The Torture Question
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Sunday, October 30, 2005 21:30
VIEWED: 10585
PAGE 1 of 2
For those who have not seen PBS Frontline's "The Torture Question," the show is now available to watch online.
It is a must-see.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/
Can't Take My Gorram Sky 
The government is a body of men, usually notably ungoverned.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks for the link. I meant to watch this, but, now I can.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It was so dispiriting to see this now. All this information has been available for years and Rummy is still running his "war on terror." It was all there--Rummy's pissing contest with the CIA and the FBI, the think tank lawyers, the 90% of prisoners taken "at random," the broom handle, etc.
One piece of info that was new to me was the utterly appalling fact that Abu Ghraib is located in a combat zone! That fact alone creates unbelievably hostile and dangerous conditions for the detainees. The 19 and 20 year old guards are watching their friends and fellow soldiers killed and maimed by enemy fire during the day and then they're given absolute power over these "enemy combatants" behind closed doors at night. The decision to hold these people under such conditions is a recipe for horrendous abuse from the get go. Am I to believe that the top brass didn't consider that fact? Creating a situation where spontaneous sadism is a given is the perfect cover if you want plausible deniability, idnit?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yep. This situation was deliberate on so many levels.
What disturbs me, though, more than issues revealed in this documentary, are some of the letters Frontline has received. For example:
Quote:
Dear FRONTLINE,
This show, this despicable show, you treasonous cowards, I am appalled how you put our soldiers at risk and enlighten the enemy!
I am so sickened by watching this show, this disgrace, this true treasonous act! You should be ashamed for selectively picking cowards who would rather see this great country be degraded for the sake of ratings, liberal base, than the protectors of this great country, how dare you, you should be ashamed.
Thank god for tough action, strong will and a dogged determination to see through your devise, destructive, and dangerous airing of this terrible betrayal of the men and woman who are protecting everything you have and everything you ever will have, I'm sick!
Wayne Woran
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/talk/index7.html
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.
Then there were all those people who say, "That's not torture!" I'm not sure if they just didn't watch the program or if they simply blocked out the part where "Detainee 07" was sodomized or where someone was kept in continuous hypothermia at the verge of death.
This blind "patriotism" baffles, and scares, me. What have we become, and where are we headed, as a country?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Firstly, thanks for the link CantTakeSky, I plan on watching those episodes as I get the time.
Quote:
Originally posted by CantTakeSky:
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.
It says America is full of people...
I'll clarify later...
Quote:
Then there were all those people who say, "That's not torture!" I'm not sure if they just didn't watch the program or if they simply blocked out the part where "Detainee 07" was sodomized or where someone was kept in continuous hypothermia at the verge of death.
Cognitive Dissonance?
Quote:
This blind "patriotism" baffles, and scares, me. What have we become, and where are we headed, as a country?
It's always the same. It's a big reason I worry about you guys, with GWB and the patriot act and so on.
You start passing patriot acts and your on a slippery slope, because anyone who dissagrees with it is NOT a patriot and IS a traitor.
Blind patriotism is always a problem, and the blind patriots are ussually blissfully ignorant of the fact that such attitudes are exactly what allowed Hitler and the Nazis to take control of Germany (afterall, it could never happen here, could it?).
The whole 'climate of fear' both here in Britian and in America is incredibly disturbing for me. People will give up all kinds of freedoms and will do and allow all kinds of terrible things to happen in order to feel safe.
For the Nazis it was Jews, today could it be Muslims, and the ever present threat of a 'pandemic' flu? I mean last year it was SARS, this year it's bird flu, what's brewing for next year, lizard flu? Terminal flatulants?
It is articles such as this that give me cause to worry about 'the leader of the free world':
Quote:
Bush may turn out to be a transition figure, our version of Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck used "values" to energize his base at the end of the 19th century and launched "Kulturkampt," the word from which we get "culture wars," against Catholics and Jews. Bismarck 's attacks split the country, made the discrediting of whole segments of the society an acceptable part of the civil discourse and paved the way for the more virulent racism of the Nazis. This, I suspect, will be George Bush's contribution to our democracy.
...
The Institutes of Biblical Law called for a Christian society that was harsh, unforgiving and violent. Offenses such as adultery, witchcraft, blasphemy and homosexuality, merited the death penalty. The world was to be subdued and ruled by a Christian United States. Rushdooney [Rousas Rushdooney, Founder, The Reconstructionist movement] dismissed the number of 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust as an inflated figure and his theories on race echoed Nazi Eugenics.
"The white man has behind him centuries of Christian culture and the discipline and selective breeding this faith requires...," he wrote. "The Negro is a product of a radically different past, and his heredity has been governed by radically different considerations."
"The background of Negro culture is African and magic, and the purposes of the magic are control and power over God, man, nature, and society. Voodoo, or magic, was the religion and life of American Negroes. Voodoo songs underlie jazz, and old voodoo, with its power goal, has been merely replaced with revolutionary voodoo, a modernized power drive." (see The Religious Right , a publication of the ADL, pg. 124.)
http://www.theocracywatch.org/chris_hedges_nov24_04.htm
EDIT:
It interests me that many say 'Muslim states' are violent and 'backward' because of their justice system.
Just take a look at the justice that Rousas Rushdooney wants for the global 'United Christian Empire'.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not according to the present administration.
Originally posted by citizen:
Blind patriotism is always a problem
Heil Bush! Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Second only to the Golden Rule, politically speaking.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
plausible deniability
Chrisisall, CT to the end
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Chrisisall:
Heil Bush! Chrisisall
I think it's a little harsh to compare Bush with Hitler, I mean, do you think Bush could inspire the masses through a speech...
Hitler could warp an entire nation largely through words...
Bush would be a stand-up-comic, assuming he'd actually meant to be that funny...
Afterall, there's no word in the English language for 'Dictator'...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, but there is a phrase- Old Money.
Originally posted by citizen:
Afterall, there's no word in the English language for 'Dictator'...
"Right from downtown Washington, welcome the comedy stylings of Georgie Bush!"
*applause*
"Thanks for that welcome, you know I could have you all seized into custody using the Patriot Act, and you'd never be heard from again..."
*laughter, applause*
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I’ve not seen the show so I can’t commit on it, but I can certainly understand and even agree with the necessity of keeping certain things secret. “Torture” is one of those things that should be dealt with very carefully, especially during wartime. I don’t agree with the use of torture, and I certainly think that if our military or defense agencies are wantonly practicing such things then that is legitimate news. 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. Since this is likely to inflame threats against our military men, citizens and US supporters abroad as well as raise the overall threat against the US, it is not only despicable but may be ethically tantamount to negligent homicide.
Furthermore the issue of torture is very subjective. What some seem to consider torture, I do not. For instance, I don’t consider sleep deprivation and aggressive, loud and/or threatening speech torture. I don’t consider defacing or destruction of religious items, to include the Koran, in front of prisoners, torture. Nor do I think that such things are newsworthy. However, the unnecessary discussion, even innocently, on the news can inflame threats against our people. 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. Innocent people, including Americans, may die as a result of simply discussing so called torture in the news.
The issue of torture is one that must be dealt with very responsibly. And while many in the news frequently attack the administration politically or demand the administration take responsibly for a particular interpretation or dubious and/or spurious claims of torture, the news itself does not seem willing to take responsibility for its own part, which could possibly have far worse ramifications if inappropriate or unworthy news is used as propaganda to further or even escalate war against the US.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
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.
It says we're a nation of individuals with differing opinions. The folks who produced "the Torture Question" expressed their opinion and Mr. Moran expressed his. Or would you rather that only "acceptable" opinions be expressed?
Although I have problems with the changed guidelines for treatment of Afgan and Iraqi prisoners, I can see how the search for intelligence to prevent acts of international terrorism or Iraqi insurgent attacks could have been a strong motivation for people with responsibility for stopping these acts to step over the line.
I'd think that if we were truly evil, as a nation, we'd have had better provision for coercive interrogation in place from the get-go. The slap-dash manner in which it developed, and the relatively low-grade techniques used really do seem like a scramble for some useful info, rather than a pre-orchestrated and systematic torture machine.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok Finn, help me out here- and I swear I'm not being trollish or snarky, I'm asking legitimately- but I really don't understand your position vis a vis torture. You say this:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t consider defacing or destruction of religious items, to include the Koran, in front of prisoners, torture.
Then you turn around and say this:
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.
Most Muslim fanatics (as well as many non-fanatics) would rather be killed or beaten than be religiously or sexually humiliated. We of the western world would probably rather escape with our lives than worry about a book (I know I would) or being photographed naked. But is a definition of what constitutes torture only applicable to the people giving, or is it somewhat based on the people receiving it? I would propose that defacement of a Koran in front of a Moslem cleric is tantamount to torture on a level that we as westerners are unfamiliar with. If another culture considers an act to be torturous, shouldn't we as a civilized nation respect that? My personal position on torture is no way no how, because I see us as being better than that (as well as its actual effectiveness has always been in question). But people who actually debate things like, 'where is the line' always confuse me on points like this. Sure it isn't torture to you, but a maybe a better question to ask is, 'is it torture in regards to their culture.'
Interested in anyone's thoughts on this.
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Finn, you act as if the Arab world has no news agencies. They were all over the scandal at Abu Ghraib, long before us. All the info we're getting from the Frontline program is years old. "The enemy" sure doesn't need to get their info from PBS.
Our news agencies covering these stories isn't inflaming anyone outside this country. Our news agencies covering these stories actually presents a level of sanity and accountability that the rest of the world finds hopeful. As Bush has so often pointed out, one of the things that makes the U.S. a much better place than Iraq under Saddam is the fact that when members of our military commit atrocious acts, there are consequences. Stories in our country's free press are part of those consequences. The commitment of Americans to take the inquiry to the highest level of government is another thing that makes this country great.
And Finn, you really oughta watch the program before you comment, unless you just want to muddy the waters with issues that may or may not be germane.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
we'd have had better provision for coercive interrogation in place from the get-go. The slap-dash manner in which it developed, and the relatively low-grade techniques used really do seem like a scramble for some useful info, rather than a pre-orchestrated and systematic torture machine.
I'm in agreement with you on this, Geezer. I don't think there is a torture 'machine' in place, I think that as a result of certain policy statements and general post-9/11 fear, coupled with a wartime threat, we're engaging in practices we shouldn't be. Some wrong signals were sent from the top down (re: Geneva Convention) into a high-pressure situation that simply boiled over.
What bothers me the most is the failure of upper level accountability. I find it very difficult to believe that the grunts in the field should be taking the most punishment for what went on. Their commanding officers (and probably their commanding officers as well) should be being court-martialled as well. Though I cannot remember the Latin, I believe the phrase is "who watches the watchmen?"
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I agree.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t consider sleep deprivation and aggressive, loud and/or threatening speech torture. I don’t consider defacing or destruction of religious items, to include the Koran, in front of prisoners, torture. Nor do I think that such things are newsworthy.
Quote:Free speech isn't free. Maybe it would be better to take our people out of harm's way than hope human(ie fallable, weak and/or viciously opportunistic) media has a conscience, and the ability to follow it.
However, the unnecessary discussion, even innocently, on the news can inflame threats against our people. 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. Innocent people, including Americans, may die as a result of simply discussing so called torture in the news.
Quote:Um...you mean.....
if inappropriate or unworthy news is used as propaganda to further or even escalate war against the US.
What do you mean?
Did someone start a war with us? (I haven't seen the news yet today...)
Sorry, okay- the 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre' thing; I get it. But they're cuttin' off heads over there. We should not have gone there the way we did, we should not be there now, it should not matter what our media says about anything, true OR inflamatory.
And if the American people don't know the bad things that go on (as they obviously don't), it WILL continue full force. Change of some kind is necessary, and it's always painful.
What am I talking about- why should we have zero tollerance for torture, when we have 50% tollerence for unfit leaders like Bush?
Yes, unfit, he's dumb, he's a dry-drunk, he's a 'I'll show Daddy!!!' boy, he's a bad manager, blagh, blagh, and it's all true....Chrisisall
P.S. Finn, I don't see you on the General Discussion boards much, what did you think of the BDM? I loved it!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Multiculturalism in all its ridiculousness.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Most Muslim fanatics (as well as many non-fanatics) would rather be killed or beaten than be religiously or sexually humiliated. We of the western world would probably rather escape with our lives than worry about a book (I know I would) or being photographed naked. But is a definition of what constitutes torture only applicable to the people giving, or is it somewhat based on the people receiving it? I would propose that defacement of a Koran in front of a Moslem cleric is tantamount to torture on a level that we as westerners are unfamiliar with. If another culture considers an act to be torturous, shouldn't we as a civilized nation respect that? My personal position on torture is no way no how, because I see us as being better than that (as well as its actual effectiveness has always been in question). But people who actually debate things like, 'where is the line' always confuse me on points like this. Sure it isn't torture to you, but a maybe a better question to ask is, 'is it torture in regards to their culture.'
I seem to remember an “art” piece a few years ago that involved defacing the image of the Mother May with feces. Many Christians found this to be in rather poor taste. Was the artist “torturing” Christian clerics? Should that artist be arrested for practicing torture? Or does a reverence of ones religion only apply to fanatical Muslim clerics? If we are going to elevate the defacing of a religious book to the level of torture, then we have essentially eliminated the freedom of speech, if we are to apply this new found reverence for religious articles fairly.
Quote:I agree, but it doesn’t change the fact that there are those, even in this country, who wish to use the issue of torture as a political weapons against the president.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Our news agencies covering these stories isn't inflaming anyone outside this country. Our news agencies covering these stories actually presents a level of sanity and accountability that the rest of the world finds hopeful. As Bush has so often pointed out, one of the things that makes the U.S. a much better place than Iraq under Saddam is the fact that when members of our military commit atrocious acts, there are consequences. Stories in our country's free press are part of those consequences. The commitment of Americans to take the inquiry to the highest level of government is another thing that makes this country great.
Quote:I don’t think so. I was honest in reporting that I had not seen the show and admitted that I wasn’t criticizing this show.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
And Finn, you really oughta watch the program before you comment, unless you just want to muddy the waters with issues that may or may not be germane.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Multiculturalism in all its ridiculousness.
I seem to remember an “art” piece a few years ago that involved defacing the image of the Mother May with feces. Many Christians found this to be in rather poor taste. Was the artist “torturing” Christian clerics? Should that artist be arrested for practicing torture? Or does a reverence of ones religion only apply to fanatical Muslim clerics? If we are going to elevate the defacing of a religious book to the level of torture, then we have essentially eliminated the freedom of speech, if we are to apply this new found reverence for religious articles fairly.
You brushed off my post without answering it at all, and gave an example that had no relevance to my point. As I made perfectly clear, we in the west don't take our iconography as seriously as the Islamic world does. Is that act torturous as we define it in America? No, nor would I equate it with a freedom of speech issue here in America. A Moslem American defacing the Koran gets the same rights/punishments/priveliges as a Christian defacing a Bible. That's because it's our society's rules, not theirs. That wasn't the point- we live by a different societal code here.
The point was, had someone in Iran made a Koran art piece like the Xtian one you point out, he wouldn't have lived to see it on display. That's a fact. So, since something like that would be illegal at best, murderous heresy requiring stoning more than likely in a Moslem country, it doesn't matter whether it's freedom of speech in ours. I'm asking if we should treat the issue in that respect. Just because we define torture one way doesn't mean someone else's definition is a perfect match.
Now answer, Finn, should the culture of the tortured be taken into account?
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I agree. I think it would be best to take our people out of harms way. I think, however, we have different opinions of what constitutes “harms way,” and how to get our people out of it.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Free speech isn't free. Maybe it would be better to take our people out of harm's way than hope human(ie fallable, weak and/or viciously opportunistic) media has a conscience, and the ability to follow it.
Quote:Yep.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Did someone start a war with us?
Quote:Are you suggesting that it doesn’t matter whether our media puts forth rational and honest news? I would say that that kind of thinking with regard to the media is exactly what I was talking about.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Sorry, okay- the 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre' thing; I get it. But they're cuttin' off heads over there. We should not have gone there the way we did, we should not be there now, it should not matter what our media says about anything, true OR inflamatory.
Quote:I think the American people get an ear full of the bad things that go on over there. So much so that I think the good things, which are just as important, often get ignored.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
And if the American people don't know the bad things that go on (as they obviously don't), it WILL continue full force. Change of some kind is necessary, and it's always painful.
Quote:I posted a few times. I never really got around to posting my review of the movie. I thought it was good. I saw it twice for entertainment sake, and I’m waiting a few weeks to see it again when I will try to be more critical. In the meantime, the expansion to Rome Total War came out a few weeks ago and all my free computer time has been spent throwing virtual hordes of Vandals, Franks and Saxons at the frontier provinces of the Roman Empire.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
P.S. Finn, I don't see you on the General Discussion boards much, what did you think of the BDM? I loved it!
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There comes a point though, where the nature of the political weapon trumps the partisan motives, don'it? I mean, using the fact that a Senator is a drug dealer to make sure he doesn't get re-elected is a good thing, even from his opponant who stands to gain substantially from the scandal? Illegally promoting sadism and torture in the ranks of the U.S. Army is something any President should get in trouble for. That a bunch of folk have been waiting for the opportunity is a political commonplace. At least Bush would be taken down for something a bit more substantive than a bj.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I agree, but it doesn’t change the fact that there are those, even in this country, who wish to use the issue of torture as a political weapons against the president.
I could have been more direct with my remarks about watching the video than I was. Sorry. The real point is that the familiar argument about making prisoners wear underwear not being torture, would, hopefully, not have come up if you'd seen the documentary because the documentary deals with acts that any sane person would surely agree upon. If your time is limited, I recommend you watch part 6 at least, that's where the toughest stuff is dealt with.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I would agree that in general that is true, but it is not true of everyone in the West, I’m sure. I’m certain that some very devout Catholics in the West were as infuriated and insulted by this particular piece of art as some Moslem clerics from the Middle East might be about the defacing of the Koran.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
As I made perfectly clear, we in the west don't take our iconography as seriously as the Islamic world does. Is that act torturous as we define it in America? No, nor would I equate it with a freedom of speech issue here in America.
Quote:The answer is no. That’s an excellent example of why there is no moral equivalence between a theocratic totalitarian culture and the US, and why I have so much distain for multiculturalistic ideals. What if in some hypothetical country it is required, under pain of death, to kill Jews? Is it then torture, if the US chooses not to kill Jews? I don’t believe that one can’t use a countries’ culture, particularly a country with a history or fanaticism and totalitarianism, as the defining aspect of what constitutes torture.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
The point was, had someone in Iran made a Koran art piece like the Xtian one you point out, he wouldn't have lived to see it on display. That's a fact. So, since something like that would be illegal at best, murderous heresy requiring stoning more than likely in a Moslem country, it doesn't matter whether it's freedom of speech in ours. I'm asking if we should treat the issue in that respect. Just because we define torture one way doesn't mean someone else's definition is a perfect match.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
It says we're a nation of individuals with differing opinions. The folks who produced "the Torture Question" expressed their opinion and Mr. Moran expressed his. Or would you rather that only "acceptable" opinions be expressed?
I don't think anyones saying that, Geezer.
There is, however, a difference between saying Neo Nazis are evil, and keeping them silent.
What I mean is:
This Mr. Moran strikes me as the kinda guy who would have been cheering at the front of Hitler's Nuremberg rallies, shortly before chucking a Molotov cocktail through some Jewish families window.
All the time saying it's for the good of the nation, that these weasels deserve to die because they're trying to hurt the country...
Strikes me as the same sort of personallity would do that if society made it acceptable.
I would say that the treacherous one is Mr Moran, who evidently wants the Goverment to never be questioned (first step to glorious fascism, yay!), and believes that your consitution, which is, I believe the bedrock of American society, be entirely ignored.
Maybe you should put policy in Mr Moran's hands, no more worrying about Muslim terroists, when every muslim is either dead or in a concentration camp.
So... In the interests of freedom of speech, let Mr Moran scream at the top of his lungs about how anyone who doesn't hold his view should be 'gagged' because their obviously traitors.
But hey, while he's doing it, freedom of speech means we can all say:
"What a dick"
Or
"haha, look at the crazy person! haha, come on everyone, look at the nutter!"
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:*The crowd goes wild with the recognition that the verbal precision with which he cut to the heart of the matter was much like a surgeon's*
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Illegally promoting sadism and torture in the ranks of the U.S. Army is something any President should get in trouble for. That a bunch of folk have been waiting for the opportunity is a political commonplace. At least Bush would be taken down for something a bit more substantive than a bj.
AND, he worked in the funny Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
The point was, had someone in Iran made a Koran art piece like the Xtian one you point out, he wouldn't have lived to see it on display. That's a fact. So, since something like that would be illegal at best, murderous heresy requiring stoning more than likely in a Moslem country, it doesn't matter whether it's freedom of speech in ours. I'm asking if we should treat the issue in that respect. Just because we define torture one way doesn't mean someone else's definition is a perfect match.
Slippery slope alert. Next might be: "Just because we find slavery (or subjugation of women, or genital mutilation of teen girls, or religious intolerence) a socital evil doesn't mean someone else's definition is a prefect match.
There are some things about which reasonable people can agree to disagree. There's others that are just wrong.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm saying that our media should be able to report that there is no torture, Brad Pitt's leading the torture guard, or 100% of Americans use Korans as kitchen flooring; it should have no bearing on how safe our soldiers or citizens are, except, of course, we have them over there- our greatest mistake....
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Are you suggesting that it doesn’t matter whether our media puts forth rational and honest news? I would say that that kind of thinking with regard to the media is exactly what I was talking about.
Chrisisall, Isolationist CT
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
This Mr. Moran strikes me as the kinda guy who would have been cheering at the front of Hitler's Nuremberg rallies, shortly before chucking a Molotov cocktail through some Jewish families window.
All the time saying it's for the good of the nation, that these weasels deserve to die because they're trying to hurt the country...
Strikes me as the same sort of personallity would do that if society made it acceptable.
Just as there's people who post here who would ever so regretfully decide what is best for the rest of us because we obviously don't know the right way to think or we'd have elected John Kerry, or Hugo Chavez. They also know they are right, and would do anything, if capable, to remake the world to their prefect model.
I tend to be of the "leave me alone" persuasion, but there's lots out there on both sides who'd be glad to run my life, and yours.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Why Geezer, another point we can agree on.
Originally posted by Geezer:
Slippery slope alert. Next might be: "Just because we find slavery (or subjugation of women, or genital mutilation of teen girls, or religious intolerence) a socital evil doesn't mean someone else's definition is a prefect match.
There are some things about which reasonable people can agree to disagree. There's others that are just wrong.
Let's not a habit of this, eh?
The black and white Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh. That’s not going to happen no matter where our troops are. As long as there are fanatical fruitcakes with aspirations of mass murder there will always be a need to report the news honestly and fairly to avoid unnecessarily providing a pretext to their fruitcakeyness.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I'm saying that our media should be able to report that there is no torture, Brad Pitt's leading the torture guard, or 100% of Americans use Korans as kitchen flooring; it should have no bearing on how safe our soldiers or citizens are, except, of course, we have them over there- our greatest mistake....
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer:
My original point was no one was suggesting that Mr Moran or his misguided, and yes he IS misguided, views should be 'gagged'.
They were suggesting that he was not all there, which is an opinion.
I'm saying it's alright to say someone how wants to stiffle freedom of speech to protect our (at least your) way of life is a crackpot.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Geezer:
My original point was no one was suggesting that Mr Moran or his misguided, and yes he IS misguided, views should be 'gagged'.
They were suggesting that he was not all there, which is an opinion.
I'm saying it's alright to say someone how wants to stiffle freedom of speech to protect our (at least your) way of life is a crackpot.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't
"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."
And I was (or should have been) pointing out that Mr. Moran's statements have nothing to say about our nation other than the fact that he is free to make them in our nation. Nuts on all sides inhabit the country, but that doesn't make it a proto-Nazi Reich, a Commie-pinko commune, or an Anarchist free-for-all. Tarring the entire country with Mr. Moran's jingoistic brush is a bit simplistic.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I do, however, see your point.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
As long as there are fanatical fruitcakes with aspirations of mass murder there will always be a need to report the news honestly and fairly to avoid unnecessarily providing a pretext to their fruitcakeyness.
Chrisisall, again with the cake issues
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Tarring the entire country with Mr. Moran's jingoistic brush is a bit simplistic.
Who did that, and when. I see no statements, by anyone, who say such a thing.
Your statement was paramount to accussing cant of wanting to barr freedom of speech, by simply dispairing at such a bizzare and blinkered opinion as Mr Moran's, which I didn't see as the case.
Furthermore, I dispair that anyone can be so blind to the logical extent of their position.
Frankly Mr Moran's comments do invite the idea of a fascist system, if they were more prevelant within American society.
Cant's comments were not indicative of trying to gag Mr Moran or anyone like him, but of disparing at someone with such an idiotic view.
Extending that to be a bad reflection on the entire nation is too much, but it's not the same thing as saying "these people shouldn't be allowed to speak". I'd still say cant wasn't tarring all of America with that brush, as cant said some folks...
Saying such a thing would, in essence, make 'us' as 'bad' as him.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Slippery slope alert. Next might be: "Just because we find slavery (or subjugation of women, or genital mutilation of teen girls, or religious intolerence) a socital evil doesn't mean someone else's definition is a prefect match.
There are some things about which reasonable people can agree to disagree. There's others that are just wrong.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Actually, the slippery slope started when you and Finn equated cultural sensitivity regarding religious artifacts with genital mutilation and rape rooms. If you take moral relativity out to its far end (which I am in no way justifying, let me make myself perfectly clear), then yes, you get that aspect. On the other hand, you two lads fall into the same range with moral absolutism. They're two sides of the same coin. You don't like our way? Hahaha, too bad, we're right and you're wrong, so we'll desecrate and torture all we want, and if you have a problem with it it's irrelevant because our way is always 100% right (which is 100% wrong, and frankly, evil).
There has to be a middle ground, and your way isn't cutting it either. Even you admit that all 'our way or the highway' does is fan the flames of hatred in the Moslem world. What I'm saying is that since they seem to get all shades of wound up over us dicking with the Koran, maybe we ought to stop dicking around with the Koran, not that we ought to let them go around raping at will.
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Tarring the entire country with Mr. Moran's jingoistic brush is a bit simplistic.
Who did that, and when. I see no statements, by anyone, who say such a thing.
"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."
Duh.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Actually, the slippery slope started when you and Finn equated cultural sensitivity regarding religious artifacts with genital mutilation and rape rooms.
When the cultural sensitivity relating to a religion extends to the determination that anyone who doesn't believe in their particular form of religion is less than human and that killing them insures you a place in heaven...I have a problem with that. I have just as much problem (or maybe not quite, since they aren't out to actually kill me) with the folk who propose "intelligent design" and are sure (their) god hates gays, contraception and abortion.
I'm beginning to wonder if any evangelical religion hits a violently expansionist phase about 1200 years after its inception. Consider that the crusades, with their fanaticism and various abominations, started around 1200 A.D. (give or take a century). Islam started about 866 A.D. It's time for their "Crusades", eh?.
Totally off topic, there's a wonderful statement in the November Smithsonian, from Edward O. Wilson, who proposed most of human behavior derives from biology and natural selection. He noted that "...the religious right's increasingly vocal opposition to Darwinian theory is rooted in a "dislike of human sociobiology", especally the idea that human values flow from biology rather than from a nonphysical soul." I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OOPs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Another way to ask this question: When does intimidation and degradation cross the line and become torture?
Now answer, Finn, should the culture of the tortured be taken into account?
(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)
Intimidation and degradation is very much subject-defined. Interrogators find what subjects are afraid of and push that button. Whether that fear is a result of a cultural, personality, gender, racial or age sensitivity is moot.
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.
But the amount of pain required to break the will of subjects varies greatly from person to person. Should someone not be considered tortured simply because he can endure more pain than others? 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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...I can certainly understand and even agree with the necessity of keeping certain things secret. “Torture” is one of those things that should be dealt with very carefully, especially during wartime.
The tactics used by our military in this war constitute torture by standards set by the UN and human rights organizations. However, I understand that you don't see those tactics as torture. So questions on secrecy:
1. Would you support keeping what you know so far of Abu Ghraib/Gitmo interrogations secret until after the war is over?
2. What activities would you consider to be enough torture to warrant public exposure during wartime?
Quote:
...I do find it despicable that the issue of torture in the news seems to be more often a political tool... Since this is likely to inflame threats against our military men, citizens and US supporters abroad..., it is not only despicable but may be ethically tantamount to negligent homicide.
I would like to know if you think this Frontline program is despicable or ethically tantamount to homicide after you've seen the program. Do you think programs like this should be suppressed until after the war so as not to inflame threats against our soldiers?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Let me rephrase.
Originally posted by Canttakesky:
"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."
What does it say about us as a nation that we have a significant percentage of citizens who not only support state-authorized torture, but also want to keep it secret?
I could write Mr. Woran off as a loony. Every nation has those. But his sentiments are shared by a good number of others who also wrote Frontline, even if his wording was more hysterical than the rest.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually that is an equation you made. All I said is that I don’t think defacing the Koran is torture. You’re the one who seems to insist that torture is dependent on the religious fanaticism of the detainee, and that the US should be held responsible for the fanaticism of its enemies.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Actually, the slippery slope started when you and Finn equated cultural sensitivity regarding religious artifacts with genital mutilation and rape rooms.
I don’t know many Moslems outside this country, but I know many in the country, and they would likely be offended by the claim that they or their culture can’t tell the difference between defacing a Koran and torture.
Quote:1. I think Abu Ghraib was newsworthy. I think it went to too far and exposing it and prosecuting the offenders was the right thing to do. I think however that it is important to keep things in perspective and accusing the US of being a “torture nation” as some have is not perspective. I haven’t looked into it lately, but I don’t remember anything at Gitmo that would constitute torture.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
1. Would you support keeping what you know so far of Abu Ghraib/Gitmo interrogations secret until after the war is over?
2. What activities would you consider to be enough torture to warrant public exposure during wartime?
2. That’s a difficult call. One needs to carefully weigh the importance and confidence of the evidence against the lives that will be lost as a result of exposure. Certainly not the continued release of images that provide nothing substantive on a particular event already exposed, or dubious or unsupported claims. Solid evidence of the use of electrodes or instruments designed to inflicted physical pain might be newsworthy. Somewhere in between may be a judgment call.
Quote:I haven’t seen it, so I can’t comment. I don’t know when I’ll have time to sit down and watch it. I certainly don’t think that information should necessarily be suppressed, although at the government level sensitive information should be controlled. I’d like to think that we have a responsible media that is capable and willing to provide its own policing and can make responsible judgments about what can and should be released. The freedom of the press is a hallmark of American liberty and abusing it, from either end, can have serious implications.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I would like to know if you think this Frontline program is despicable or ethically tantamount to homicide after you've seen the program. Do you think programs like this should be suppressed until after the war so as not to inflame threats against our soldiers?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I have just as much problem (or maybe not quite, since they aren't out to actually kill me) with the folk who propose "intelligent design" and are sure (their) god hates gays, contraception and abortion.
I'm with you 100% on this one. There's that bizarre sect out of Kansas that protests at soldier funerals with signs like "God kills Marines because they support a country with fags in it" and such. Crazy people. Far-right-wing Evangelical Xtians who believe the rapture is only a glass parking lot away make me very nervous. There's a group in (I believe it was) New Hampshire that constructed a prop missile and had its members dress in fatigues for a "spiritual warfare" project, supposedly "in support" of our troops. I'm sorry, but folks like that are only our constitution away from Taliban-ing themselves. And that's the kind of moral absolutism I'm talking about - The "I know for 100% certain God Hates Fags and I'll show you" crowd.
Quote:
I'm beginning to wonder if any evangelical religion hits a violently expansionist phase about 1200 years after its inception. Consider that the crusades, with their fanaticism and various abominations, started around 1200 A.D. (give or take a century). Islam started about 866 A.D. It's time for their "Crusades", eh?.
You know, I don't think it's a 1200 year itch, but I do think it comes in cycles, and this is their turn. I think it happens when society moves on from religion, and the faithful can't immediately orient themselves to the new way of doing things. With Islam, it has existed for years with an anti-female, anti-Jewish mindset that is now completely incompatible with the structure of the modern world; the faithful go into violent 'seizures' until the religion as a whole comes into alignment. I worry the same thing is due to happen (though nowhere near as violently) with regards to Xtianity and science.
Quote:
Totally off topic, there's a wonderful statement in the November Smithsonian, from Edward O. Wilson, who proposed most of human behavior derives from biology and natural selection. He noted that "...the religious right's increasingly vocal opposition to Darwinian theory is rooted in a "dislike of human sociobiology", especally the idea that human values flow from biology rather than from a nonphysical soul." I couldn't have put it better myself.
I'll have to look at that - sounds interesting.
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
insist that torture is dependent on the religious fanaticism of the detainee, and that the US should be held responsible for the fanaticism of its enemies.
You make my point for me right here without even realizing it. Torture is dependent on the one being tortured. Look at it this way. Here's 7% - American, male, etc. - so you decide to try to torture me with porn. That's right, porn. You force me to watch it 24 hours a day, non-stop. Am I being tortured? Nope. In fact, I'm having a blast. But, take someone whose cultural beliefs are that porn is the devil ("everything's the devil with you, momma"), and you have a different story. Canttakesky's argument is valid - any means that is employed to psychologically break someone down, if taken to its conclusion, IS torture. 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.
Quote:
I don’t know many Moslems outside this country, but I know many in the country, and they would likely be offended by the claim that they or their culture can’t tell the difference between defacing a Koran and torture.
They are westernized. That's my point. I know many Moslems myself (I used to have a daily chess game with an Egyptian immigrant while I was earning my BA), but they are all westernized. They drink, they smoke, they cuss, they skip prayer. They are no longer of their home culture, they are ours. A Saudi-American, who has lived here for ten years is going to have a completely different mindset than a Saudi that has lived his whole life in Saudi Arabia. The Americanized Saudi is going to find himself having a harder time getting worked up over the same stuff his counterpart does. They are no longer culturally identical.
Now, I'm not saying, as I'm sure you seem to think I am, that we should kiss terrorist ass. But, from the things I'm reading, we can't be sure we're even holding terrorists, and the things we are doing are making more people want to go out and BECOME terrorists. That's a serious problem. That's why we need new, clear rules, and if being a little relativistic prevents moderates from becoming nutbags, put me on the relativist page.
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So what are hot pokers like to them, then? I don’t think it is fair to hold the US responsible for the delusions of fanatics.
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.
Quote:I also don’t think that the Arab and Moslems cultures are necessarily so incapacitated with religious fanaticism that they are incapable of reason. I think the Moslems who find “porn” as “painful” as a hot poker are not representative of their culture. I think they are fanatics, even within their own culture. Delusional. Fruitcakes, to use a word I like. I don’t think islamofacist terrorists are representative of the Arab or Moslem culture or religion anymore then I think Nazis are representative of the German culture. And even if fanatics are representative of the Moslem culture, they are still human beings capable of the same ability to reason as I am. I don’t that Western people are any smarter then Eastern people, and if Western people can tell the difference between defacing a Koran and torture, then so can Moslems. So strictly speaking I don’t think it has anything to do with culture. I think that is an oversimplification. I don’t think that it is fair to hold the US responsible for the delusion of fanatics, and I don’t think it is fair to use the Arab and Moslem culture as an excuse for fanaticism and terrorism. Clearly many do both, but I don’t have to agree with it.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
They are westernized.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I also don’t think that the Arab and Moslems cultures are necessarily so incapacitated with religious fanaticism that they are incapable of reason.
I don't either. But detaining and torturing their countrymen who may not be terrorists isn't really reasoning with them, now is it? What it's doing is pissing them off.
Quote:
I think the Moslems who find “porn” as “painful” as a hot poker are not representative of their culture. I think they are fanatics, even within their own culture. Delusional. Fruitcakes, to use a word I like.
Heh. I use that word too, oddly enough. I think we're in disagreement over what I'm implying about norms. Yes, the terrorists are a minority population of true fruitcakes, unrepresentative of the majority. The problem is, it doesn't take much of a deviation from a norm to turn someone into a nutjob. Look at the effect 9/11 had on the US. There was an incredible lurch to the right that left many moderates as "the new left." You have to avoid turning the moderates into nutjobs, and desecrating objects and torturing civilians is what does it. Flushing a Koran might be the spark that makes 100 moderates into martyrs, and that's not a good thing; when all you need to avoid it is to not use someone's religion to torture them (especially if you aren't getting any tangible results from the process).
Quote:
And even if fanatics are representative of the Moslem culture, they are still human beings capable of the same ability to reason as I am.
Don't assume that all people have the same capacity for reason. Look at some of the things we debate in this country.
Quote:
and if Western people can tell the difference between defacing a Koran and torture, then so can Moslems. So strictly speaking I don’t think it has anything to do with culture. I think that is an oversimplification.
Chew on this then. We have people in America- rational, thinking people- with the ability to reason, that would near murder someone that burned a flag. At least 2 or 3 times a year there is an article about a protester that gets the crap knocked out of him for lighting a flag on fire. We go ballistic when we see on the news the Palestinians burning our flag, and normally rational people start talking about nuking the whole lot of them. Now I ask you - isn't that what we are doing to them in reverse? Only we aren't using a flag, we're using their holy book. It's the kind of thing that makes normally rational moderates blow a gasket.
Quote:
I don’t think that it is fair to hold the US responsible for the delusion of fanatics, and I don’t think it is fair to use the Arab and Moslem culture as an excuse for fanaticism and terrorism. Clearly many do both, but I don’t have to agree with it.
I'm not using Arab culture as a justification for terrorism, and I'm only holding the US responsible insofar as their actions are an indirect cause. If it's against the rules for you to hit me, but I keep calling your sister a whore, when you hit me you legitimately break the rules. But me claiming my actions had nothing to do with it is ridiculous.
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
This Frontline program exposes the paper trail and systematic policy changes that fostered the abuses that began at Gitmo and were found later at Abu Ghraib. It details which kinds of tactics were authorized and just how far soldiers took liberties in a climate of dehumanization. It might just change your mind on whether the media lost perspective in their reporting, or whether indeed, torture is now authorized by the state. I would be curious to know if the interviews and documentation in this film was sufficient to change your mind.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It might. It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve changed my mind about something. My guess is that the show probably details stuff I already know, but assessed from the assumption that certain things constitute torture, and whether or not it changes my mind about the policies of the current military and administration will probably be heavily dependent on whether they can sell me their particular definition of torture. I can’t seem to access it online. I’ve tried several times, and I’m reluctant to spend too much time searching for it, elsewhere. But if I can watch it I will.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
This Frontline program exposes the paper trail and systematic policy changes that fostered the abuses that began at Gitmo and were found later at Abu Ghraib. It details which kinds of tactics were authorized and just how far soldiers took liberties in a climate of dehumanization. It might just change your mind on whether the media lost perspective in their reporting, or whether indeed, torture is now authorized by the state. I would be curious to know if the interviews and documentation in this film was sufficient to change your mind.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
"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."
Duh.
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?
[My Interpretation]
Not:
One person said it so all Americans are evil freedom hating Nazis. [Which seems to be your interpretation]
Finn.
Let’s spin your argument around.
Let’s assume there’s a culture that sees nothing wrong in mutilating oneself, or others, cutting skin with a knife etc.
These people capture an American soldier and mutilate him/her.
This, of course, is not torture. Just because the soldier sees it as torture doesn't mean this other culture should bow to his or her delusion, does it?
These people can't hold themselves to account for other cultures delusions, now can they?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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?
Originally posted by citizen:
Finn.
Let’s spin your argument around.
Let’s assume there’s a culture that sees nothing wrong in mutilating oneself, or others, cutting skin with a knife etc.
These people capture an American soldier and mutilate him/her.
This, of course, is not torture. Just because the soldier sees it as torture doesn't mean this other culture should bow to his or her delusion, does it?
These people can't hold themselves to account for other cultures delusions, now can they?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, the US is not responsible for delusions. But the US is responsible for finding which buttons to push, and for pushing them systematically for the express purpose of causing acute pain and suffering.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
don’t think it is fair to hold the US responsible for the delusions of fanatics.
It would be like dumping a cupful of spiders on someone with a severe spider phobia. No, you're not responsible for the phobia, but you sure are responsible for dumping the spiders deliberately to be cruel. Maybe this person deserved it, and maybe you have a very noble reason to be cruel--but it is still cruel.
For me, it is disingenuous to disown responsibility for intentionally inflicting pain on the prisoners, just because the same action would not cause *us* pain. We know it causes *them* pain--that's why we did it! It is better to accept responsibility for that difficult choice and defend why we believe limited amount of torture is necessary.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No. It wouldn’t, because dumping a cupful of spiders on someone is doing something to that person. It directly influences the person through physical contact. Defacing a Koran, on the other hand, does not directly influence the person, and in fact, is as much the right of the defacer, if we are to accept freedom of expression, as the detainee to hold a fanatical belief in the Koran. They are completely different things.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
It would be like dumping a cupful of spiders on someone with a severe spider phobia. No, you're not responsible for the phobia, but you sure are responsible for dumping the spiders deliberately to be cruel. Maybe this person deserved it, and maybe you have a very noble reason to be cruel--but it is still cruel.
Quote:How do we know it causes them pain? Because we think their fanatical opinions constitute a “red hot poker?” Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. Maybe it is just something the detainee is trained to say in order to illicit a more tolerable form of interrogation. When you elevate someone’s disapproval of your religious opinion to the level of torture you are buying into a level of fanaticism that brings with it many wholly unknowable and largely academic aspects. I think the US may believe that it causes them pain, and I don’t disown responsibility for that at all, but I also don’t elevate religious disapproval to the level of torture.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
For me, it is disingenuous to disown responsibility for intentionally inflicting pain on the prisoners, just because the same action would not cause *us* pain. We know it causes *them* pain--that's why we did it! It is better to accept responsibility for that difficult choice and defend why we believe limited amount of torture is necessary.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh, interesting. The Sticks-and-Stones standard. So you would say physical contact is necessary to inflict the severe / acute suffering involved in torture.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It directly influences the person through physical contact.
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.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It would certainly infuriate me and one could argue that it might be cruel and unusual, but it wouldn’t necessarily constitute torture.
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.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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?
Quote: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?
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.
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I’d say it definitely is torturing the child, regardless of the impact it has on the parent.
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?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:As a parent, I would feel acute and severe pain and suffering. I'd say it's torture for the parent.
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?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I’m sure there is one, but I’m equally sure that it is nearly impossible to generally quantify.
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 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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:FINN!!
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:So what are hot pokers like to them, then?
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry, this is a serious topic...
Just never saw Finn bat one outta the park like that...
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 pa
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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 auton
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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:But after recognizing the subjectivity of torture he then goes on to use his own responses as the yardstick.
Furthermore the issue of torture is very subjective. What some seem to consider torture, I do not
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:and then he says
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...
Quote:Well, apparently not?
And even if fanatics are representative of the Moslem culture, they are still human beings capable of...reason
As far as government accountability, Finn says
Quote: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
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.
Quote: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.
is not only despicable but may be ethically tantamount to negligent homicide.
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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."
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
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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:
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.
“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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Interrogation and torture both share common goals, but there is a noted difference in the severity and effectiveness.
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:Can't Take My Gorram Sky
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer, let's put everything back in context:
Quote:And I said
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.
Quote:Now you are saying
You may want to w/draw that statement*
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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'.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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?
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?”
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 foolNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer- The GC does not define "torture" but it prohibits it
Quote:For the definition of torture, I refer to the UN Convention, of which the USA was a party
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.
Quote:You said
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
Quote: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.
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).
You said
Quote:Well, I took you at your word and started discussing the techniques allowed in the memo, and now you're saying
If you have problems with any specific technique in the memo, I'd be glad to discuss that with you.
Quote: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
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:and THEN you said
Show me one place in the GC on Treatment of Prisoners of War where it specifically defines "torture".
Quote: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!
Don't play word games with me.
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME