Torture Techniques Revealed at Gitmo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

So, following that logic, if anal rape is worse than vaginal rape, vaginal rape should be okay since it isn't the worst thing you can think of.

---

That has nothing to do with the price of fish, however since you brought them up as distinctly different things it should be noted that both would be listed solely in the 2nd regime. Thank you although I doubt the imaginary and hypothetical test subject Rameusb5 would thank you for adding to the regiment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

That has nothing to do with the price of fish, however since you brought them up as distinctly different things it should be noted that both would be listed solely in the 2nd regime. Thank you although I doubt the imaginary and hypothetical test subject Rameusb5 would thank you for adding to the regiment.

---

You still haven't explained how the mere existence of a worse act makes another act okay.

Coincidentally, John McCarthy wrote a piece in the Independent today on torture and our desensitisation to its realities.

Worth reflecting on, whatever one's position.

John McCarthy: Television is making torture acceptable

Bond's ability to joke while his genitals are beaten makes a mockery of the degradation felt by real victims

Published: 24 May 2007

The blows were excruciating, and the anticipation of them almost as bad. For several weeks while held hostage in Lebanon in the late 1980s, I and my fellow captive Brian Keenan were at the mercy of a guard who took a twisted delight in inflicting pain.

Sometimes he would burst into our cell, screaming and striking out with the butt of his rifle. The only sensible response was to roll up into a foetal position until his fury was spent. At other times he would enter silently. Stand over us - or even on us - pushing the barrel of his gun against our temples.

It took a long time for our bodies to recover from these batterings and for our minds to be clear of the sickening dread the man inspired. But in comparison with the horrors inflicted on many clients of the British charity the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, of which I am a patron, the damage was slight.

It has been 16 years since I regained my freedom, but I still find it difficult, if not impossible, to witness on screen images of the deliberate infliction of pain by one individual on another.

Today, however, such images are increasingly difficult to avoid - for extremes of violence involving torture have become prized ammunition in the battle of the box office and the television ratings war. And with this relish for depicting the darker side of human nature have come a number of lies that must be countered, if we are to continue to live in a world where the rule of law, and respect for other human beings, remain paramount.

It is becoming increasingly clear that what we enjoy as entertainment shapes the world in which we live. As the American Psychiatric Association said recently, in calling for a reduction in television violence: "The debate is over. Over the last three decades, the one overriding finding in research on the mass media is that exposure to media portrayals of violence increases aggressive behaviour in children."

There is research too showing that the lessons learned are copied over into adulthood, while adults exposed to violent entertainment can become desensitised and begin to identify with the aggressors, and the aggressors' solutions to problems.

The biggest lie that has gained currency through television is that torture is an acceptable weapon for the "good guys" to use if the stakes are high enough. Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures, so the logic goes, a line of reasoning that is particularly pernicious given the excesses that have marked the "war on terror". It is a lie that underpins Fox Television's thriller 24, which features the ruthless agent Jack Bauer in a series that Time magazine recently dubbed "a weekly rationalisation of the 'ticking bomb' defence of torture".

The "ticking bomb" scenario, in which torture is justified if there is a limited period in which to prise from a suspect information that would avert a catastrophe, is the argument of choice for torture apologists everywhere. Certainly the co-creator of 24, Joel Surnow, makes no bones about where he stands in the debate, telling The Independent recently: "If there's a bomb about to hit a major US city, and you have a person with information... if you don't torture that person, that would be one of the most immoral acts you could imagine."

Torture is never justified. It maims or kills the individual, while eroding the moral and legal principles on which a just society is based, and corrupting those branches of the state which sanction and inflict it.

The second lie that surrounds its fictional depiction is that torture works, despite the long held recognition - dating back to at least the time of Aristotle - that a victim will often say anything to stop the pain.

Late last year, the US Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan met the producers of 24 to suggest they tone down the content. He was concerned not just at the impact the torture was having on the reputation of the US, but on how it was influencing the behaviour of troops in the field. One former US Army interrogator has publicly admitted that he and his colleagues in Iraq copied behaviour and techniques seen on TV when questioning prisoners.

The entertainment industry is also guilty of minimising the true horrors of torture by failing to show the very profound impact it has on its victims' lives. James Bond's ability to joke while his genitals are beaten in Casino Royale, for instance, makes a mockery of the pain, humiliation and degradation felt by the real victims of sexual violence helped by the MF.

The point might seem academic, until it is remembered that the Bush administration has consistently tried to maintain that a variety of coercive techniques used in the "war on terror" - including sleep deprivation, forcing people to stand for long periods of time in contorted positions, and being subjected to noise bombardment - don't actually amount to torture, a stance that flies in the face of findings by the UN Committee Against Torture.

As a human rights organisation, the MF defers to no one in its support for freedom of expression. The numerous writers, journalists and other public figures among our clients who have fallen foul of repressive governments would demand nothing less. But when freedom of expression leads, either directly or indirectly, to an incitement to violence, a responsible society has the right to say that there are other principles too that it is equally important to maintain. One cannot be at the expense of another.

In case no-one remembers who Mr McCarthy is, here's a link to his story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

You still haven't explained how the mere existence of a worse act makes another act okay.

---

I never made that assertion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

I never made that assertion.

---

Then your argument doesn't hold up.

The only conclusion is that you assume that 'they' or doing worse, while it's not certain that the people you are torturing are 'them', you just assume so because they're Arabs or because they somehow ended up in gitmo (kinda like a witch trial, the fact that you're accused means you must have done *something*).

