Quote:

---

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.

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

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?

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

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.

---

So what are hot pokers like to them, then?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

The point is that Rummy wants these people tortured.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

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... As long as there are fanatical fruitcakes with aspirations of mass murder...

---

Quote:

---

And even if fanatics are representative of the Moslem culture, they are still human beings capable of...reason

---

Quote:

---

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:

---

is not only despicable but may be ethically tantamount to negligent homicide.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually Geezer, the statement stands on its own.

---

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

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.

---

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Interrogation and torture both share common goals, but there is a noted difference in the severity and effectiveness.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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:

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

And you apparently have a hard time actually reading my posts.

---

Quote:

---

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'.

---

Quote:

---

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?”

---

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.

---

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

---

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).

---

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?

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

This kind of worming around points of law really doesn't fool anyone.

---

Quote:

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

If you have problems with any specific technique in the memo, I'd be glad to discuss that with you.

---

Quote:

---

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:

---

Show me one place in the GC on Treatment of Prisoners of War where it specifically defines "torture".

---

Quote:

---

Don't play word games with me.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---