissing and deficating are members of an invading army? Profound humiliation has severe psychological consequences, particularly in terms of breaking a man's spirit or will. If you can make a person feel worthless enough, they will comply with anything. No bruises, no broken bones, no evidence of torture--perfect!

Most Americans have no idea of the real psychological affect that has on a person, and more importantly for Rummy & co. they don't want to know. Rummy is exploiting the average American's blinkered indifference to the suffering of others.

We have a peculiar relationship to humiliation in this culture. We don't respect it in any way. If we notice a person blushing, for instance, we tease them unmercifully. From the New Ager to the Warhawk, shame is to be denied absolutely. Anyone who admits to feeling ashamed is seen as weak, pathetic, or (the ultimate New Age sin) unhealthy.

We also have a long and respected history of humilating people as a way of innitiating them into our groups. Frat hazing, and military hazing. The key difference between such practices and some of the lighter methods of "softening up" prisoners at Abu Ghraib, is that the rushees and cadets who get hazed in this country do so willingly and have reason to believe that they will not be wantonly murdered during the process. Detainees have no say-so and no such assurances. For all they know, they are simply, slowly being destroyed. But the administration drops the "frat hazing" talking point into the discourse and we Americans, because of our peculiar culture, buy it.

Ultimately, there are two psychologies these torture practices are designed to work upon: the Islamist psychology and the American. The problem, which Rummy's crew has largely solved, is how to torture these people in such a way that Americans won't believe it's torture.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 8:50 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
By the way, how do you feel about people raping or near-drowning or electrocuting your child in front of you? Is that torturing the parent?

As a parent, I would feel acute and severe pain and suffering. I'd say it's torture for the parent.

Most authorities consider both physical harm and threat of physical harm to constitute torture. It does not have to be directed at the primary target.

In my example, masturbating on a child's picture is cruelly offensive, but I can live with the argument that it is not torture. Threatening to rape the child or poke his eyes out, however, could easily constitute torture, if the subject believes it can be done and feels acute suffering over the threats.

There are psychological tortures out there, such as sensory overload or deprivation. One can argue that those have a physical/neurological impact, and therefore meets the sticks-and-stones criterion.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 9:08 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
If that's not correct, Finn, where do you draw the line on what constitutes emotional or psychological torture? Or is there one?

I’m sure there is one, but I’m equally sure that it is nearly impossible to generally quantify.

I think it is utterly ridiculous and fanatical to define torture as “not liking your religion.” I think that many fanatical Moslems would indeed consider someone expressing disagreement with their religion a form of torture, much as the Nazis might have felt that the existence Jews was a form of torture for them. However, it is that very religious intolerance and hatred of other opinions exhibited by fanatical Moslems that we fighting against.

A somewhat trickier example is the one described by Signym above. I would like to believe that any parent who saw their child being tortured would feel enough terror and anguish such that it might constitute torture of the parent. But that is completely based on my assumption of what the parent feels, and frankly, I can’t even begin to assume what a person feels, who is so mired in religious/political fanaticism that they would saw the head off a living, screaming, innocent human being just to push a political or ideological agenda. So I can’t say that torturing a child would necessarily torture the parent; for all I know bin Laden would consider the act of redemption and would rejoice at their child being cleansed of their sins or sent to their just reward. So it is difficult to quantify.

However, even in that case, the torturing act, whether the act of physically torturing the child or attempting to induce the effects of torture on the parent, is still a physical act. The act of torture is still physically harming the child. So in general, I do think that torture should be defined as some extreme physical act, not so such much because the effect of torture cannot be indirectly induced, but because it is difficult to quantify it otherwise.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 10:16 AM

HKCAVALIER


Good gravy folks, torturing anyone in front of you, if you are wholely in the torturer's power as well is torture! Criminy, all torture is psychological, some is merely achieved through physical violence, but it is how it works on the victim's mind that matters always. Without psychology there is no torture in the first place. Torture stops when your victim is unconscious.

Or if your victim isn't human. If the administration can dehumanize the victims of U.S. torture practices, we Americans will deny our victims' psychological relevance--thereby circumventing the whole debate.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 12:57 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Sorry, couldn't let a Duh comment hang in the air...
"What does it say about us as a nation that we have folks who not only support state-authorized torture, but also want to keep it secret."
Folks, clearly meaning some, even a minority.
The statement means:
What does it say about us as a nation if some people can have such a warped and anti-freedom view?



What does it say about us as a nation if some people:

...think the government is the devil incarnate?
...don't like NASCAR?
...believe the Biblical end times are near?
...can't bother to pick up their trash?
...have an unreasoning hatred for SUVs?
...won't eat meat?
...still smoke?
...vote Libertarian?

It means we got a lot of different kinds of people. That's it. Otherwise it doesn't say anything about us as a nation, except that we're free to express our differing opinions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 1:14 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
In a culture that finds sexual humiliation to be the lowest degredation of a person, some naked pictures are like hot pokers to them. Just not to us, so we don't see it.

So what are hot pokers like to them, then?

FINN!!
lol That's THE funniest gorram thing, lol, you ever, lol, put up here!!!!
I almost CHOKED on my soda!!!!!
BWAHAHAHAHA....

Chrisisonthefloor

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 1:18 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

The point is that Rummy wants these people tortured.



Not quite. As the report states over and over again, what Rummy is looking for is actionable intelligence.

From the Afghani prisoners in Gitmo he was looking for information about ben-Laden and possible terrorist attacks on the U.S. and U.S. interests. Remember that this wasn't that long after 9/11 and that Rummy is the man responsible for protecting the United States.

From Iraqi prisoners he was looking for Hussein, major Baathists, info on insurgent attacks, and WMD(OK, who'll cast the first smarmy remark?)

The slippery slope probably began with the realization that the Taliban in Afghanistan and the insurgents in Iraq didn't meet the usual description of "legal combatants". This, combined with the perception that they might have information about plans, tactics, whereabouts of leaders, etc. that might save lives later on probably led to the more aggressive methods of interrigation.

I don't doubt that the savagery of both the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents actions also had something to do with it. It's not hard to de-humanize an enemy who'll murder whole groups of prisoners of war, slaughter non-combatants complete with video tape, routinely defile the bodies of the dead, put bounties on the heads of members of different religious sects, etc.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 1:20 PM

CHRISISALL


Sorry, this is a serious topic...

Just never saw Finn bat one outta the park like that...

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 1:52 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

The point is that Rummy wants these people tortured.



Not quite. As the report states over and over again, what Rummy is looking for is actionable intelligence.

Are you suggesting that Rummy is so naive that he had no idea how folks would be going about seccuring that actionable intel? His interest in circumventing the Geneva Conventions suggests otherwise.

I keep thinking that the only way y'all would accept that Rums' & co. were culpable is if they specifically stated in a national press conference that they were responsible. Everything else is hearsay, spin, and partisan bias. Grrr. Arrgh.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 2:19 PM

LIMINALOSITY


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
(The UN defines torture as: "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person" http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGACT750042000)

The question is: at what point does the button pushing become torture? When is the pain too severe?

It is in answering that question that our cultural biases come into play. Westerners cannot fathom mere religious violations to constitute "severe" pain or suffering. You ask a devout Arab Muslim though, and they can well imagine the severity of the subject's suffering. More to the point, so can the interrogators. That is why they picked that tactic to begin with--they are *trying* to cause suffering just severe enough to cause the subject to break and give them what they want. Obviously, if the suffering is indeed severe enough to break the subject, then it should be severe enough to be labeled torture.

Amnesty International proposes that the intention to break a victim coupled with acute suffering should be sufficient. AI proposes that 4 elements make up torture:
Quote:


1. the involvement of at least two people, the torturer and the victim;
2. the infliction of acute pain and suffering;
3. the intention to break the will of the victim;
4. systematic activity with a rational purpose.
(see link above)


To answer the original question, I would say: If acute intimidation and degradation was inflicted systematically with the intention of breaking an individual for punishment/ information, it is torture. Obviously, I would say all those humiliation tactics used at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are torture. Much of that torture may be milder than other instances, but they are torture nonetheless.

The REAL question for me is not the definition of torture, but whether torture is ever justified. Should a society tolerate or endorse mild forms of torture in order achieve greater objectives such as saving lives? THAT is the real moral dilemma we are wrestling with.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky



Thanks for the insertion of this information, and your well stated viewpoint.

My opinion, only mine: Any group that claims the high moral ground for all its members is in an undefensible position, and the US has been setting up camp in that zone for quite some time; long before Rummy decided to have the Geneva Conventions reinterpreted in the spirit of this 'pull civilians from their bedrooms' variety of warfare.

I object to the title of the Frontline piece including the word Question. To me there's no question that the methods mentioned in the Frontline piece, and in some of the posts above are methods of torture, including desecration of objects another culture finds sacred, and treating a prisoner in ways the prisoner would find sinful or immoral if they chose to commit the acts themselves. I see these acts as torture, aside from causing physical pain. To my way of thinking, the debate begs the question: have we turned into the monster we've claimed to protect the rest of the world from for more than a century.

Gvmts claiming authority over other gvmts (or its own citizens) while maintaining that keeping secrets in servive to a larger agenda is reasonable, leads me to reflect on the current corporate climate, which also suffers from an epidemic of social personality disorder. OT maybe, but part of the same pathology.

Add to this the idea that torture does not work to gain information from a prisoner and I wonder what, aside from a kind of twisted revenge for 911 could possibly the administration's point in ratcheting up the level of insanity to the point where we have camps in Cuba and Iraq dedicated to the torture of prisoners. GW, Rummy and the rest of them must have heard torture doesn't work, they do have advisors.

The choice of venue and the methodology used in maintaining the atmosphere of uncertainty and fear for all participants couldn't have been more brilliantly planned by an evil genius either, on multiple levels: the torture palace formerly operated by Saddam, in a neighborhood unfriendly to coalition forces, broken and indefensible, overcrowded, with ghosts, so they said, and a variety of secretive authorities, too large and ambiguous to ever demonstrate any clear boundaries of sanctioned behavior on any level. The Nazis had nothing on this set up except a clarity of message.

I wish there were some way to find accountability in all of this, but I think we have amputated accountablilty in the interest of finding profit in every encounter, and what we called accountability left a couple of soldiers of very low rank (one of them female, but I'm not going for that bait) and one female general swinging in the wind, everyone else gets a free pass and nothing changes.


One Ghandi-kissing socialist

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 3:31 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Are you suggesting that Rummy is so naive that he had no idea how folks would be going about seccuring that actionable intel? His interest in circumventing the Geneva Conventions suggests otherwise.



I'm suggesting that Rummy doesn't care how actionable intel is developed. If it could be obtained via the soft cushions and comfy chair route (No one escapes the Spanish Inquisition!), that'd probably be fine with him. I'm also suggesting that he believes he can make a reasonable case that the Afgan and Iraqi prisoners are not lawful combatants, and therefore outside the conventions for the treatment of prisoners of war.

And although I haven't gotten into it here, I'm not so sure I would consider most of the approved coercive techniques described in the Frontline story as "torture". Much of the physical abuse that has occurred and resulted in charges is beyond what was authorized.

I still think a lot of the problems with interrogation occurred because the military was not prepared to handle prisoners who were not members of an established military force and who would play by the rules. They had to consider that anyone they captured might have information on possible terrorist attacks against civilian populations. This required many more in-depth interrogations and there just wasn't the staff for it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 7:17 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So in general, I do think that torture should be defined as some extreme physical act, not so such much because the effect of torture cannot be indirectly induced, but because it is difficult to quantify it otherwise.

I have agreed with you before that I could live with the "sticks and stones" standard that some sort of physical impact is required to define torture ("Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me."). After all, people have to assume responsibility at some point for choosing to feel pain when pain is not physically administered.

After thinking about it for several days, I have come to change my mind. The "sticks and stones" standard does not take into account the helplessless of being physically imprisoned to begin with.

Out in the real world, if someone infuriates me on purpose, I can physically remove my self from the offensive situation. I can complain to my friends for emotional support, and file grievances with authorities for hope of justice. A prisoner has none of those recourses. He must endure.

Here is a good description of how torture works.
Quote:

Although torture is usually thought of in terms of its physical impact (pain and damage), the psychological impact is often greater and tends to remain with the victim long after the actual activity is discontinued.

The process of psychological torture is designed to invade and destroy the belief of a victim in their validity as a human being, to destroy presumptions of privacy, intimacy, and inviolability assumed by the victim, and to destroy their unspoken trust that these things can save them. Beyond merely invading the victim's mental and physical independence on a one-to-one level, such acts are made further damaging via public humiliation, incessant repetition, depersonalization, and sadistic glee.

The CIA, in its "Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual – 1983" (reprinted in the April 1997 issue of Harper's Magazine), summed up the theory of coercion thusly:

"The purpose of all coercive techniques is to induce psychological regression in the subject by bringing a superior outside force to bear on his will to resist. Regression is basically a loss of autonomy, a reversion to an earlier behavioral level. As the subject regresses, his learned personality traits fall away in reverse chronological order. He begins to lose the capacity to carry out the highest creative activities, to deal with complex situations, or to cope with stressful interpersonal relationships or repeated frustrations."

Psychologically, torture often places the victim in a state where the mind works against the best interests of the individual, due to the inducement of such emotions as shame, worthlessness, dependency, and a feeling of a lack of uniqueness. These and other mental stresses can lead to a mutated, fragmented, or discredited personality and belief structure. Even the victim's normal bodily needs and functions (e.g. sleep, sustenance, excretion, etc.) can be changed and made to be construed as self-degrading, animalistic, and dehumanizing.

Torture robs the victim of the most basic modes of relating to reality and, thus, is the equivalent of cognitive death. Space and time are warped. The self ("I") is shattered. The tortured have nothing familiar to hold on to: family, home, personal belongings, loved ones, language, name. They lose their mental resilience and sense of freedom. They feel alienated — unable to communicate, relate, attach, or empathize with others.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/p/ps/psychology_of_tortu
re.htm




While degrading the Koran in and of itself may not be tortuous, its purpose is part of a systematic effort to "invade and destroy the belief of a victim in their validity as a human being"--that is, in the vernacular, to cause a "nervous breakdown" in the victim. The pain inflicted by this attack on the victim's validity and identity is synergistically augmented by the physical imprisonment, loss of autonomy, and other physical/psychological tactics used (such as sleep deprivation). Any of these things taken by itself may not be tortuous, but taken as a whole, is. All these tactics that do not cause severe pain by themselves have to be evaluated in context. Keep in mind, Chinese water torture starts with just an annoying drop on the forehead.

I understand now the reason Amnesty and other organizations do not try to stipulate what kind of activities (physical vs. psychological) constitute torture and base their definition on the INTENT on the part of the torturer. There are many, many creative ways to break a human being with physical tactics, psychological erosion, or more often than not-- both. What matters is that someone is trying to destroy another human being. If you are talking about quantifying the definition, it is easier to quantify intent (systematic perpetration, rational purpose) than it is to quantify how much pain was physical vs. psychological.

HKCavalier is right that ultimately, all torture is psychological.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 9:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The point was made before that when you torture people you introduce them to what THEY are afraid of, not what YOU are afraid of. Physical pain or the fear of death are what most people recognize, but those aren't the only means of torture. One of the easiest ways to gain an elder's compliance in Africa to waterboard his first grandson. People who fail to recognize other means of torture would be incredibly ineffective.

Geezer makes a strong argument that torture was at least tacitly condoned at the highest levels when he says that Rummy didn't care HOW the info was obtained. That's pretty much tacit approval in a nutshell.

Just a few specific comments: First Finn says:
Quote:

Furthermore the issue of torture is very subjective. What some seem to consider torture, I do not
But after recognizing the subjectivity of torture he then goes on to use his own responses as the yardstick.
Quote:

It would certainly infuriate me and one could argue that it might be cruel and unusual, but it wouldn’t necessarily constitute torture.


As far as the ability of people to view torture "reasonably" (ie. the way he does) first he says
Quote:

We are fighting an enemy that is very fanatical and driven to fits of inhuman psychopathic and/or suicidal fanaticism that will be inflamed by even the notion that the US defaces a Koran... As long as there are fanatical fruitcakes with aspirations of mass murder...
and then he says
Quote:

And even if fanatics are representative of the Moslem culture, they are still human beings capable of...reason
Well, apparently not?

As far as government accountability, Finn says
Quote:

On the other hand I do find it despicable that the issue of torture in the news seems to be more often a political tool to attack an administration for reasons that have nothing to do with torture.
That implies that the government should be held accountable for torture that it commits or condones. But then he goes on to say that even discussing torture
Quote:

is not only despicable but may be ethically tantamount to negligent homicide.
So the government is not to be held accountable at all? I think Finn is a very confused man, and has mixed up reasoning with rationalization.






Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 27, 2005 3:11 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer makes a strong argument that torture was at least tacitly condoned at the highest levels when he says that Rummy didn't care HOW the info was obtained. That's pretty much tacit approval in a nutshell.



Well...not quite.
Quote:

I'm suggesting that Rummy doesn't care how actionable intel is developed. If it could be obtained via the soft cushions and comfy chair route (No one escapes the Spanish Inquisition!), that'd probably be fine with him. I'm also suggesting that he believes he can make a reasonable case that the Afgan and Iraqi prisoners are not lawful combatants, and therefore outside the conventions for the treatment of prisoners of war.

And although I haven't gotten into it here, I'm not so sure I would consider most of the approved coercive techniques described in the Frontline story as "torture". Much of the physical abuse that has occurred and resulted in charges is beyond what was authorized.



I think the government (Rummy) is presenting the case that their aggressive techniques aren't "torture" under current rules. First, because they are not limited to the Geneva rules on POWs because the people being interrogated are not lawful combatants. Second, because the approved techniques don't reach the torture threshhold of "severe physical or mental suffering".

They might also factor the previous actions of the detainees into the equation. Perhaps they consider that people who regularly torture, kill and mutilate their prisoners might not find sleep deprevation or barking dogs too severe.

And for the nth time, note that charges have been filed against interrogators and MPs who have stepped outside the rules by either physical assault or severe degradation.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 27, 2005 5:39 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Actually Geezer, the statement stands on its own. If Rummy doesn't care "how" actionable intelligence is gathered then he would allow torture. It doesn't matter whether the victims were actually illegal combatants (or not) or whether the tehcniques amounted to torture (or not). It is simply a matter of how far he would be prepared to go. According to you, that would be... all the way. Maybe you would like to w/draw that statement.

As far as the victims being illegal combatants, you're making the totally unwarranted assumption that everyone who was ever detained was in fact an "insurgent" or "illegal combatant" who "regularly torture, kill and mutilate". That's ignoring the readily available evidence that many innocent people were turned in for reward, swept up by accident, or detained for unrelated violations. While the Geneva Convention doesn't say much about "illegal combatants" it DOES say something about civilians. I know that you like to see things in a light most favorable to the administration, but don't you realize how far you've gone down the path of ignoring reality?

Regarding torture: I can't view the pbs program because my vars PCs won't play it. Perhaps you can tell me what it refers to and at what point you consider coercion to be "torture".



Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 27, 2005 6:55 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually Geezer, the statement stands on its own. If Rummy doesn't care "how" actionable intelligence is gathered then he would allow torture. It doesn't matter whether the victims were actually illegal combatants (or not) or whether the tehcniques amounted to torture (or not). It is simply a matter of how far he would be prepared to go. According to you, that would be... all the way. Maybe you would like to w/draw that statement.

As far as the victims being illegal combatants, you're making the totally unwarranted assumption that everyone who was ever detained was in fact an "insurgent" or "illegal combatant". That's ignoring the readily available evidence that many innocent people were turned in for reward, swept up by accident, or detained for unrelated violations. I know that you like to see things in a light most favorable to the administration, but don't you realize how far you've gone down the path of ignoring reality?

Thanks, as always, Signy, for the clarity. What M. Du Geez is into here is nothing less than Orwellian doublethink. What makes it "not torture" is that Rummy & co. deny that it's torture. That's all. If they were to say that it was torture tomorrow, Geezer would be right there with, "Well, of course it is torture." For Geezer et al this is a war of perception, not of actuality.

By Geezer's reasoning, George Bush has never sanctioned even the killing in this war. Bush just wanted them to take Baghdad, never said anything about how! That was up to the soldiers.

See, this is the creepiest part about this new-fangled conservatism; it clings to this tiny, tiny philosophical thread: absolute personal responsability. Every man is responsable for his own actions and his own actions alone. In this philosophy, individual will is absolute. That's where the buck stops, right at your own two hands. In this sense Bush isn't even involved with the war in Iraq 'cause he's never been there; you can't blame him for a single thing. He's just the spokesperson for our brave boys who heroically decided to oust Saddam a couple years back. Y'know, Bush is just helpin' 'em out best he can. He might as well be reading the weather forcasts. That's why he never lied, he's just the messenger; if what he said wasn't true, it was because he was given bad information. All he was responsible for was reading the teleprompter and he always does a bang-up jop of that.

It's this really disturbing microscopically distinct world they live in. When the chips are down, nothing is connected to anything else, period. They create these grand shaping myths about good and evil, a War on Terror, a diabolical enemy bent on destroying us; and then compartmentalize it to the point that no one in the administration has any responsibility for anything(Osama who?). Signy, you talk as if Rummy was over there wielding the broom handle himself!

Geezer, Himmler called, he wants his sophistry back.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 27, 2005 8:37 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

They create these grand shaping myths about good and evil, a War on Terror, a diabolical enemy bent on destroying us; and then compartmentalize it to the point that no one in the administration has any responsibility for anything
I'm always amazed by your grasp the emotional/ ethical/ zeitgeist flow. I'm going to have to cite Rue: "What I know is by the grace of others."

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 27, 2005 1:26 PM

RONAN


I've just spent the last hour or so reading through all the posts under this topic and a lot of very interesting comments have been made.

I haven't seen the programme mentioned and I don't know enough about the Abu Ghraib situation to give intelligent comment but my own opinions...

I think an important question is 'what is the aim of torture'? You'd see old war movies and where torture was involved it was a 'tell us what we want to know' situation. I don't think that is necessarily the case nowadays - power and humiliation are key. Break the person and use any means necessary and more and more the psychological is the way to go.

There was an excellent programme on the BBC a year or so ago about a group of volunteers (normal members of the public) agreed to go through the training of the SAS (I think? Could have been army) for captured situations.

They were subjected to sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, bodily 'discomfort' (being made to kneel for hours on end or having static played loudly into the space they were in.

The men and women involved were then questioned but the questions often made no sense - reminded me of the 'is it safe?' scene with Dustin Hoffman and Sir Laurence Olivier.

Some broke very quickly, some became quite physically ill - hypothermia etc. and then the mental angle broke most of the rest.

It was very scary to me that soldiers would be trained like this to prepare them for the possible occurrence of this type of situation. So, these soldiers go to war and come back safely and their training does not come into play - have they therefore been tortured by their own under the auspices of 'training' of was it valid training without the torture aspect.

I think as a global society we have become much less caring for human suffering - and by that I mean that we see so much of it that I really do think that we are being desensitised and whose fault is that - would the media please stand up.

I have seen scenes of people suffering brought to me by the media that I never want to be submitted to again. I have heard and read stories of torture and suffering that I don't want to see again. And not for the reasons you are probably thinking of - no, I don't want to get to a point where I accept it as part of what the world takes part in. I want to be sure that I feel disgusted and sickened when I hear that and American soldier has tortured and humiliated a pow. If it didn't happen in the first place that would be better but I think that is an unrealistic thought.

People are being tortured all around us every day - physical abuse, sexual abuse, mental abuse. I heard a story in the news in the last week of a girl being attacked and dragged down a lane by a group of animals who then raped her. She lost consciousness after the 2nd man raped her so she doesn't know how many times it happened. When she woke up she was alone and naturally in a bad state. She made her way back to the road and caught the attention of a man who took her back to his house, where guess what, he raped her and threw her back out again.

That was torture on his part and not just an assault. Now if you weren't broken before you're sure as hell going to be broken after that.

I know I'm ranting now and it's late and there is so much more I want to say about this topic but...

I fear greatly for how humanity is falling deeper and deeper into 'reaverdom'. I know some of it was there before we had massive media output but we're broadcasting the evil operations manual to those we don't want seeing it all the time now and I certainly feel that we're creating more torturous monsters than we need to have.

God help us all...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 27, 2005 3:52 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually Geezer, the statement stands on its own.



Actually, it doesn't.

My comment was in response to HKCavalier's statement "The point is that Rummy wants these people tortured." I don't think it's Rummy wanted people tortured at all. Rummy wanted intel. He got opinions from administration lawyers on what coercion was permissible to apply. He also got opinions on the status of the detainees as lawful combatants. He based guidelines on that information.

And here's the infamous "torture guidelines" memo, showing what he approved. Ohh. Finger poking. The bastard!

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02.12.02.pdf

I have a hard time seeing these as causing "Severe physical or mental pain and suffering".

Again and again. People who exceeded these guidelines were proscecuted for abusing prisoners.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 27, 2005 6:43 PM

DREAMTROVE


Ahhh! Politics!

My other fave topic after Joss shows!

I don't have time to watch this program right now, so I'll try to catch it now, but for the moment I want to ignorantly post on this thread.

I assume that there is a "no sparring" rule here, or I would hope so, so we can all be civil, like the Senate used to be and the House probably never was.

So first a disclaimer. I'm a conservative, and I can't stand george w. bush. I really can't stand him.

So for all the Bushies out there who I am bound to offend many times, My apologies in advance. The fact that I utterly despise the man has nothing to do with you and I didn't mean it personal.

For all the liberals out there, I really will try not to get into any arguments, I figure the basic philosophical differences we'll have will be "what's best for America" and our real opponents are not one another, but rather all those cretins who really don't care about what's best for America at all. (here I mean PNAC and the Bushes and the Clintons - and my apologies to any Clinton supporters, read my above Bush disclaimer and substitute Clinton in there)

Okay, disclaimers out of the way, some political comments:

I wanted to post this because the subject is torture, which naturally as a member of the human race, I am opposed to. Also because I know something that a lot of people don't because they werent' webcrawling enough at the time, but some of you will have seen this before.

I will find the sources later if someone wants, but just the general idea of the story goes like this:


Right after Abu Grhaib broke, another less sensational story broke more quietly, and no one seemed to notice. It was about allied forces US, UK, torturing people OUTSIDE of Abu Ghraib.

The purpose of this torture was essentially, obstensively, to determine if someone knew anything. If they did, they'd be taken in to be interrogated.

But worse than that, it was for fun. Good old racist nazi sadistic child murdering fun. There were quotes by these guys that said things like, and I'm going to use the spoilers here because there might be kids reading this, so fair warning.

Select to view spoiler:



"We pick up kids maybe one every couple of hours, we've been doing it for months. usualy 14 or 15, we just like to kick them around. We know they probably didn't do nothing, but we got a kick out it. We'd knock their teeth out, cut their fingers off, shoot their dicks off with a shotgun..."

that sort of thing. That's probably not an exact quote but it's close enough. It goes on...

"After a while, we always get afraid he's going to die on us so we just drive around and chuck him out the back of the truck and pick up another one. We don't know if they live or die."

Then in case that was just a rumor, some iraqis had taken lots of pictures I found on another website that backed up this story.



All of which is leading me to my main point re: this ain't torture.

The idea that what we did is offensive to the muslim religion, and that's why it was so bad - is pure spin. This wasn't the problem. The problem was we were doing real concentration camp nazi torture, and that story was breaking.

So, we intentionally leaked the lynddie england story, so that we could say, oh no, we offended muslims. Iraqis are no more muslim than new yorkers are jewish, they had an incredibly secular society, which means their values were really pretty much what our values are. There's no great gap there. Sure, it would be offensive if a bunch of white cops stacked up black people naked and put them on leashes, of course, there would be riots. But there wouldn't be a civil war. Now if white cops in new york started doing to black children the sort of thing described in thar spoiler box, then we'd have a civil war.


Just thought I'd throw that out there so people who weren't inclined to before can start thinking outside the box on what we might've done that could be described as torture. I think we're talking in the hundred or thousands at least, and possibly the tens of thousands here in terms of victims.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 27, 2005 6:48 PM

DREAMTROVE


BTW, I don't accept that Rummy wanted intel, that's not the supposed combat value of torture. it's not why the nazi's did it. Dehumanizing and hence demoralizing the enemy, in this case, arabs. Or muslims. In theory, if they are treated like animals, they will begin to accept their role as animals, and it gets them away from the negotiating table.

I think Rummy is essentially evil. The above philosophy is pure evil. Like anyone who is evil, Rummy deeply believes that he is good. If you read some of the PNAC dribble from way back, they're all on about the greater good, they are believers. Sure they steal oil, but stealing oil is only a means to an end. Look at JEB and the healthcare fraud, which he supposedly lifted $1B from. He didn't keep it, he used it to fund terrorism in latin america. Because like Rummy and the other members of PNAC, JEB is a believer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 27, 2005 7:01 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
I have agreed with you before that I could live with the "sticks and stones" standard that some sort of physical impact is required to define torture ("Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me."). After all, people have to assume responsibility at some point for choosing to feel pain when pain is not physically administered.

After thinking about it for several days, I have come to change my mind. The "sticks and stones" standard does not take into account the helplessless of being physically imprisoned to begin with.

Out in the real world, if someone infuriates me on purpose, I can physically remove my self from the offensive situation. I can complain to my friends for emotional support, and file grievances with authorities for hope of justice. A prisoner has none of those recourses. He must endure.

A definition of torture that spans all the things that cause a prisoner or detainee discomfort is a useless one, in my opinion. If it is as likely to apply to pulling fingernails out as breaking wind in the presence of a detainee, then it completely fails. Although imprisonment and interrogation are certainly stressful to the detainee, it is not necessarily torture. Sleep deprivation, loud noises, and defacing religious relics are indeed all designed to break down the will of a detainee, but they are not torture. Interrogation and torture both share common goals, but there is a noted difference in the severity and effectiveness. Torture is something different. Lumping torture and interrogation together is misguided, even the website that you cited noted this:

“Torture splinters [an individual’s psychological support system] by sheer force, using both psychological design and the impact of massive unavoidable sustained physical pain.

Torture differs from interrogation in that it is typically more then psychological, and indeed, the defining aspect of torture that distinguishes it from interrogation is usually the application of severe prolonged physical pain.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 27, 2005 7:22 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Dreamtrove,

There was an interrogator in the program who talked about the tactics used on record, which included sodomy and keeping someone refridgerated in hypothermia just this side of death. He then said that doesn't touch on all the stuff that goes on off the record, where there are no cameras, in shipping containers, alleys, and in people's homes.

Evil governments throughout history have always fostered a climate of dehumanization and thuggery, then let loose angry, armed recruits. Now we've become one of them.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 27, 2005 7:54 PM

DREAMTROVE


Can'tTakeTheSky

I really agree.

I think Sen. McCain made an interesting point also on this, which is when you get some yahoo on top, say Rummy, saying it's okay to call it an interrogation technique if you torture someone, then you get a standard after which a pattern of behavior will be modelled where some yahoo at the bottom is

Select to view spoiler:


shoving a shotgun up some 14yos ass to see if his eyes fall out if you blow his brains out from below.

Select to view spoiler:




Unfortunate for the American image and perhaps the war effort, but I feel perhaps fortunately for American in a long term way, many of the Iraqis had cameras.

I think what we have here is an old evil, not a new one. I urge everyone, if they haven't done so, visit newamericancentury.org, and look up the backgrounds of people like wolfowitz, perle, rove, look them up on wikipedia.org, and there will unravel a lot of shocking truths about our unelected leaders.

I also would send a warning to the people on the other side of the aisle, these people aren't just infiltrating the GOP, they've infiltrated the democrats as well.

Ending evil govt. will require that we over here all make sure that a real republican is elected in a primary, and that the dems make sure a real democrat is the winner of the dem primary. I would love for this to return to a dispute over policy issue, instead of a fight against evil, but fight against evil is what we have now.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 27, 2005 8:42 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Interrogation and torture both share common goals, but there is a noted difference in the severity and effectiveness.

Agreed. I'm saying things that are not severe here on the outside can become severe when you're trapped with nowhere to go, when they're repetitive, and when they are used with other tactics that have already weakened your ability to cope.

It's one thing to have your holy book degraded in a police precinct. It is another in a prison. It is still another in prison after being denied sleep. And after being humiliated. After being forced to stand in awkward positions. After being beaten. And so on.

Quote:

What is torture?

The Convention against Torture defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession…." (Art. 1). It may be "inflicted by or at the instigation of or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

The prohibition against torture under international law applies to many measures—e.g. beating on the soles of the feet; electric shock applied to genitals and nipples; rape; near drowning through submersion in water; near suffocation by plastic bags tied around the head; burning; whipping; needles inserted under fingernails; mutilation; hanging by feet or hands for prolonged periods.

International law also prohibits mistreatment that does not meet the definition of torture, either because less severe physical or mental pain is inflicted, or because the necessary purpose of the ill-treatment is not present. It affirms the right of every person not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Examples of such prohibited mistreatment include being forced to stand spread eagled against the wall; being subjected to bright lights or blindfolding; being subjected to continuous loud noise; being deprived of sleep, food or drink; being subjected to forced constant standing or crouching; or violent shaking. In essence, any form of physical treatment used to intimidate, coerce or "break" a person during an interrogation constitutes prohibited ill-treatment. If these practices are intense enough, prolonged in duration, or combined with other measures that result in severe pain or suffering, they can qualify as torture.

The prohibition against torture as well as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is not limited to acts causing physical pain or injury. It includes acts that cause mental suffering—e.g. through threats against family or loved ones. As the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized, "coercion can be mental as well as physical…the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition" Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 448, (1966) citing Blackburn v. State of Alabama, 361 U.S. 199 (1960). As discussed below, the use of mind-altering drugs to compel a person to provide information would at least amount to inhuman or degrading treatment under the Convention against Torture.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/11/TortureQandA.htm#What

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 28, 2005 1:16 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Dreamtrove,

If you're gonna post quotes, please post cites and links so we know where they came from and can at least take a guess as to their validity.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 28, 2005 5:14 AM

DREAMTROVE


Those would be "sites." But I told you I just recalling them from memory, I will need to dig them up, which I didn't feel like doing at 1 am last night.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 28, 2005 5:17 AM

DREAMTROVE


Clearly I need to dig this up again, because we need to move this discussion from "stress positions" to cutting peoples fingers off, which is what I recall was actually going on. Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a wall, but the official story is spin to cover the other story which was already breaking. Anyway, I'm about to leave for the weekend, but I'll look it up when I get back.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 28, 2005 5:56 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Those would be "sites." But I told you I just recalling them from memory, I will need to dig them up, which I didn't feel like doing at 1 am last night.



Please grab a dictionary and look up the word "cite". You may then apologize.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 28, 2005 7:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer, let's put everything back in context:
Quote:

I'm suggesting that Rummy doesn't care how actionable intel is developed.*... I'm also suggesting that he believes he can make a reasonable case that the Afgan and Iraqi prisoners are not lawful combatants, and therefore outside the conventions for the treatment of prisoners of war. And although I haven't gotten into it here, I'm not so sure I would consider most of the approved coercive techniques described in the Frontline story as "torture". Much of the physical abuse that has occurred and resulted in charges is beyond what was authorized.
And I said
Quote:

You may want to w/draw that statement*
Now you are saying
Quote:

"The point is that Rummy wants these people tortured." I don't think it's Rummy wanted people tortured at all.Rummy wanted intel. He got opinions from administration lawyers on what coercion was permissible to apply. He also got opinions on the status of the detainees as lawful combatants. He based guidelines on that information.


So, what you're saying is that Rummy DID care....


And besides, it was all the fault of those underlings...
And besides illegal combatants aren't covered by the Geneva Convention...
And besides, all the detainees deserve torture because they murder and torture too...

Tsk tsk. Geezer, as a parent and a one-time child yourself you should know that ONE explanation is more convincing than four! You should have left it at: "RUMMY CARES". The rest just sound like rationalizations and excuses, which I'm sure they are not. BTW you never DID get into what you consider torture. I'm still curious.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 28, 2005 7:37 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


By the way, I'm going to remind people that the pictures that we saw from Abu Ghraib were the LEAST offensive. The LEAST offensive. What happened in Abu Ghraib wasn't limited to dog collars and naked pyramids. Keep that in mind.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 28, 2005 8:30 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- So, you never DID get into what you consider torture. By the way, I'm going to remind people that the pictures that we saw from Abu Ghraib were the LEAST offensive. The LEAST offensive. What happened in Abu Ghraib wasn't limited to dog collars and naked pyramids. Keep that in mind.

Please don't think they give a shit.



Let's put it this way, the stuff that's described in this memo, I DON'T consider torture. This is the stuff Rummy approved. If you have problems with any specific technique in the memo, I'd be glad to discuss that with you.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02.12.02.pdf

As I've said over and over again, apparently to no purpose, the stuff at Abu Ghraib which caused people to be charged and convicted of prisoner mistreatment was quite obviously over the line and illegal.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 28, 2005 9:20 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

the stuff at Abu Ghraib which caused people to be charged and convicted of prisoner mistreatment was quite obviously over the line and illegal.

So- what you're saying is that what happened at Abu Ghraib WAS torture? And, are you saying it violated the Geneva Convention?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 28, 2005 9:42 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

the stuff at Abu Ghraib which caused people to be charged and convicted of prisoner mistreatment was quite obviously over the line and illegal.

So- what you're saying is that what happened at Abu Ghraib WAS torture? And, are you saying it violated the Geneva Convention?



I'm saying it violated US military guidelines for the treatment of prisoners (note I'm not saying "prisoners of war"). That's what the charges were, as I recall. I don't have enough detail about specific incidents to determine if they were "torture". I'm not even sure which definition of torture should be used in this case. And no, I'm not going to get into a "well, is this particular thing torture in this particular circumstance" roundyround.

Again, I do not consider the techniques in the memo cited above to be torture. Anything beyond those approved techniques is illegal, whether someone calls it "torture" or not. If you have a problem with some of the approved techniques say so.

I will say that trying to read HOWARD's posts all the way through could be considered "severe mental anguish" by some. (Just joking here. Really)

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 28, 2005 11:34 AM

CITIZEN


To Finn, Geezer, and anyone I missed:
I have respect for you guys. I do, honestly, I don't agree with half of what your say, but you make your points and you believe what your saying.

So I have a hard time believing that, despite all the posturing going on here that you guys think that everything going on in all these camps is okay.

Seriously, say that it's justified or whatever. But okay, on a purely moral level?
Would you accept that it's okay to keep people in 'stress positions' or deprive them of sleep if they were Americans who had been accused of breaking a law?

I really honestly think you guys, in your heart of hearts think what's going on is a wrong as the rest of us do.

You want to justify it, for whatever reason, fine. But I still find it hard to believe that you guys think that what’s going on there, all things being equal, is 'ok'.




More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Okay, the talking ferret was a bit wierd...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 28, 2005 11:49 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
To Finn, Geezer, and anyone I missed:
I have respect for you guys. I do, honestly, I don't agree with half of what your say, but you make your points and you believe what your saying.

So I have a hard time believing that, despite all the posturing going on here that you guys think that everything going on in all these camps is okay.



And you apparently have a hard time actually reading my posts. I have said more times than I can count that the convictions for prisoner mistreatment at Abu G. and other places were absolutely correct. I've also noted that the behavior that led to those convictions was outside the scope of the treatment detailed in the DOJ memo I've quoted above at least a couple of times.

Please somebody read that memo, and let's discuss what Rummy actually approved as interrogation techniques. If you think they constitute torture, say so. Then we'll have something to discuss.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 28, 2005 11:54 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

And you apparently have a hard time actually reading my posts.

Geezer, it was a generalised post to all those saying that 'torture' aint happening.
Maybe I shouldn't have included you as your point is not that it's not torture, but that it's not administrative policy.
For which I apologise.
Beyond that, I'm not interested in getting into an aggressive quasi insulting argument with you right now.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Okay, the talking ferret was a bit wierd...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 28, 2005 1:46 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer: The guidelines as set forth in the memo in some cases go beyond the Geneva Convention (specifically, the fear of imminent death or severe pain to the detainee or his family). Since the guidelines are more "generous" in allowable techniques than the GC, a violation of the guidelines is necessarily a violation of the GC and meets the international definition of torture.

I do have issues with the allowable techniques, but the very first issue I have with the memo is its listing as "FACT" that detainees are not covered by the GC because they are (all) "illegal combatants". This rejection of the GC is based on an ASSUMPTION that the detainess are not civilians. (And you know what happens with assumptions: They make an "ass" out of "u" and "me".) The GC specifically addresses the treatment of civilians in occupied territories www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

The GC also addresses the treament of spies and saboteurs in occupied territories, and (except for the privilege of communication with outside parties) accords them all of the rights of "protected persons" as soon as consistent with the Security of the State (in other words, when they are no longer capable of committing acts of espionage or sabotage).

As far as the allowable techniques are concerned: Have you every been really, really cold for hours or days? Have you ever been without sleep for more than 72 hours straight? Have you had someone drip water in your nose every time you breathed in? Ever been brought to the brink of suffocation? Have you ever thought that your (or your family) was about to be tortured? Ever had a gun held to your child's head and someone pull the trigger?

The memo itself does allow that making death threats is mentioned specifically in the torture statute as inflicting mental pain and suffering and goes on to mention that bringing someone to the point of suffocation has in fact caused lasting harm. But, they excuse it all anyway because (1) we never signed a lot of the human rights treaties and (2) they're "all" illegal combatants anyway and (3) since we are only bound by the Eighth Ammendment and we're not "intentionally" doing this just to cause harm it's all OK.

This kind of worming around points of law really doesn't fool anyone. It's very clear that the point of this opinion was to provide legal cover for applying coercive tehcniques not allowed by the GC.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 28, 2005 1:48 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
You want to justify it, for whatever reason, fine. But I still find it hard to believe that you guys think that what’s going on there, all things being equal, is 'ok'.

What thread are you reading, because it certainly isn’t this one. There is nothing that I think is “ok” about any of this. I don’t think its “ok” that Saddam Hussein was allowed to misuse sanctions against his country for 10 years killing 1.5 million innocent Iraqis because the rest of the world couldn’t get off their righteous asses to do anything about it. Then again the only thing that could be done about it was war. Was the loss of 1.5 million Iraqi civilians “ok” to prevent war? If an innocent person gets his head sawed off, because information that might have been gained by leaning on a terrorist detainee is lost due to a lack of sufficient coercive techniques, is that “ok?” What exactly qualifies as “ok?” It doesn’t look to me like either option is necessarily “ok,” but the world isn’t going to give use the option not to choose one or the other, because we don’t like the choices.

If you want to live in that kind of Peter Pan world, you’ll have to find a magical wardrobe.


-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 28, 2005 2:10 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

If an innocent person gets his head sawed off, because information that might have been gained by leaning on a terrorist detainee is lost due to a lack of sufficient coercive techniques, is that “ok?”
You and Geezer always seem to link those words as if they were inseparable. So let me ask you- Are there evey any innocent detainees? If there are, is it OK to torture them? Furthermore, what good does that do?

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 28, 2005 2:36 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer: The guidelines as set forth in the memo in some cases go beyond the Geneva Convention (specifically, the fear of imminent death or severe pain to the detainee or his family). Since the guidelines are more "generous" in allowable techniques than the GC, a violation of the guidelines is necessarily a violation of the GC and meets the international definition of torture.



The guidelines in the DOD memo might exceed the GC on treatment of prisoners of war. We again enter the debate over whether prisoners in GITMO or Abu G. are prisoners of war. Exceeding the GC on treatment of prisoners of war does not, per se, make that treatment torture. Show me one place in the GC on Treatment of Prisoners of War where it specifically defines "torture". It says stuff is not permissable, but I don't recall it being called torture.

Quote:

I do have issues with the allowable techniques, but the very first issue I have with the memo is its listing as "FACT" that detainees are not covered by the GC because they are (all) "illegal combatants". This rejection of the GC is based on an ASSUMPTION that the detainess are not civilians. (And you know what happens with assumptions: They make an "ass" out of "u" and "me".) The GC specifically addresses the treatment of civilians in occupied territories www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm


Should I go through the preceding posts and quote all the instances where you "assume" I mean something I have never said? I have a long day tomorrow, so I think not. Instead, let's first let you prove that any "civilians" (proving they were actually civilians, while you're at it.) were subjected to interrogation more severe than either GC guidelines or the DOD memo (without the interrogators being charged with a crime).

Quote:

The GC also addresses the treatment of spies and saboteurs in occupied territories, and (except for the privilege of communication with outside parties) accords them all of the rights of "protected persons" as soon as consistent with the Security of the State (in other words, when they are no longer capable of committing acts of espionage or sabotage).


This again "assumes" (and we know about that, don't we?) that the spies and sabotuers were acting as agents of lawful combatants in an occupied territory, and not as non-lawful terrorists. You know what they say about assumptions.

Quote:

As far as the allowable techniques are concerned: Have you every been really, really cold for hours or days? Have you ever been without sleep for more than 72 hours straight?


Yep. in Viet Nam. Believe me, up around Hue during the monsoon, it can get really cold. It's part of a soldier's (or terrorist's) job.

Quote:

Have you had someone drip water in your nose every time you breathed in? Ever been brought to the brink of suffocation? Have you ever thought that your (or your family) was about to be tortured? Ever had a gun held to your child's head and someone pull the trigger?


Nope. Any evidence that the "water drip" was used in GITMO? Brink of suffocation is not listed as approved (without more "assumptions" on your part)I doubt that anyone at GITMO had a gun held to their child's head either.

Quote:

The memo itself does allow that making death threats is mentioned specifically in the torture statute as inflicting mental pain and suffering and goes on to mention that bringing someone to the point of suffocation has in fact caused lasting harm.


Again, please show me in the memo where bringing someone to the point of suffocation is an approved technique.

Quote:

But, they excuse it all anyway because (1) we never signed a lot of the human rights treaties and (2) they're "all" illegal combatants anyway and (3) since we are only bound by the Eighth Ammendment and we're not "intentionally" doing this just to cause harm it's all OK.


Remove the drama you inserted and that's basically what they said.

Quote:

This kind of worming around points of law really doesn't fool anyone.


Again, with the drama removed, this is precisely what points of law are for. That's why there are courts...to decide points of law. I know you'd rather just have a nice lynching of anyone who doesn't agree with you, but that's fortunately not the way the world works around here. If you have a complaint, file charges. Call the ACLU or the World Court and see if they think you have a case. Play the system. Don't play word games with me. It's just mental masturbation. Take an action that means something. Throw a bomb. Hack a web site. Register a voter. Do something you consider useful. Sheesh.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 28, 2005 2:54 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
You and Geezer always seem to link those words as if they were inseparable. So let me ask you- Are there evey any innocent detainees? If there are, is it OK to torture them? Furthermore, what good does that do?

Generally I don’t think torture does any good. But if we are talking about interrogation, then I don’t really think that loosing a head so that a detainee can get a full night sleep is a fair trade.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 28, 2005 3:35 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer- The GC does not define "torture" but it prohibits it
Quote:

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
For the definition of torture, I refer to the UN Convention, of which the USA was a party
Quote:

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person
You said
Quote:

Instead, let's first let you prove that any "civilians" (proving they were actually civilians, while you're at it.) were subjected to interrogation more severe than either GC guidelines or the DOD memo (without the interrogators being charged with a crime).
First of all, the CG and international law recognize the general intent of "innocent until proven guilty". It is not up to me to prove that the detainees are civilians, it's up to the Armed Forces to prove that the detainees are unlawful combatants. In addition, it's not up to me to prove that civilians were subject to Class III interrogations because the memo ITSELF never distinguishes between civilians and unlawful combatants (UC). It assumes as FACT that all detainees are UC and allows Class III interrogations of everyone.
You said
Quote:

If you have problems with any specific technique in the memo, I'd be glad to discuss that with you.
Well, I took you at your word and started discussing the techniques allowed in the memo, and now you're saying
Quote:

Nope. Any evidence that the "water drip" was used in GITMO? Brink of suffocation is not listed as approved (without more "assumptions" on your part)I doubt that anyone at GITMO had a gun held to their child's head either.
You changed the topic, from what was allowed by memo to what was done at Gitmo. BTW the various techniques allowed by the memo INCLUDED "water drip" to "simulate" suffocation, and INCLUDED threatening the detainee or his family with death and pain, but was not limited to those specific techniques. You said
Quote:

Show me one place in the GC on Treatment of Prisoners of War where it specifically defines "torture".
and THEN you said
Quote:

Don't play word games with me.
Tsk tsk. Now here I was, just discussing the points that you invited me to and here YOU are playing all kinds of legalistic word games. So much for a rational discusison! Have a nice busy day tomorrow!







Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 28, 2005 3:46 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

But if we are talking about interrogation, then I don’t really think that loosing a head so that a detainee can get a full night sleep is a fair trade.
Now here are another two images stuck together like glue: the terrorist sleeping soundly in his comfy bed and the bloody result! I know you've been through this dicussion before, but this is not what happens. In fact, I don't know of a single terrorist act thwarted by aggressive detentions and coercive interrogation. (Oh yeah-Bush lied about that too.) What seems to happen is you get a bunch of low-level rebels, some average street thugs, neighbors who were turned in for the reward, a few innocent farmers etc etc who get kncoked around for no particular reason because these people really don't know anything.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 28, 2005 3:54 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


SignyM:

If it's illegal, file a charge. Get someone to file a charge. Anyone. Bring a case in court, any court. If you can't get an indictment, it's just supposition. convine a Grand Jury. Get a charge before the International Court at the Hague. Prove it in court. Please. If you can't meet the burden of proof it's an unsubstantiated allegation. If you prove it and a court of last resort agrees then whoopee, I approve. Otherwise it's just opinion.

You can say not providing turn-down service every night is torture and I can say it's not. I can say that the detainees are not legal combatants and you can disagree. The way the world works is that until some authoritative body gets a charge and rules, everyone is innocent. Rummy as well as Osama.

I doubt that you care about due process. You would rather string up those you disagree with. I'd rather let process take it's course. If there's enough evidence for a court to convict Rummy, or Bush, of condoning torture, fine with me. I don't see the evidence right now.

Innocent until proven guilty...or doesn't that fit in your world view?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 28, 2005 4:11 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
In fact, I don't know of a single terrorist act thwarted by aggressive detentions and coercive interrogation. (Oh yeah-Bush lied about that too.) What seems to happen is you get a bunch of low-level rebels, some average street thugs, neighbors who were turned in for the reward, a few innocent farmers etc etc who get kncoked around for no particular reason because these people really don't know anything.

I imagine there's a great deal you don't know. Though if it satisfies your anti-Bush cravings you'll convince yourself of just about anything.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Japanese Culture, S.Korea movies are now outselling American entertainment products
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:46 - 44 posts
Elon Musk
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:33 - 28 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:24 - 594 posts
A.I Artificial Intelligence AI
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:16 - 237 posts
How do you like my garbage truck?
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:49 - 2 posts
Trump on Joe Rogan: Full Podcast
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:05 - 7 posts
Israeli War
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:04 - 62 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:58 - 4657 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:45 - 4425 posts
Spooky Music Weird Horror Songs...Tis ...the Season...... to be---CREEPY !
Thu, October 31, 2024 16:19 - 56 posts
Sentencing Thread
Thu, October 31, 2024 15:11 - 381 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, October 31, 2024 14:25 - 921 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL