So, Just What *Is* Torture?
POSTED BY: perfessergee
UPDATED: Monday, August 29, 2005 10:55
VIEWED: 11212
PAGE 7 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
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?
Okay. You're making some assumptions here.
1. As I recall, the directives were for changes in interrogation procedures. Strange as to how this suddenly jumps to approval of torture. Must be that post hoc ergo propter hoc thing again. If the goverment approves of torture, why are we putting people in jail for various illegal acts? Huh?
2. Why do I get the feeling that post hoc ergo propter hoc must be Latin for "If Bush did it, it must be wrong".
3. Is the change in interrogation bounds a mistake? Do you have any evidence that the legal application of the new rules (not the excesses of some) have degraded our intelligence capabilities or interrogation results?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall: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
I've got no idea. Neither do you. A lot depends on your definition of torture. I'm not sure that stepping on someone's Quran qualifies to me, where as beatings and severe sexual humiliation might.
In any case, I doubt that it's as widespread as you think. I haven't seen any actual studies done. You can quote individual cases, but without any overall info they are just anecdotal events. I'd expect that if mistreatment of prisoners was a common occurrance, given the openness of our society, that returning soldiers would be blowing the whistle on more than the relatively few instances reported.
And once again - Please note that the folks who cross the line into torture or other illegal behavior are being prosecuted.
Oh. By the bye. Way to take one line from a post out of context and ignore the rest.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm not even so sure it was that widespread, it's just that you have people supervising people who are supervising people and so on. If a guy leaves a toilet seat up where I work, a notice is posted about sexual harrasment; I find it hard to believe torture and even mild abuse can occur in a military chain-of-command environment! And not just once, but what seems like MANY (more than 5 at least) times.
Originally posted by Geezer:
In any case, I doubt that it's as widespread as you think.
Either I'm expecting too much from the military, or certain highly placed personnel gave the okay for extremes to be put into play.
I don't know which.
Uh-oh, I can already hear the 'C' word Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
up where I work, a notice is posted about sexual harrasment; I find it hard to believe torture and even mild abuse can occur in a military chain-of-command environment!
But I bet toilet seats are still sometimes left up at your work. Right? So are you all guilty of sexual harrassment?
Our military currently works by allowing individuals some operational initiative. This is generally a good thing, since most people have a sense of how their job is done and how to do it properly, or even improve their performance. This has worked to our benefit, since small units and even individuals can operate in an independent manner quite efficently.
We could adopt the soviet style, where no one did anything without direct orders, and out casualty rate in Iraq would probably be much higher.
Giving people the ability to act on their own, or at a small unit level, risks the occurrance of some (No! I don't know exactly how many!) violations of the rules. You can't monitor everyone 24/7 in a wartime situation. You still haven't addressed the fact that our military has a way to react to, and punish for, these violations, and that this has been done.
Face it. You want everything that the United States has done since Bush was elected to be wrong and evil, and you won't hear anything else. I don't particularly like Bush either, but I believe in the institutions of the United States. I do not believe that senior military men who have spent their entire lives serving their country would countenance torture of POWs just for revenge as policy. I doubt that career civil servants (having been one myself) would go along with domestic policies that would enslave the population. I don't think everything is coming up roses, but it ain't the end of the world as we know it.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
[BOkay. You're making some assumptions here.
1. As I recall, the directives were for changes in interrogation procedures. Strange as to how this suddenly jumps to approval of torture. Must be that post hoc ergo propter hoc thing again. If the goverment approves of torture, why are we putting people in jail for various illegal acts? Huh?
This article might shed some light on the issue for you:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/11456
A highlight:
Quote:
The memorandums provide the most complete record to date of how uniformed military lawyers were frequently the chief dissenters as government officials formulated interrogation policies. "These military lawyers were clearly disturbed by the proposed techniques that were deviations from past practices that were being advocated by the Justice Department," said Senator Graham, himself a former military lawyer.
There are other articles with similar information from reliable sources. Your accusations of 'Bush hating' or whatever, fail to address the clear correlation between the aggressive techniques authorized and the increased reports of abuse.
You seem to think that punishing the wrongdoers somehow erases the fact that the changes in policy, the policy level disregard for Geneva conventions, created at an atmosphere were abuses were much more likely.
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 SergeantX:
You seem to think that punishing the wrongdoers somehow erases the fact that the changes in policy, the policy level disregard for Geneva conventions, created at an atmosphere were abuses were much more likely.
Lets say I have seen no evidence that changes in policy have produced any more abuses than in previous conflicts. I also have my doubts about "Beyond the Beltway" being an unbiased source. If I did a little googling, I could probably come up with all sorts of apologists for anything done wrong in the last six years, and you'd probably believe them no more than I do.
Are we more evil now than in Vietnam? Korea? WWII? Check histories of "the last good war" describing the shooting of wounded enemy soldiers, misreatment of prisoners, etc. I'd bet that on a statistical basis, less illegal activity has occurred during the Iraq war than any previous. It's still too much, but not the endemic treatment you seem to believe in.
Just because I don't follow the "Bush is always wrong" dogma doesn't mean I believe Bush is always right. I just get tired of the constant bashing.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry, it's just that the corporate model has been adopted by so many, including the military, and it flat out doesn't 
ing work. Micro-managing or Lasaie-faire based on 'scores', neither replaces apprenticing a master or learning your craft from the ground up. Everyone who comitted crimes of abuse had to pass a standardized computer test to be deemed psychologically fit. Oh my, and they did it anyway.
Humanity needs to be inserted into life and death situations; leave computer componants to the satilites. Abuses occured as a result of reports, typed up on a keyboard, not observed reality, IMHO. Put people back in the loop where it counts.
On the other hand, digital photography, the internet, and strange senses of humour have made targeting most abusers of prisoners more simple.
The sword cuts both ways, I guess.
We should have a death penalty for convicted torturers (that is, the ones who leave a prisoner dead or unable to walk kind-of-torture), whatever side. Mad dogs need a rest.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I also have my doubts about "Beyond the Beltway" being an unbiased source. If I did a little googling, I could probably come up with all sorts of apologists for anything done wrong in the last six years, and you'd probably believe them no more than I do.
Hehe.... You can't fall back on that one in this case. The source of the article is very pro military, and pro-war from what I can tell. That's what I'm trying to get through to you. This is something that needs to be done for the sake of the military, not as an attack against it. These people realize that.
Quote:
Just because I don't follow the "Bush is always wrong" dogma doesn't mean I believe Bush is always right. I just get tired of the constant bashing.
I'm not interested in bashing Bush. Not in this case anyway. I'm interested in seeing some serious policy mistakes corrected. It's looking like you've made up your mind and are unwilling to consider that things might need to be changed for the better, so perhaps we should just agree to disagree. I honestly hope you're right. But, the way I see it, we're headed in the wrong direction and it's going to take a lot more than hope to get us back on track.
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:
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?
Legitimate coercion is asking questions, if the subject does not want to give more information than name rank etc, and the interrogator uses any means to force an anwser that is a breach of the Geneva convention (unless you employ clever laywers of course).
To answer your point that theres no evidence that the Bush administration hasn't sanctioned torture I remember it being widly reported in the British media (at least) that the Bush administration classified the 'terroists' at Guantanomo Bay as 'illegal combatants', not POW's therefore not protected by the Geneva convention.
Why would they do that if they weren't planning on doing things to these prisoners forbidden by the convention?
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 citizen:
Legitimate coercion is asking questions, if the subject does not want to give more information than name rank etc, and the interrogator uses any means to force an anwser that is a breach of the Geneva convention (unless you employ clever laywers of course).
But we're drifting away from the subject here, which is torture. Or are you saying that anything more than politely asking questions is torture?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME