The next time the Chinese shoot down one of our intel planes, I’m sure our flight crews will be comforted to know that you, the administration, and the CIA don’t think those things are torture. I guess it’s all just interrogation to you guys. I’m just glad my reserve commitment is over. I’d hate to be on the receiving end of some Chinese “interrogation” techniques after we’ve gone on record saying the above are okie dokie.
I don’t know, is it? You tell me which is going to leave someone more psychologically scarred: incarceration without torture, or incarceration with torture. The issue here isn’t about “catch and release,” it’s about using techniques which are going to leave an already volatile culture even more venemous when it comes to dealing with the US. These people are going to make their way back into Iraqi society and I seriously doubt they’re going to be talking about the puffy white clouds above Gitmo. You know, incarceration may be mentally debilitating, but taking it above and beyond that, to break people, causes serious damage to their abilities to differentiate between right and wrong. You’re not much of a person anymore once you’ve lost your mental ability to control what you do and say. Can you imagine if we did this to prisoners in our own country, and then released them back into society en masse? It would be a new breed of criminal, mentally ill, overly bitter, distant, violent, indifferent. These are the kinds of things that happen to people who have suffered prison abuse. The chances of rehabilitation are none.
Yeah, I was thinking that myself. And if it’s not beating, it’s some kind of physical threat of harm, otherwise… why stay standing?[/quote]
I took it to simply be restraints. It’s possible to chain your arms and legs in such a way that you simply can’t sit down.[/quote]
So hanging you by your arms for 40 hours is not torture? Got it.
In any case, I think that when we’ve done this, it’s not a matter of restraints. It’s beatings and threat of same.
I’d hate to as well. I’d also hate to be incarcerated, or forced to eat anchovy pizza.
However, rather than reacting with vitriol, you’re more than welcome to actually try to answer the question. I know it’s not as viscerally satisfying as just rattling off the knee-jerk response and getting to vent some of the vitriol, but you might find that a good solid answer actually has a greater long term effect.
It could be a matter of restratints.
Just to add fun to the debate, I’ll point out that “restraining someone in an uncomfortable position” can not only be torture, it can be a method of execution. The Romans called it crucifixion.
I don’t know, is it? You tell me which is going to leave someone more psychologically scarred: incarceration without torture, or incarceration with torture. The issue here isn’t about “catch and release,” it’s about using techniques which are going to leave an already volatile culture even more venemous when it comes to dealing with the US.[/quote]
So these things are being done indiscriminately to all the prisoners at random? Or some of the prisoners who are believed to actually have information/be complicit? There’s obviously a huge difference betwen the two. (And I realize that there’s zero chance that everyone being affected is going to have information; that’s a horrible consequence of the idiocy of trying to fight a guerrilla war in the first place.)
These people are going to make their way back into Iraqi society and I seriously doubt they’re going to be talking about the puffy white clouds above Gitmo. You know, incarceration may be mentally debilitating, but taking it above and beyond that, to break people, causes serious damage to their abilities to differentiate between right and wrong. You’re not much of a person anymore once you’ve lost your mental ability to control what you do and say.
Sure, I agree 100%. However, the predication is that these people are all implicitly guilty because, y’know, they’re all vast loosely affiliated terrorists. And from that angle having any of them in prison at all is probably the most harmful thing that could possibly have been done. But while this is very relevant in the real world, it’s not particularly related to the idea that “torture is innately wrong”. Forget the after effects, because that has nothing to do with the innate wrongness; it’s simply yet another indication of how fucked up the whole situation is.
Can you imagine if we did this to prisoners in our own country, and then released them back into society en masse? It would be a new breed of criminal, mentally ill, overly bitter, distant, violent, indifferent. These are the kinds of things that happen to people who have suffered prison abuse. The chances of rehabilitation are none.
Well, that’s part of where I’m coming from… everything I’ve seen about people going into prison indicates that the environment itself, without these extraordinary measures, has an overwhelming tendency to do just that. It’s an argument that’s often floated in favor of reducing mandatory drug penalties in victimless crimes, for instance.
Crucifixion was a bit more than simply restraining… soft flesh trauma from the nails, complete lack of sustenance, etc…
We don’t know. And that’s part of the problem, really. The fact that they’re unwilling to allow in 3rd party inspectors and come clean about what’s going on there leads one to believe that all is not well in the land of Gitmo. So, what can we do but assume the worst? There’s a good amount out there from the people who have been released – whether entirely credible or not – that these techniques are used fairly indiscriminately. I’d be willing to bet that most prisoners are subjected to it at least once – if they weren’t suspected of being involved in some heavy shit, they wouldn’t be in Gitmo in the first place, right? I doubt you’re hearing any interrogators say “You have 12 unpaid parking tickets! NOW TELL US WHERE ZARQAWI IS!” while electrocuting their testicles. The underlying suspicion is that all these people are terrorists or suspected terrorists, and they’re probably treated that way.
[quote=“mouselock”]
Crucifixion was a bit more than simply restraining… soft flesh trauma from the nails, complete lack of sustenance, etc…[/quote]
Not all crucifixions involved nails. Depending on the style of crucifixion, the death could come from dehydration/starvation, trauma/shock (especially if scourging came first or nails were used), or asphyxiation. Yes, it’s possible to kill someone by restraining them in a position where breathing is difficult.
Not that I have any knowledge that the U.S. is doing anything like that, just pointing out that restraints can be used as a method of torture and execution.
[quote=“mouselock”]
Crucifixion was a bit more than simply restraining… soft flesh trauma from the nails, complete lack of sustenance, etc…[/quote]
The nails and lack of water are just gravy. The means of death is by suffocation when the victim, (Here, Our Lord.) becomes too exhausted to lift himself up to breathe. He died long before dehydration could have killed him, that takes a couple days. (Thanks Tremors!)l
There are disputes about that though, some people think it was just the sheer pain and exposure that got him. Six of one, sauce for the gander.
[quote=“Nick_Walter”]
It could be a matter of restratints.
Just to add fun to the debate, I’ll point out that “restraining someone in an uncomfortable position” can not only be torture, it can be a method of execution. The Romans called it crucifixion.[/quote]
As I recall reading, it doesn’t take much longer than 40 hours before the crucifee asphixiates. I’d like to see some of the “that’s not torture” advocates try this one on for size and see how it feels.
Crucifixion was a bit more than simply restraining… soft flesh trauma from the nails, complete lack of sustenance, etc…[/quote]
That’s a common misconception (likely springing from Christian Mythos). Crucifixion as generally practiced by the Romans was simply tying someone to a cross by their arms and leaving them to hang. Nails, etc. didn’t typically enter into it. Bored legionaires might stick a javelin though a victem to either ease their passing or so they wouldn’t have to stick around and watch, but that was about it. Giving the victem water prolonged their suffering, but not by long.
Here’s a clue for your mouselock – if something that is “not torture” is so bad that it’s sufferers beg to die instead, it just might be torture.
Wikipedia says that sometimes super devout Catholics with something to prove do it around good Friday in Mexico. Wikipedia also says if you do the arms over the head, people die a lot faster. I have to wonder, what kind of people is Wikipedia hanging out with?
[quote=“mouselock”]
I’d hate to as well. I’d also hate to be incarcerated, or forced to eat anchovy pizza.
However, rather than reacting with vitriol, you’re more than welcome to actually try to answer the question. I know it’s not as viscerally satisfying as just rattling off the knee-jerk response and getting to vent some of the vitriol, but you might find that a good solid answer actually has a greater long term effect.[/quote]
What question? When interrogation becomes torture? I don’t know. I do know I would consider all of the above torture if they were used on US POWs. Are you saying you wouldn’t? Then you’re an idiot. And I think vitriol is the appropriate response to idiocy, I only wish I could channel DrCrypt for 15 minutes.
And I’d be willing to bet if the North Koreans or Iranians get a hold of a US serviceman due to an intel mission that goes south, it won’t be anchovy pizzas that they use to extract information. I can just imagine the propaganda value of taping an “interrogation” session following the above techniques and waiting for the US response. Outrage would be greeted by cries of US hypocrisy, “So, it’s interrogation when applied to Muslims but torture when done to Americans.”
Depends on the circumstances. If you just want to vent, Chet style, and aren’t concerned about making a coherent argument or persuading anyone to your point of view then vitriol is a fine response.
Depends on the circumstances. If you just want to vent, Chet style, and aren’t concerned about making a coherent argument or persuading anyone to your point of view then vitriol is a fine response.[/quote]
Idiots can’t be persuaded.
I just thought of this and haven’t given it much inspection, so forgive me if there’s a glaring hole:
When evaluating whether a punishment regime counts as ‘cruel and unusual’ or ‘torture / not-torture’ or whatever, the thing to consider is this: how badly do you feel you’ve fucked up if you find out later that the person who was the subject was actually innocent?
I mean, if all you did was restrict them to one meal a day / impost a schedule for toilet visits / incarcerate them / solitarily even, then you’d probably feel remorse, but you’d be able to sleep at night. If you’d done sleep deprivation / the cold room-cold water thing / the gag reflex thing, what then?
Depends on the circumstances. If you just want to vent, Chet style, and aren’t concerned about making a coherent argument or persuading anyone to your point of view then vitriol is a fine response.[/quote]
Idiots can’t be persuaded.[/quote]
This is a message board. There are lots of people reading it even if they don’t post often. Are you suggesting that all those people can be neatly divided into people who agree with you and idiots?
Depends on the circumstances. If you just want to vent, Chet style, and aren’t concerned about making a coherent argument or persuading anyone to your point of view then vitriol is a fine response.[/quote]
Idiots can’t be persuaded.[/quote]
This is a message board. There are lots of people reading it even if they don’t post often. Are you suggesting that all those people can be neatly divided into people who agree with you and idiots?[/quote]
If the dichotomy is people that believe the above items are torture versus people that think they aren’t torture, then yes, they can be neatly divided into people who agree with me and idiots. All people that think the techniques listed in the OP aren’t torture are idiots, they are beyond persuasion.
Walter, you can go Jon R forum cop on me all you want, but I’m not talking the typical QT3 smack like saying everyone that buys the $299 XBox 360 should be sterilized, so you’re wasting your time.
Post removed