Red Cross Torture Report

[Lemur]

ooo, Godwin already.

I can't help but mention the agencies that approved of waterboarding; you'll note that the Wermacht are missing. They famously refused to torture captives. Sorry I had to include two NSDAP agencies on the list, but there haven't been very many polities that approved of waterboarding. Needs must.

First of all, sexual degradation of ANY type is torture.

This is a new an unexpected development. The Convention Against Torture does not mention sex. Neither does the Geneva Convention. Your opinion is your opinion and nothing more, o subject of a state that (by your own argument) has the right to detain you indefinitely and torture you the entire time, while never filing charges. Your opinion is meaningless before the unlimited power of the state you support. That which is not explicitly forbidden is permitted. So prepare to be legally sodomized.

The program that the Bush Administration used is nothing at all like what was used by Nazis or Japanese. The techniques were completely different, and involved a great deal of physical pain and brutality, and often led to death. They are NOT the same thing, and cannot be compared.

(Dang it ! I forgot to mention Imperial Japan! Bad Lemur!) What a fool I was, to compare waterboarding to waterboarding. It's like comparing apples to apples or something equally insane. And as I have clearly established, with primary documentation in this thread, plenty of people did die in our "enhanced interrogations," so the difference ... hmmm ...

What is mental pain? Knowing you lost your family, your testicles, being sodomized or otherwise sexual assaulted, etc. Mental pain HAS to accompany physical pain of some sort (that is how it can be classified as pain). Doesn't mean that the physical pain has to be inflicted on him though. A guy watching his wife be tortured is mental pain, because he is feeling her physical pain.

Clear as mud. Why are you including sodomy on the list? Your inconsistencies, if spun and attached to a turbine, could power a Kansas town.

Now that you've proved that waterboarding is not torture (that is, the waterboarding we do, not the waterboarding they do) it's time to move on! Have your friends move you through various stress positions until you collapse, then hit you until you get up again, while keeping you awake for eleven days. I can't wait to hear how it's not torture.

[PBI]

What is mental pain? Knowing you lost your family, your testicles, being sodomized or otherwise sexual assaulted, etc. Mental pain HAS to accompany physical pain of some sort (that is how it can be classified as pain). Doesn't mean that the physical pain has to be inflicted on him though. A guy watching his wife be tortured is mental pain, because he is feeling her physical pain.

So castration as a means of extracting confessions is OK so long as we sedate the guy first?

[Vuk]

I can't help but mention the agencies that approved of waterboarding; you'll note that the Wermacht are missing. They famously refused to torture captives. Sorry I had to include two NSDAP agencies on the list, but there haven't been very many polities that approved of waterboarding. Needs must.

And yet when I mention Hitler as an example of how guncontrol can lead to disaster (one of the best examples out there too), I am told not to ever mention Hitler with language that still makes me shudder. And don't play sweet, your comment "this is the company you hang with" or whatever it was was very clearly trying to imply guilt by association. A very underhanded tactic.

This is a new an unexpected development. The Convention Against Torture does not mention sex. Neither does the Geneva Convention. Your opinion is your opinion and nothing more, o subject of a state that (by your own argument) has the right to detain you indefinitely and torture you the entire time, while never filing charges. Your opinion is meaningless before the unlimited power of the state you support. That which is not explicitly forbidden is permitted. So prepare to be legally sodomized.

I do not know about the exact legal rules regarding sex as punishment, but what I was saying is that sexual degradation causes mental pain, and unless you are talking about just fondling, usually involves some degree of pain. Yes, the sanctity of someone's innocence is my opinion. As I said, I am not aware of the laws concerning it, but I think it should be expressely forbidden if it is not already.

What a fool I was, to compare waterboarding to waterboarding. It's like comparing apples to apples or something equally insane. And as I have clearly established, with primary documentation int this thread, plenty of people did die in our "enhanced interrogations," so the difference ... hmmm ...

That is like me comparing condom to a knife as good sex toys, then saying, they are both tools! How silly of me to compare tools with tools. As I said, they were two very different things under the same name. The 'waterboarding' that the Japanese did for instance involved forcing large amounts of water down someones throat till their stomach cannot hold anymore, then stomping on their stomach so they throw it up. Other types of waterboarding are all designed to cause extreme physical pain, and can easily lead to death. The tecniques oked by the BA were NOT designed to cause physical pain, and were relatively safe. Sure, they could have a heart attack and die, but the same thing could happen if they sent Jessica Simpson in to have sex with them. Waterboarding would probably put less stress on their heart. :P And as I said, there is a difference between the tecniques and the tecniques misused.

Clear as mud. Why are you including sodomy on the list? Your inconsistencies, if spun and attached to a turbine, could power a Kansas town.

Doesn't take much to power a light bulb. :P Seriously though, mental pain stems from physical pain, and if physical pain is absent, you cannot have mental pain. That is a scholarly concept, not the fruit of my imagination. What is so hard to understand?

Vuk

[Vuk]

So castration as a means of extracting confessions is OK so long as we sedate the guy first?

Pardon me, I thought it was not necessary to list deprevation of body parts. Physical pain/physical damage is the truer definition, and the one I should have used.

[Lemur]

Vuk, the Godwin example of you jumping into a gun control thread is poorly chosen. You ignored the OP, you ignored the discussion, and jumped into how gun control enabled the Third Reich. It was, if anything, a classic example of how not to invoke the Nazis in an argument. If you're still sore about it, then clearly you haven't come to terms with your own error.

So pointing out the very few despotic regimes that supported waterboarding as interrogation is "guilt by association"? Even if you are voluntarily choosing to associate yourself with such scum, and defending the tactic (literally) with your life by playing at it in a bathtub?

Your inclusion of sexual degradation as torture is intriguing. It speaks to a certain squeamishness in your attitude that I did not expect. We did long-term enforced nudity with detainees, as well as splashing them with fake menstrual blood. When they refused to eat (the only option of protest left to them) we strapped them into chairs and forced food down a tube run through their noses. But sodomy, well, that's crossing the line? Really?

As for your "our waterboarding is humane and legal while their waterboarding was torture and wrong" argument, I'm curious; does any torture technique, if performed properly and without inflicting permanent damage, cease to become torture? If the mortality rate is reduced, then it becomes okay?

"mental pain stems from physical pain, and if physical pain is absent, you cannot have mental pain"

I don't even know where to start with this one. You can cause mental pain without physical pain, and quite easily. You yourself provided the example in an earlier post; threaten a person's family, and you will cause mental anguish. And where does sleep deprivation fall on your idiosyncratic list of torture/not-torture? I can't help but notice you've been ducking and dodging every time sleep deprivation is mentioned ...

[Andres]

Vuk, we all make mistakes, we're human.

Why don't you just admit that you were wrong by stating that sleep deprivation+being humiliated for weeks+enforced nudity+waterboarding+... =/= torture.

Talking about a pointless discussion

This is like arguing that apples are not apples

[Vuk]

Vuk, the Godwin example of you jumping into a gun control thread is poorly chosen. You ignored the OP, you ignored the discussion, and jumped into how gun control enabled the Third Reich. It was, if anything, a classic example of how not to invoke the Nazis in an argument. If you're still sore about it, then clearly you haven't come to terms with your own error.

Quite wrong. The thread was on why the Obama administration was NOT actually pursuing gun control, and I based my post on the OP. I gave a link to a video which disputed the opening post, then discussed why the opening post was wrong. (because if the administration is pursuing gun registration, then they are directly or indirectly pursuing or opening the door to gun control) This is what my historical referrences were for. You chose to ignore my argument entirely and swear at me for using a historical source because you have a Hitler fetish.

So pointing out the very few despotic regimes that supported waterboarding as interrogation is "guilt by association"? Even if you are voluntarily choosing to associate yourself with such scum, and defending the tactic (literally) with your life by playing at it in a bathtub?

I am suggesting guilt by association? NOT SO! (But if you choose to associate with them we have to wonder...) Save it for someone who will believe it Lemmy. Don't insult my intelligence with such an obvious pile of bollox. You quite clearly implied guilty by association.

Your inclusion of sexual degradation as torture is intriguing. It speaks to a certain squeamishness in your attitude that I did not expect. We did long-term enforced nudity with detainees, as well as splashing them with fake menstrual blood. When they refused to eat (the only option of protest left to them) we strapped them into chairs and forced food down a tube run through their noses. But sodomy, well, that's crossing the line? Really?
Any type of sexual degradation is crossing the line. Regardless of who does it or for what reason.

As for your "our waterboarding is humane and legal while their waterboarding was torture and wrong" argument, I'm curious; does any torture technique, if performed properly and without inflicting permanent damage, cease to become torture? If the mortality rate is reduced, then it becomes okay?

I didn't say it is not torture because it does not inflict permanent damage, but because it does not inflict physical PAIN or DAMAGE. Those are the two things that torture does, and they are both missing.

"mental pain stems from physical pain, and if physical pain is absent, you cannot have mental pain"

I don't even know where to start with this one. You can cause mental pain without physical pain, and quite easily. You yourself provided the example in an earlier post; threaten a person's family, and you will cause mental anguish. And where does sleep deprivation fall on your idiosyncratic list of torture/not-torture? I can't help but notice you've been ducking and dodging every time sleep deprivation is mentioned ...
Killing someone's family is causing physical pain and damage to that family, which in turn causes mental pain to the person being tortured. Threatening a family will cause mental stress, killing or abusing the family will cause mental pain. Oh, I have not been jumping into an argument about sleep deprivation? Pardon me, but my plate is pretty full with waterboarding right now. Maybe once I clear it off I will give my opinion on that.

Vuk

[Vuk]

Vuk, we all make mistakes, we're human.

Why don't you just admit that you were wrong by stating that sleep deprivation+being humiliated for weeks+enforced nudity+waterboarding+... =/= torture.

Talking about a pointless discussion

This is like arguing that apples are not apples

Andres, I have admitted I was wrong before (both times involving torture coincidently), but both times I did so because I was convinced that I was wrong. Until someone convinces me that I am wrong, or I come to a realisation that I am wrong, I am not going to change my opinion. I am not closed minded, but I am not gonna change my opinion because I am asked to. My argument now is about waterboarding BTW, I may be feeling daring enough to discuss the others later, but what I had experience with is waterboarding, and what I am arguing is waterboarding. Until this discussion is over, I am not gonna confuse the debate more by jumping into every other related thing!

[Fixiwee]

Let's sum up.
You have stated your opinion on the matter.
Everyone else says you're wrong.
You refuse to accept our statements, and furthermore you lack any sort of evidence save for your own experience.

This is own opinion, but you're not winning this argument. You are just defending your own view on this.

[Vuk]

Let's sum up.
You have stated your opinion on the matter.
Everyone else says you're wrong.
You refuse to accept our statements, and furthermore you lack any sort of evidence save for your own experience.

This is own opinion, but you're not winning this argument. You are just defending your own view on this.

Wrong, I believe that the evidence supports my belief, and you believe that the same evidence supports yours. My evidence is the same evidence that you used. Very few people are involved in the debate that has taken place over a very short period of time, and it is too early to see if I am alone in my belief. No one is 'winning' the argument, because that only happens if the opposition admits they are wrong. I am not defending my point of view, I am challenging yours. You initially stated your opinion in this thread (as did Lemur), and I am posting to challenge it. I am not on the defense.

[Fixiwee]

I posted hard evidence with the definition of torture. You interpreted it differently then the rest here. I call you out on hard evidence, not your own empirical expierence. You just keep on going about "your test on waterboarding."
People have died because of that. How can it not be torture?
I'm sorry, but you are simply ignorant to the definition of torture.

[Tribesman]

No, the part where they learn about interrogation AND torture. Two seperate things that are put together as the lines often cross.

Errrr...Vuk have a relly hard question , these people that set up the interogation AND torture lessons .Do they class waterboarding as torture? you can answer yes or yes its entirely up to you .
You could of course give a different answer but then you would just be talking bollox as usual .

BTW I take it you are now familiar with the Pueblo incident (or is that too much for you to comprehend) , which of the treatments the crew went through definately count as torture according to your government and military the courts the crew the media and just about every sane person on the planet ?
Which of those have you claimed is definately not torture ?

(Dang it ! I forgot to mention Imperial Japan! Bad Lemur!)

Imperial Japan eh

Now then can you think of a rather well known military administered prison starting with C in an island starting with S where such unjustifiable barbarity occured

[Vuk]

People have died because of that. How can it not be torture?
I'm sorry, but you are simply ignorant to the definition of torture.

Many people have died getting open heart-surgery, is that torture? It is not the intent to cause pain or kill, and if used properly, will not. You should be arguing against its improper use, not it. Heck, people die of heart failure having sex, that must be torture too.

[Tribesman]

No one is 'winning' the argument, because that only happens if the opposition admits they are wrong.

[Fixiwee]

Many people have died getting open heart-surgery, is that torture? It is not the intent to cause pain or kill, and if used properly, will not. You should be arguing against its improper use, not it. Heck, people die of heart failure having sex, that must be torture too.

Are you deliberatly ignorant? What has heart failure to do with that? Torture is harming people physicly or mentaly by any means to get information. I'm not operating on a heart to get someones information. (Unless it's a torture method.) You're spinning around unrelated stuff to obscure the point of the argument. Waterboarding is to humiliate and put stress under the victim. It's mental torture.

Here, let me quote;

Why don't you just admit that you were wrong by stating that sleep deprivation+being humiliated for weeks+enforced nudity+waterboarding+... =/= torture.

If you fail to see the argument then you are ignorant to the facts.

[Vuk]

Errrr...Vuk have a relly hard question , these people that set up the interogation AND torture lessons .Do they class waterboarding as torture? you can answer yes or yes its entirely up to you .
You could of course give a different answer but then you would just be talking bollox as usual .

And are you forgetting that my entire point is that it is being FALSELY classified as torture?

[Vuk]

Are you deliberatly ignorant? What has heart failure to do with that? Torture is harming people physicly or mentaly by any means to get information. I'm not operating on a heart to get someones information. (Unless it's a torture method.) You're spinning around unrelated stuff to obscure the point of the argument. Waterboarding is to humiliate and put stress under the victim. It's mental torture.

People have died because of that. How can it not be torture?
I'm sorry, but you are simply ignorant to the definition of torture.

You just insinuated that because people have died of it that makes it torture. I was pointing out what an absurd statement that is.

Torture is harming people physicly or mentaly by any means to get information.

So which definition do we use now?

[Andres]

So which definition do we use now?

How about "common sense"?

[Fixiwee]

How about "common sense"?

I can predict that we will start spinning in circles.

Article 1

1. 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.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

And the fact is that the definition that YOU presented does NOT classify it as torture. You are trying to post someone's opinion as proof, and I said it was that opinion that did not matter to me.


By the definition you gave and just by basic common sense, the waterboarding the Bush administration authorized is NOT torture.

[PBI]

You just insinuated that because people have died of it that makes it torture. I was pointing out what an absurd statement that is.


So which definition do we use now?

Speaking of definitions, you are trying to argue you can objectively prove waterboarding is not torture based upon your arbitrary personal definition that purely mental pain does not count as pain at all. You could just as well define pain to exclude pulling out a person's fingernails and conclude that is not torture by the same logic.

Were the laws outlawing torture written using the same definition of pain as yours? I highly doubt it.

[Vuk]

How about "common sense"?

I was answering HIS definition though Andres, I simply stated that common sense is what laws are supposed to be based in and that is what is really important. If a law goes against common sense, then it is not very good. I was not disputing his definition, simply stating that both common sense and the legal definition he provided were in support of my argument.

[Fixiwee]

Coincidently, guessing from Andres quote, he and I have the same interpretation of waterboarding being torture.

[Vuk]

Speaking of definitions, you are trying to argue you can objectively prove waterboarding is not torture based upon your arbitrary personal definition that purely mental pain does not count as pain at all. You could just as well define pain to exclude pulling out a person's fingernails and conclude that is not torture by the same logic.

Were the laws outlawing torture written using the same definition of pain as yours? I highly doubt it.

No, that is NOT what I am trying to prove. Look at the testimony of people who have been waterboarded and read what it is meant to do in the memos. It does not and is not supposed to cause physical pain. THAT is fact. Read the darned links that LEMUR posted for heavan's sake. Or did you not bother because you thought they would fit your opinions anyway?

[Vuk]

Coincidently, guessing from Andres quote, he and I have the same interpretation of waterboarding being torture.

Case closed, you must be right!

[Tribesman]

And are you forgetting that my entire point is that it is being FALSELY classified as torture?

So the sane world has one definition , militaries governments international organisations and judiciaries have one definition , the dictionary has a definition , treaties on torture have a definition.
And Vuk manages to have a different definition and his is right have you been taking some strange mind altering substances vuk ?

[Fixiwee]

No, that is NOT what I am trying to prove. Look at the testimony of people who have been waterboarded and read what it is meant to do in the memos. It does not and is not supposed to cause physical pain. THAT is fact. Read the darned links that LEMUR posted for heavan's sake. Or did you not bother because you thought they would fit your opinions anyway?

Wait. You said the opinion of Robert Baer does not interesst you and yet you accuse people not to read links? That's funny.
I'm sure Robert Baer has no idea about torture. He is not an expert on this matter and he never worked for the CIA.
Oh no! I'm melting. I'm meeeeeeelting.

[Lemur]

Yeah, it's clear that nothing said by any human being will budge you from your position, Vuk. You are at variance with the entire civilized world. You are in disagreement with history, with the law, and with multiple conventions. The only people who agree with you are rabid partisans and/or people with a stake in protecting the former administration's factotums.

If anyone wants to actually, you know, discuss the issues, I'll be happy to participate. But this is increasingly feeling like feeding a troll.

[PBI]

you are trying to argue you can objectively prove waterboarding is not torture

No, that is NOT what I am trying to prove.

my entire point is that it is being FALSELY classified as torture

Hmm...

[Vuk]

So the sane world has one definition , militaries governments international organisations and judiciaries have one definition , the dictionary has a definition , treaties on torture have a definition.
And Vuk manages to have a different definition and his is right have you been taking some strange mind altering substances vuk ?

I am not arguing the definition of torture, I am arguing that waterboarding fits that definition. There are many sane people who agree with me that it does not.

Wait. You said the opinion of Robert Baer does not interesst you and yet you accuse people not to read links? That's funny.
I'm sure Robert Baer has no idea about torture. He is not an expert on this matter and he never worked for the CIA.
Oh no! I'm melting. I'm meeeeeeelting.

I never said he was not an expert. I simply said that I did not need to see a repeat of his opinion which I (as well as do many experts) disagree wtih.

Yeah, it's clear that nothing said by any human being will budge you from your position, Vuk. You are at variance with the entire civilized world. You are in disagreement with history, with the law, and with multiple conventions. The only people who agree with you are rabid partisans and/or people with a stake in protecting the former administration's factotums.

If anyone wants to actually, you know, discuss the issues, I'll be happy to participate. But this is increasingly feeling like feeding a troll.

With the entire civilized world huh? Boy, that is an ego Lemur. There are LOT's of sane people who disagree with you on this. It is nice of you to attack stigma to everyone who disagrees with you. If I were you, I would liken that to a historical figure. *whistles*
Am I attaching stigma to you for your opinion?
You think that I am a troll Lemmy? Good, then please stop feeding me. I would rather talk with someone who has some sort of respect for me and my opinions and is not so openely offensive and arrogant. Don't get me wrong though, I would rather you say it outright then play games about it. This is indeed a big improvement.

[Lemur]

A very good post about Pelosi and the briefings, certainly the most detailed and thoughtful take on the issue that I've seen.

Pelosi last week said she had no idea that EITs were even being used and insisted that the subject of waterboarding never came up. That's hard to swallow, even if you believe the claim about waterboarding. Why would the CIA even brief Pelosi about EITs if it had no intention of using them? [...]

In general, the CIA briefers tend not to be the same people who execute the programs; they tend not to be the supervisors who oversee them; they tend not to be the senior officials who set policy. That's why Pelosi couldn't simply -- or wouldn't simply -- voice an objection during the original briefing. Her briefers were middlemen.

There's no evidence from the CIA records that Pelosi did anything but passively accept the briefings -- at which point the CIA could content itself with the knowledge that the ONLY outside source of accountability was sufficiently read in to the program and did not object to it.

One can't help but conclude that while Pelosi might not have known everything, she knew enough.

-edit-

Advice to other Orgahs: If someone is behaving in a troll-like manner, best option is to ignore him or her. Without an audience, such people usually alter their behavior or go away.