You are subjecting people who have never tortured and possibly oppose it to waterboarding, claiming they would have done worse. This is simply, false.

Shade:

Let's expand on the definitions if you please. Let's, just for the sake of argument, suppose that torture is a valorative term, perhaps you consider it that way, and perhaps it's plausible indeed, considering that it depends on the feeling of an human being. So having that in consideration: A- Does waterboarding don't clasify as torture (just to take an example)? B- Does sexual molestation clasify as such? C- The same but with sexual humiliation D- What about sleep depravation... We could follow, of course, but if we consider torture as the activity of inflicting pain in another subject, then do those examples fit or don't.

If they do. Do they also damage the dignity of an human being and possibly his health? If they do, why should they be allowed considering a liberal principle?

EDIT: Also don't you consider that the populace shares that same idea on what fits and what doesn't as torture?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Worth reflecting on, whatever one's position.

---

A valuable read. There is litte contention that you'll get from me on the point that movies, tv, and the media in general completely shape for some while mildly influencing for others not only a world view but their emtional reactions. It's in my opinion that this, like others, miss the plate high and inside with their conclusions. The most dangerous result of the consumption of material like that talked about within the article is the corruption of definitions. We are unable to have a meaningful public discourse when the public is unable to define and make distinctions. This article in particular would take our collective numbing by Die Hard and 007 in the macro and promote it to the causation, and inclusion, of what are clearly defined practices within a clearly defined environment and one that we neglect to give clearly defined legality and public authority and review.

With all respect to John McCarthy this idea that to seek definitions not only for education but to understand context is to corrupt principle emtirely, is typical of the crowd that believes in order to throw out the bath water the baby must go with it. This is simply dishonest intellectually with all due respect to those on the other side of the aisle. It seems cold and callous of me I'm sure to say such things about arguments that wrap themselves in the protective garb of basic human dignity, but that is a luxury that the opposition is afforded and which I must at every corner demonstrate and put into context of the basic human dignity battle with which we are truly engaged. That being not only of the war and the nature of the opposition, but the battle for the code of law and legal definitions, that which when all else fails us, is, aside from faith, what we appeal to to uphold that right to dignity.

-edit- 1 verb tense, 1 adverb....I'm sure there are more...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Then your argument doesn't hold up.

---

Then you haven't read my postings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

The only conclusion is that you assume that 'they' or doing worse, while it's not certain that the people you are torturing are 'them', you just assume so because they're Arabs or because they somehow ended up in gitmo (kinda like a witch trial, the fact that you're accused means you must have done *something*).

---

Never have I made this assumption as key to any argument. I have provided comparison for differentiation in its meaning that definitions are important. As far as you putting words in my mouth about being racist or gestapo-like in establishing guilt you not only seek to totally reinvent my position but you ignore all its substance, not to mention do me insult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

You are subjecting people who have never tortured and possibly oppose it to waterboarding, claiming they would have done worse. This is simply, false.

---

I never made that claim, never said we torture them because they would torture us...my position is not retaliotory in nature nor are the interogation techniques I propose a punishment imposed.


Soulforged

I'm not ignoring your post, but I want to give it the attention it deserves and I'm running around taking care of responsibilities here and preparing for my children's return tonight from visiting their aunt. May I receive a pass to address you at later point when I can compose more than quick responses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

I have provided comparison for differentiation in its meaning that definitions are important.

---

In this case, only if you're a lawyer or a politcian. Most people have some sort of moral compass that tells them when somethign si right or wrong without needing a complex definition. Most people will probably condemn waterboarding, whether or not it fits some technical definition of torture is largely irrelevant. At least from a moral standpoint.

Besides Lemur already posted definition adn legal terms, I believe waterboarding is considered torture under those ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

In this case, only if you're a lawyer or a politcian. Most people have some sort of moral compass that tells them when somethign si right or wrong without needing a complex definition.
Most people will probably condemn waterboarding, whether or not it fits some technical definition of torture is largely irrelevant. At least from a moral standpoint.

---

Asked and answered a few times, law is not in absence of morality nor am I advocating such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Besides Lemur already posted definition adn legal terms, I believe waterboarding is considered torture under those ?

---

I specifically addressed those or did you not read those responses either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

I specifically addressed those or did you not read those responses either.

---

Nah, I can't read everything that gets posted in the backroom :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Nah, I can't read everything that gets posted in the backroom :laugh4:

---

:laugh4: I can't blame you there, it tends to run long and deep. At times myself not always the champion of brevity that I should be. If you do get the time, and have the interest, do look them up and if there is something particular about my responses then please do offer them up, I'll gladly respond. Just please don't post anymore that I have not responded to or answered things that I have. :)

Allow me to clarify my views:

Anything beyond actual captivity is unacceptable.

To put it even more simply - Any activity that attempts to extract information from them is unacceptable.

They are prisoners... Fine. I can somewhat understand the need for their captivity in order to keep them out of the war zones and killing more people. But we shouldn't be using them for intelligence gathering.

There are other (and more reliable) means of gathering information that don't leave our collective hands dirty. Why run the risk of tarnishing our international reputations (not to mention our collective consciences). The people who are committing these brutal acts represent the United States. As a voting citizen, I find these activities not only brutal, but completely unnecessary and stupid.

Just because our enemies do it doesn't mean we have to. I am damn proud that we show more restraint than the radicals in the Middle East. At least I thought we did.