Has the U.S. Been Engaged in Systemic Torture?

There's another thread, but it's getting sidetracked into a U.N. argument that is far, far less important than the question of torture itself. The poll is there, answer as your conscience dictates. I'm making the poll anonymous to encourage people to say what they really think, regardless of whatever stance they wish to maintain here in the Backroom.

Personally, I believe we as a nation are engaged in extensive, systemic torture. And I'm not in the least bit interested in quibbling over the definition of the word, thank you very much. If you wet down a man and chain him to a cold floor to induce hypothermia, it's torture. If you waterboard a man, it's torture. If you attach electrodes to genitals, it's torture. Anybody who argues differently needs to take a hard look at their moral system.

Here are some links to documentation. Some of the organizations hosting the docs are groups I disagree with 90% of the time (the ACLU, for instance). But that doesn't make the documents they've dug up any less valid.

Detainee assaulted and ultimately killed with a baton.

Report on detainees beaten until they cannot stand, one of them left to rot in his own feces.

Doctor's report on an Iraqi detainee who had been severely beaten and repeatedly shocked with a taser. Doctor noted that "Eveything he described he had on his body." Doctor then cleared detainee for more interrogation. Nice.

Amnesty International's report on the U.S. and torture of detainees. Key quote: "The U.S. government is not only failing to take steps to eradicate torture, it is actually creating a climate in which torture and other ill-treatment can flourish."

I could go find more documentation, but to be honest, it's too depressing.

It's within the bounds of reason to make the argument that we need to torture, that this is a necessary evil which we will use in some limited way. But I think it's just obdurate to claim that we don't have a problem, and it's nothing more than high-jinks on the night shift at Abu Ghraib.

No. Anything that suggests otherwise is clearly a biproduct of the communist propaganda system of CNN, ACLU, and Amnesty Internation. To suggest that the US does it to deny freedom to the Iraqi people and thus, if you suggest America does, you hate freedom.

(Sorry I'm feeling rather belligerant today).

Kaiser, given how quickly you responded, it's obvious you didn't read any of the primary sources I posted. It would be nice if you would at least give them a glance before curling into your partisan crouch.

Another thought -- when someone wants to quibble about what is or is not torture, I think it's useful to imagine a procedure being used against our own soldiers. How would we feel about a U.S. Marine being waterboarded? Would we call it torture? How would we react to hearing about a Green Beret being beaten and choked into collapse, and then being left on the floor in a pool of his own feces? Would we make cute comments about his conditions and sell Club Gitmo t-shirts? Or would we be outraged?

I think that the situations can lead to it, but I don't think that Bush directed it. Something more should be done so that they occur much less often though.:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Anybody who argues differently needs to take a hard look at their moral system.

---

It's not even that. They often don't need to resort to physical harm to bring the sheer psychological terror that they use. So, no bodily harm, then none of the disgusting fear that goes along only with it.:dizzy2:

I have no idea, so i just said maybe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It's within the bounds of reason to make the argument that we need to torture, that this is a necessary evil which we will use in some limited way.

---

However the treaty signed and ratified(UN Convention against Torture and other ill treatment) by the US excludes such reasons as a possible arguement to justify torture, in fact it appears that torture is never justified. For that I think that the systematic aspect of it exists, justifying this proceedure under the clause of "war situation"... but it's illegitime. The repeated cases seem to show a clear trace of a system of punishment and treatment to detainees that allows torture in someways. After this proceedures come into the public knowledge actions are taken quickly against the performers to not fall into a violation of the signed treaties, thus the situation is healed rapidly:"The true number of such deaths may be higher as there is evidence that delays, cover-ups and deficiencies in investigations have hampered the collection of evidence." Then they could terminate the case over lack of factual substance.
This is also important: "A soldier who acknowledged inflicting more than 30 consecutive knee strikes to Dilawar (a slight, 22 year old taxi driver) as he stood in shackles, told investigators that the blows were standard operating procedure for uncooperative detainees." - "Military commanders rejected a recommendation by army investigators to prosecute soldiers involved, on the ground that his death had been the "result of a series of lawful applications of force in response to repeated aggression and misconduct by the detainee".
"Despite the shocking nature of the treatment described in the above cases, the government still has not referred to any any of the reported abuses as "torture"..." - Article 1, section 1 of the (Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment): "For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means 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, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." - "The investigation found that while all these tactics applied together could be considered abusive and degrading, each of the tactics was "authorized" under the Army field manual guidelines for the "pride and ego down" and "futility" approaches."
"The USA should therefore withdraw its limiting reservations, declarations and understandings to the Convention against Torture." That's in fact what the same treaty and the Convention of Viena prescript, any measure to remove any obstacle for the effectiveness of the treaty, wich includes any act by any of the three gobernamental organs.
I could keep quoting but the article shows a lot of evidence of a system that allows torture, and I think that the answer is evidently yes, the U.S. government has been engaged in systemic torture.

What else could you call a a zillion seasons of 'Friends'.

Yes.

Abu Ghraib is both a moral and a public relations disaster.

Considering that CIA type agencies used to train police squads in countries the US felt might 'fall' to communism to get dogs to rape female suspects, Im of the opinion that the US will probably do whatever the hell it likes and justify it later under the need for 'national security.'

Its sad but I feel the USA has fallen so far from the principles that it was founded on (but that is a different discussion).

This is just painful to read.

In a report to the committee this week, UK-based Amnesty International said there was evidence of “widespread torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees”.

It accused Washington of creating a climate in which torture and ill-treatment could flourish, by trying to narrow the definition of torture and failing to hold senior officials responsible.

Jennifer Daskal, US advocacy director of Human Rights Watch in New York, said yesterday that senior US officials were still refusing to classify “water-boarding” – a near-drowning technique used in the Spanish Inquisition – as torture.

Yes. Could I care less? No. Torture has been used for ages.. it will continue to be used for ages.

Amnesty international is an extreme-leftist organisation that has no credit whatsoever, just feed them some more money and those females that are so great at getting married will shut up and do what they do best, visit receptions and drink champagne, and what they were so good at to get married in the first place. Professional whiners that are payed to do so. And even if it is true, when was it any different?

As the Greeks have said: The strong do what they can, while the weak suffer what they must This is the spector of absolute power corrupting asolutely that all nations should be onguard against. This would not be the first time in the history of the United States that torture has been used. I remember stories from some of the returning Vietnam veterans of incidences of such things....blindfolding some Viet Cong prisoners, loading them unto a helicopter and taking it up to a hover at a reasonably safe altitude, questioning one of them and then throwing him or her out of the cargo bay to make the others believe that they had been thrown to their death. It was an effective technique, usually getting results quickly. It was, however, a form of severe phsycolgical torture. I also heard of instances of villagers being beaten and threatened, even witnessing the murder of a village elder (usually by the Vietnamese interpreters traveling with the Americans) to ellicit information from them. We must all remember the failed policy of relocation (this is what endered Rome to so many of her occupied provinces) that did so much to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese....yeah, that really worked out well.
:stupido2:

This has been the nature of insurgency conflicts since the dawn of war. I daresay that it probably happened in certain places during the Revolutionary War as well. There are accounts of reprisals against both "Patriot" and Tory alike, with public hangings, burning of towns, and denouncing of traitors etc. The nature of our enemies has forced us to confront this phenomena again. It's not that America has never done so in the past, it's that it has, appearently, despite the denials of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, made this a policy in the War against Islamic nutcases who want to see 72 Virgins as my good freind KafirChobee has renamed this war. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justiciar

Yes. Could I care less? No. Torture has been used for ages.. it will continue to be used for ages.

---

So your point is... don't do nothing, torture is someway a natural thing...
If the state of USA is found guilty of violations I'm pretty sure you'll start to see penalties imposed to them, even more in public case like this.
Just so you know that this things are not in vain: my state was charged with violations for the Interamerican Court many times, all those times the state was punished in some form, and all those times it worked, it changed something, the administration, the way the executive worked, the jurisprudence.
That it will continue to happen in some form is a certain thing, just as murder will continue, but does this justifies its systematic application...certainly not. Right?

I’d say extensive, systematic torture is a bit tinfoil hat but sure there is torture going on and I would like to see the amount of it being done, be reduced. I care more about stopping the threats against us then the treatment of my enemies. The angel on my shoulder says we shouldn’t do it at all but the little devil says we should video record it and play it to all who oppose us in hopes it will discourage anyone from f’ing with us.

This is such a C level issue for me, I would much rather see some of the real issues of the world or even my state be fixed before torture even comes into discussion.

Amnesty international is an extreme-leftist organisation that has no credit whatsoever
Thats strange , since the US State Department uses them over 500 times in its recent report .
What is even stranger is if they are extreme leftists , then why are they being used by the US govt as a source to criticise the actions of some leftist governments ?

It would appear that Frags statement doesn't make any sense at all .:juggle2:

Quote:

---

So your point is...

---

That even if the UN does manage to force the US to cease the torturing of prisoners, it won't suddenly come to an absolute halt universally. Torture is an action.. and one that anyone can perform. I'm not saying that torture isn't tragic, simply that it will never really go away. The fact that the US is currently under the spotlight for using torture isn't all that big a deal. It isn't the only country to use it and won't be the last.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justiciar

That even if the UN does manage to force the US to cease the torturing of prisoners, it won't suddenly come to an absolute halt universally. Torture is an action.. and one that anyone can perform. I'm not saying that torture isn't tragic, simply that it will never really go away. The fact that the US is currently under the spotlight for using torture isn't all that big a deal. It isn't the only country to use it and won't be the last.

---

And for that we shouldn't care... I think that this should be a matter of concern for all americans. And you're right, it isn't the only country, but it's the country wich signed, ratified and recognized the international court's competence on this matter. It's the country who has that manifest destiny and has been doing a lot of stuff to transform other countries in democracies, and fighting torture in the process, somehow this doesn't apply to them it seems. Now you should notice that this all is out of the subject, since the question is a factual one, not a valorative one. Has the USA been engaged in systematic torture? The answer is simple, yes or no, I don't even know why there's a maybe option. Perhaps you don't care, but reading at least half of the last article will give you enough information to say if it was or not systematic.

Did I say Yes in my first post in this thread? I can't remember.

UK-based Amnesty International said

Case and point. Anything they say is the opposite from the truth.

Case and point. Anything they say is the opposite from the truth
So Saudi Arabia has equal rights for women and foriegners , Cuba has a free press and Palestinian groups don't do terrorism :no:
It appears in this case you have no point at all Capo .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Case and point. Anything they say is the opposite from the truth
So Saudi Arabia has equal rights for women and foriegners , Cuba has a free press and Palestinian groups don't do terrorism :no:
It appears in this case you have no point at all Capo .

---

Do I ever have a point?

Do I ever have a point?
Sometimes Capo :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justiciar

Did I say Yes in my first post in this thread? I can't remember.

---

Yes you did, and you added that you didn't care. That's what I'm worried about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Do I ever have a point?
Sometimes Capo :2thumbsup:

---

so,
What your Point??

No, the US does not engage in systemic torture. It has happened, but it is not policy.

http://www.answers.com/systemic&r=67 another cross-over word from medicine to politics.

I guess our Lemur, by his citations and usage means:

Quote:

---

affecting an entire system

---

that system being the military, from its commander in chief down to, and understood by, the lowest-ranking West Virginia trailer park reservist private soldier.

Different from 'Systematic'.

The implication being: did/does someone, somewhere in the US military chain of command, direct or condone applying toture?

Clearly, some Privates thought so. And some Sergeants. And some Officers.

Were they all wrong in that "it's OK" thinking? A 'perfect storm' of miscommunication and predisposition to aberrent behavior? Maybe.

Or: was/is there a wink-and-nod approval of such tactics by someone, or several someones, in the chain of command - presumeably, as long as it yielded results? Maybe.

Lots of 'maybe's there, but I voted "No". My Army of 20 years ago would never do such, so I assume today's military likewise would not.

But I recognize that 'my Army' of 30 years ago... might have.

And I fervently hope that those nightmare days of the late 60's/early 70's haven't returned. If they have, we are in big trouble. Politically, militarily, morally. IMO.

It's true, I meant "systemic" in the sense of affecting an entire system. Immediately after posting, I realized it wasn't really the right word, but I left it alone, since I've never figured out how to edit the title of a thread after posting.

Later on I realized someone might think I mis-typed "systematic," which only added to my agony. Oh, the shame of selecting a not-quite-right word for a title.

Im sure they have, yet I dont care. Right or wrong, its still American.

Toture is present, but it in no ways affects our entire system.

"Affecting an entire system"-no.

Disturbingly present? Yes.

Crazed Rabbit