So, Just What *Is* Torture?
POSTED BY: perfessergee
UPDATED: Monday, August 29, 2005 10:55
VIEWED: 11212
PAGE 6 of 10
The policy that created these abuses is what is key. The JAG were right. The administration's efforts to circumvent the Geneva conventions and our traditional sense of decency in the name emergency ethics was seen by many as a license to commit evil. The administration was warned this would happened and they ignored the warning. Jailing a few perps that we happen to catch only says "don't get caught". This needs to be addressed by reversing the policy changes that fostered it.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Torture exists in a very well defined context. It's not just any pain, any misery, but pain and misery inflicted for the reasons underlined above.
Wrongo. It is specifically designated as "...severe pain or suffering, physical or mental...". Severity is key, and how this severity is determined is also key.
Is making someone sit in a straight chair for several hours "severe" physical suffering? How about standing for hours? Sleeping on a bare concrete floor? Squatting in a confined space? Hosing with cold water? A "wedgie"? A slap? A twisted arm with no damage? Loud noise? Etc. etc. etc. Where is the line drawn?
And how about mental suffering? Is being cursed at "severe" mental suffering? Insults? Sexual innuendo? Religious blasphamy? defiling bibles, torahs, korans? Threat of death?
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Yes, and how many terrorists can dance on the head of a pin? Your hypothetical is absurd. No such circumstance has ever existed, nor is it ever likely to exist. You just get your jollies imagining this kind of crap.
Not really. Most of the misbehavior for which American forces have been charged and convicted was not just for the jollies of beating someone up. It was in relation to interrogations, either during, or prior to soften up the subject. I'd suspect that these interrogations were to find the location of insurgent forces or materials, with the clear purpose of taking them out, theeby saving American and Iraqi lives.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Most of the misbehavior for which American forces have been charged and convicted was not just for the jollies of beating someone up. It was in relation to interrogations, either during, or prior to soften up the subject. I'd suspect that these interrogations were to find the location of insurgent forces or materials, with the clear purpose of taking them out, theeby saving American and Iraqi lives.
Geezer, you usually seem pretty reasonable, even when I disagree with your positions. But this just seems like rationalizing on the thinnest of justifications. The pictures clearly showed these soldiers taking perverse joy in the humiliation of people under their control. If this is the way our country thinks we should behave, I'll renounce my citizenship right now. But I don't think it is, despite your attempts to explain it away.
The rules of conduct we abandoned were there to prevent just such twisted crap. We follow those rules, not to protect prisoners, but to protect ourselves from sliding into the kind of depravity caught on film at Abu Ghraib.
I'll keep saying it. Bush changed these rules and is responsible for the results. This needs to be corrected clearly and quickly.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Is making someone sit in a straight chair for several hours "severe" physical suffering? How about standing for hours? Sleeping on a bare concrete floor? Squatting in a confined space? Hosing with cold water? A "wedgie"? A slap? A twisted arm with no damage? Loud noise? Etc. etc. etc. Where is the line drawn?
And how about mental suffering? Is being cursed at "severe" mental suffering? Insults? Sexual innuendo? Religious blasphamy? defiling bibles, torahs, korans? Threat of death?
I am completly unsure of you point here.
All those things can be torture given the right context. Loud noise can be torture, thats what they're using right now in Guantanamo...
Ever heard of chinese water torture? Although fictional it gives a good example of how torture can be anything if employed in such a way...
A single drip on to the top of the head, spread over hours, months, or years drives people insane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_water_torture
I can, in fact give you an argument for each one of your points as too how and why it could be employed as torture.
So what is your point here?
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
One of the greatest tools used by the Right Wing that I have seen on this board is the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc; if something happens after something else, then there must be a causal relationship, e.g.: The Berlin Wall came down after Ronald Reagan became president, ergo Reagan brought the wall down.
Or like...Bush said there were WMD in Iraq but there were none, ergo Bush lied. Or does post hoc ergo propter hoc only work to invalidate Right Wing proposals?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Geezer, you usually seem pretty reasonable, even when I disagree with your positions. But this just seems like rationalizing on the thinnest of justifications. The pictures clearly showed these soldiers taking perverse joy in the humiliation of people under their control. If this is the way our country thinks we should behave, I'll renounce my citizenship right now. But I don't think it is, despite your attempts to explain it away.
I'm not trying to rationalize or justify the Abu Ghraib actions. I consider that the punishment was justified. I am noting that the misbehavior there started after a request from interrogators to guards to "soften up" prisoners for questioning. This obviously got out of hand.
I do not think this is the way we should behave, and apparently the military and government organizations who have put the miscreants in jail didn't either. I don't believe it's possible to completely eliminate this type of behavior, since you're dealing with imperfect people. However, the response of those charged with identifying and punishing this type of behavior tells a lot about the society they come from.
My problem with this whole "torture" issue the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (thanks HKC) that reads: Some American troops have committed acts of "torture", ergo the American military and government approve of torture. It's
a leap from A to Z with no train of logic in the middle, just self-serving supposition.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I am completly unsure of you point here.
All those things can be torture given the right context. Loud noise can be torture, thats what they're using right now in Guantanamo...
...So what is your point here?
My point is that the UN defines torture as "severe" physical or mental pain or suffering. How do you define "severe"? Where does legitimate coercion stop and torture begin? Is it the same for all people?
If you piss on a Bible in front of me, and piss on a Quran in front of a Muslim, is one mental torture and one not? If I play Metallica at 105db at a metalhead and a captured Iraqi insurgent, are both being tortured?
Give me a firm, unequivocal, definition of "severe" mental or physical pain or suffering. What is too much? A slap? A punch? A pinch? Unless you can unambiguously define your terms, how can you argue.
We have the sorts of things which American troops have been convicted for as a baseline. Start there.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Was it more than one incident? Was it more than two? Three? Four?
Originally posted by Geezer:
Some American troops have committed acts of "torture"
Was in more than one location?
It would seem 'some' is a rather conservative word to use...
A lot is more like it Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yep, its simple. Its when you do inhuman things to people that you wouldn't do to your own family, and rationalise it as necessary but ok because you are the good guy. And then the other side does the same to you.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
My problem with this whole "torture" issue the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (thanks HKC) that reads: Some American troops have committed acts of "torture", ergo the American military and government approve of torture. It's
a leap from A to Z with no train of logic in the middle, just self-serving supposition.
So, are you completely discounting the changed directives concerning torture? This IS a matter of policy. It seems a no-brainer to revert to the standards of decency that existed be for the Bush administration changed them. I can only assume you've ignored my repeated comments to this effect. Is this just another example of Bush's inability to admit a mistake and correct it?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME