Torture lite: A few issues

[Pure]

torture lite is in the news a lot, though its advocates prefer terms like harsh interrogation methods; the intent of this category of 'pressure' is to set out clearly some legal methods available to 'our side,' which do NOT go so far as to clearly and gravely violate the Geneva conventions against 'torture' (plain and simple, 'classical').

These methods include (at the extreme)--

uncomfortable positions, blaring music, hooding, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, maybe a few electrodes in non vital areas.---

let's say it's defined roughly as any pressure tactic against or treatment of a captive NOT causing death or grave or permanent bodily harm, in most cases. (very occasional heart failures have been precipitated, though not intentionally.) generally the pain--if any--would amount to 'extreme discomfort', NOT to terrible agony, as when your finger is sawed off.

apparently new legislation by congress authorizes it, at least for aliens thought to be committing hostile acts against the US. see the urls for the Detainee Treatment Act in my posting below.

torture lite may include, at the extreme, various humiliations and indignities, including sexual ("jerk off for the camera" "sodomize your cellmate") or otherwise ("sit in your shit") which do no serious bodily harm.

people have various ideas about 'torture lite' so i've created some statements to check if you AGREE.

Check more than one, if you like, and it's applicable.

Your screenname, for your vote is publically viewable.

Note: The official docs are hard to find, but one is the US Declarations appended to the UN Convention against Torture [CAT], or more formally,

First, the Convention against Torture itself reads:

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm

//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. //


Here is the declared US understanding of the above: each nation was allowed to make certain declarations and reservations to its endorsement. Approved by the GA, 1984; entered into force, 1987.

http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord1998/documentation/reservations/cat.htm

[start]
Declarations and Reservations:
U.S.

(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from

(1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(3) the threat of imminent death; or
(4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

(b) That the United States understands that the definition of torture in article 1 is intended to apply only to acts directed against persons in the offender's custody or physical control. [end]

====
In simple terms then, 'torture lite' is something the US considers lawful, since it is defined as methods falling short of the 'torture' definition above, to which the US subscribes. IOW, using the definition above, further 'clarified' by Gonzales and co., the US gov may say, "We do not torture."

Here is the Bybee memo's url. It makes the argument that 'torture' means only the really extreme inflictions of pain or grievous injury, as in needles under the nails. Many 'cruel, degrading and inhumane' methods do not rise to this level, e.g. hooding, loud noise and light 24/7 etc.

Bybee Memo of Aug 1, 2002,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...emo20020801.pdf

If you look at pp 28-30, the basic point is that some methods may be cruel, inhuman and degrading but not rise to the level of torture.

 

[CharleyH]

torture lite is in the news a lot, though its advocates prefer terms like harsh interrogation methods; the intent of this category of 'pressure' is to have some legal methods available to 'our side,' which do NOT go so far as to clearly and grossly violate the Geneva conventions against 'torture' (plain and simple, 'classical').

These methods include (at the extreme)--

uncomfortable positions, blaring music, hooding, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, maybe a few electrodes in non vital areas.---

let's say it's defined as any pressure tactic NOT, in most cases, causing death or grave or permanent bodily harm. (very occasional heart failures have been precipitated, though not intentionally.) generally the pain--if any--would amount to 'extreme discomfort', NOT to (almost) mortal agony, as when your finger is sawed off.

apparently new legislation by congress authorizes it, at least for aliens thought to be committing hostile acts against the US.

torture lite may include, at the extreme various humiliations and indignities, including sexual ("jerk off for the camera" "sodomize your cellmate") which do no serious bodily harm.

people have various ideas about 'torture lite' so i've created some statements to check if you AGREE.

Check more than one, if you like, and it's applicable.

Your screenname, for your vote is publically viewable.

How little we know about S&m and how often we impliment the theories.

 

[Liar]

And then there's this little issue...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14924664/site/newsweek/

Torture is it seems, at it's most effective not in an interrogation situation, but as a tool for management-by-fear by a totalitarian regime. The threat of torture, and "disappearance" or you or your family was the prime tool for for instance Piniochet and Saddam to keep the majority of people in check. Don't complain, keep your head down and go on with your daily life and you'll be all right. Challenge the authority in even a minor way, and there's a nice electrode rack with your name on it.

As a tool for non-rebrellion, somehow effective. As a tool for information exctraction? The jury's still out.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Damn me and my vision. I thought it said INadmissable. Damn poll. Otherwise, I'd have voted differently.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I have two problems with this.

First, any information you get from torture is suspect. Remember the witch hunts of the 16th and 17th centuries. Those tortured named all sorts of innocent people just to make the torture stop.

Second, I am of the opinion that prisoners, regardless of the so-called status as defined by Bush and his cronies, should be treated just as if they were American Citizens. We do that now in this country with arrested foreigners. What makes the prisoners at Gitmo different other than Bush and his crowd want to extract vengence for something the prisoners may or may not be guilty of?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

It WILL be citizens in time. Shades of "The Siege" with Bruce Willis and Denzel Washington.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

It WILL be citizens in time. Shades of "The Siege" with Bruce Willis and Denzel Washington.

Yes. It's a "slippery slope" Bush has opened up here. For now it's a few "insurgents" held in Gitmo. Next it will be American Citizens moved to Gitmo for "innterogation" (which I believe has already occured). Then it will become the common practice for law enforcement and human rights will be set back to the 1920's and before.

 

[Darkniciad]

I can't find anywhere thusfar that defines the full specifics of the bill, at least on the various news sites. What I do see would indicate that the bill should preclude the sodomy example listed, as that falls under the dominion of rape - listed as one of the techniques not allowed during interrogation.

While the use of these techniques, whether you want to call them torture light or harsh interrogation, is useless for obtaining confessions IMO, they certainly have value as a means to wear down the resistance of someone.

From the examples listed, water boarding, forced/filmed masturbation and the like are on a dangerous line of what should be acceptable from my point of view. Forced sodomy is certainly over the line, but I have seen nowhere that remotely indicates this is deemed acceptable under the new bill.

Loud music, extreme ( but not dangerous to health ) temperature changes, sleep deprivation, hard labor, sense deprivation ( confinement in a dark place where even the sound of the captive is dampened ) are all techniques that can wear down a person's resistance and cause them to reveal possibly life-saving information, however. I'm willing to accept certain humiliation techniques as well, such as nudity and lack of privacy, so long as it is not overdone to the point of being broadcast or something similar. Certainly, there should be not photographic record of such.

As far as I'm concerned, when someone is captured - armed and actively fighting on the battlefield - wearing no uniform and under no banner, they are not protected in any way by the Geneva Conventions. The Conventions, in fact, exclude these people from the protection of the document specifically.

That being said, we must apply the standards of this nation and treat captives in a humane manner, regardless of whether they are afforded the protections of the Conventions. I just don't think that boils down to locking them up in "prison lite" and asking them nicely if they wouldn't mind telling us which of their comrades is planning to kill us.

Useful in trials or other such proceedings- no.
Useful to save lives and prevent attacks- yes.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

As far as I'm concerned, when someone is captured - armed and actively fighting on the battlefield - wearing no uniform and under no banner, they are not protected in any way by the Geneva Conventions. The Conventions, in fact, exclude these people from the protection of the document specifically.

Convention III specifically includes "those persons who take up arms to protect their homes, property or country" and "unarmed civilians" even though they do not wear a uniform.

This, I think, is where the entire argument for a "clearification" of the convention falls short. What's wanted it a free hand to treat prisoners any way they see fit, even though, by my reading most of those people currently being held meet the criteria as prisoners of war.

As prisoners of war, they may not be tried for crimes, but must be returned to their countries at the end of hostilities.

Therefore, Bush needs a change in the inturprtation of the convention so he can extract "justice" on these prisoners.

 

[CharleyH]

And then there's this little issue...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14924664/site/newsweek/

Torture is it seems, at it's most effective not in an interrogation situation, but as a tool for management-by-fear by a totalitarian regime. The threat of torture, and "disappearance" or you or your family was the prime tool for for instance Piniochet and Saddam to keep the majority of people in check. Don't complain, keep your head down and go on with your daily life and you'll be all right. Challenge the authority in even a minor way, and there's a nice electrode rack with your name on it.

As a tool for non-rebrellion, somehow effective. As a tool for information exctraction? The jury's still out.

I understand the political and what you are geting at, yet LETS SAY IT. Why can't we say it?

 

[Darkniciad]

Convention III specifically includes "those persons who take up arms to protect their homes, property or country" and "unarmed civilians" even though they do not wear a uniform.

This, I think, is where the entire argument for a "clearification" of the convention falls short. What's wanted it a free hand to treat prisoners any way they see fit, even though, by my reading most of those people currently being held meet the criteria as prisoners of war.

As prisoners of war, they may not be tried for crimes, but must be returned to their countries at the end of hostilities.

Therefore, Bush needs a change in the inturprtation of the convention so he can extract "justice" on these prisoners.

The opposition argument is just as murky. Many people do indeed define them as prisoners of war, and at the same time demand they should be given legal rights and council under our judicial system.

Some will say they should be returned to their home country because hostilities are "ended" and two breaths later mock that "mission accomplished" incident.

The people killing indiscriminately out there are using the restraint and humanitarian nature of civilized nations against us to accomplish their goals and stymie any ability to stop them. The type of warfare they are employing demands revision of rules now long obsolete. There is room for debate in *how* they are revised, but the fact they need revision is obvious. We see it every day when some nameless, nationless whakko detonates themselves outside a cafe full of civilians.

 

[Huckleman2000]

...As far as I'm concerned, when someone is captured - armed and actively fighting on the battlefield - wearing no uniform and under no banner, they are not protected in any way by the Geneva Conventions. The Conventions, in fact, exclude these people from the protection of the document specifically.

Useful in trials or other such proceedings- no.
Useful to save lives and prevent attacks- yes.

As I pointed out in an earlier thread on this, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the detainees in Gitmo are covered under the Geneva Conventions. All these distinctions about uniforms, flags, bandits, yada yada yada, make no difference at this point.

Bush said early on that he wasn't going to treat the detainees according to the GC, because he said they weren't covered. The Supreme Court said otherwise.

If they weren't covered under the GCs, there would be no reason for this latest torture bill that BushCo claimed was needed to 'clarify' the GCs.

BushCo's poster boy for the usefulness of torture is Al Quaida travel agent Abu Zubaydah. Here's author/investigative reporter Ron Suskind on what top FBI analysts told him:

...As well, what folks inside the CIA and FBI were realizing, even as the president and others inside the administration were emphasizing the profound malevolence and value strategically to the capture of Zubaydah, is that Zubaydah is psychologically imbalanced, he has multiple personalities. And he was not involved in various events that we thought he was involved in....

In the case of Zubaydah, when it comes to some of the harsh interrogation tactics he was put through, what occurred then was that he started to talk. He said, as people will, anything to make the pain stop. And we essentially followed every word and various uniformed public servants of the United States went running all over the country to various places that Zubaydah said were targets, and were not.

Ultimately, we tortured an insane man and ran screaming at every word he uttered.

 

[TriggerHippie]

I’m rather curious as to the point where we become the monsters we’re supposedly fighting. If we engage in the same activities, how are we different? And, are the needs of many really greater than the needs of one when the entire concept of the US Constitution is to protect individual freedom? What I want to know, is who gets to decide what constitutes this and that?

We, the US, have a President who has circumvented and bypassed the “law” by presidential signing statements more than all the combined Presidents in our nation’s history. Basically, George W. Bush issued 23 signing statements in 2001; 34 statements in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges, and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law.

That number has likely surpassed 600 plus challenges by now. Bush didn't veto a single bill; but all those claims, in his own signing statements, he said that they were unconstitutional in how they relate to him.

Rather than veto laws passed by Congress, Bush used his signing statements to effectively nullify them as they relate to the executive branch.

That’s disturbing.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I’m rather curious as to the point where we become the monsters we’re supposedly fighting. If we engage in the same activities, how are we different? And, are the needs of many really greater than the needs of one when the entire concept of the US Constitution is to protect individual freedom? What I want to know, is who gets to decide what constitutes this and that?

We, the US, have a President who has circumvented and bypassed the “law” by presidential signing statements more than all the combined Presidents in our nation’s history. Basically, George W. Bush issued 23 signing statements in 2001; 34 statements in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges, and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law.

That number has likely surpassed 600 plus challenges by now. Bush didn't veto a single bill; but all those claims, in his own signing statements, he said that they were unconstitutional in how they relate to him.

Rather than veto laws passed by Congress, Bush used his signing statements to effectively nullify them as they relate to the executive branch.

That’s disturbing.

Government by decree, dear. Nothing new. All hail Emperor George I of the American Empire. Welcome to the fall of the Republic.

 

[TriggerHippie]

Government by decree, dear. Nothing new. All hail Emperor George I of the American Empire. Welcome to the fall of the Republic.

Psst!

<cough>

George II.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Psst!

<cough>

George II.

Oops, my bad. The Republic is dead, Long Live The Empire. What's next? Vader or Tiberius?

REPUBLICAN Party my ass! Imperial Party these days! Fucking misnomer!

 

[Huckleman2000]

Psst!

<cough>

George II.

George III, isn't he? [you forgot Washington!]

Which would be really ironic, considering how the first George III ended his reign in madness...

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Here's my biggest problem to the whole issue:

Geneva Convention, Article 3, Section 1 says the following:

a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

Okay, since we're speaking in legal terms here, DEFINE torture. For every crime there is a specific and clear cut definition of what constitutes the crime. For example; There are different degrees of murder in this country. Aside from murder there is manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc. Each has a very specific definition and set of circumstances to go with it. There is none of that with the GC. It gives generic terms and stops at that point. Torture is a great example. Is sleep deprivation "torture"? I don't think so, but I'm sure that there are some who do. Who gets to be the deciding voice in the matter?

Here's the kicker to me:

c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

Humiliation and degrading? Is this torture? Who decides what is humiliating and degrading when it comes to the treatment of prisoners? We have American prisoners within our own prison system that I'm sure will tell you feel humiliated and degraded by the every day life of being in prison.

Let's say I have an aversion to other men seeing me naked. I am a prisoner. I am FORCED to strip naked in front of 9 other men and take a shower in a communal shower stall. You know, like a locker room shower. One big room with 10 shower heads coming out of the wall. I feel humiliated and degraded in being forced to do this. According to how the GC is written, I have been tortured. It's an outrage to my personal dignity. I felt humiliated.

Then again, isn't simply being locked up a humiliating experience in and of itself? If you feel humiliated for being arrested, you're being tortured.

There is no dividing line specifically laid out between what is acceptable and what isn't. They only use vague, all encompassing terms open to very broad interpertation.

Is being forced to take a communal shower torture? It is if a person feels humiliated by it. Who gets to decide if it really is torture? Are we to call a tribunal and put someone on trial for war crimes because inmates were forced to take communal showers and felt humiliated?

That's what we're getting into. Questions like this won't be able to be answered until some specific definitions are assigned. Without those definitions, it's all simply a matter of opinion without a clear cut authority to say whose opinions are correct.

 

[Pure]

the official documents are not easy to find.

one is the Detainees Treatment Act,

http://www.justicescholars.org/pegc/detainee_act_2005.html


and more recently there is the Military Commisions Act 2005.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109047Uxq::



TORTURE, as the US officially understands it, is specified in the US Declaration [i.e., interpretations] atttached the UN Convention against Torture, which I've excerpted in an addition to the first posting.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Maybe something that's gotten forgotten here on this issue. We are sitting her arguing the Geneva Convention and how Bush and his cronies want to reinturperate it.

Back up a minute. The Geneva Convention is NOT an American Law or Institution. It is an INTERNATIONAL agreement. What right does the U.S. Congress have to define the terms of an agreement that involves individual foreign nations? It seems to me there is a jurisdictional problem here.

It's almost like Bush and the "Signing Letters". He doesn't like a law so he just makes up a letter and ignores it. You can't do that in this case. The definition of terms have to come from the Convention Member nations.

 

[The_old_man]

Torture is a very difficult thing to define, I personaly would find listening to "Sting" for any liength of time torturious. Others would probably react similarily to my favorite "Tchaikovsky".

Those who indulge in BD/SM might enjoy a bit of the whip.

Religious fanatics of any flavor can be easily tortured by denigrating any of their tennets.

Nuf said.

 

[TriggerHippie]

Oops, my bad. The Republic is dead, Long Live The Empire. What's next? Vader or Tiberius?

REPUBLICAN Party my ass! Imperial Party these days! Fucking misnomer!

Think it might be lead in the pipes that’s the problem with Washington?

Hey! It helped Rome commit suicide ….

George III, isn't he? [you forgot Washington!]

Which would be really ironic, considering how the first George III ended his reign in madness...

I don’t really count Washington … he was trying to prevent a monarchy.

Irony. Umm, I’ll tentatively agree, because I’m not always certain I understand “irony.” I’m sorta a distant part of that “Isn’t it Ironic” generation. <cough>

Maybe something that's gotten forgotten here on this issue. We are sitting her arguing the Geneva Convention and how Bush and his cronies want to reinturperate it.

Back up a minute. The Geneva Convention is NOT an American Law or Institution. It is an INTERNATIONAL agreement. What right does the U.S. Congress have to define the terms of an agreement that involves individual foreign nations? It seems to me there is a jurisdictional problem here.

It's almost like Bush and the "Signing Letters". He doesn't like a law so he just makes up a letter and ignores it. You can't do that in this case. The definition of terms have to come from the Convention Member nations.

The US has essentially eviscerated the UN.

Yeah, an international signing statement, so to speak, eh?

Might makes right? Mebbe?

 

[izabella]

I understand the political and what you are geting at, yet LETS SAY IT. Why can't we say it?

Say what? What are you not saying?

 

[Huckleman2000]

More on defining torture

One of the qualities that make the GCs timeless is precisely that they leave the definitions somewhat ambiguous.

In doing so, they leave open the possibility that international sensibilities will evolve, and some things that were seen as 'not torture' at the time of the signings would be construed as such in the future.

The problem with issuing definitions of torture is that you're then defining how much torture is 'okay'.

The whole point of the GCs is to ban torture, not tell nations how much they can abuse prisoners.

However you try to whitewash it, this idea of adding 'clarity' is not about outlawing torture, it's about wanting to see how much we CAN torture.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Think it might be lead in the pipes that’s the problem with Washington?

Hey! It helped Rome commit suicide ….


I don’t really count Washington … he was trying to prevent a monarchy.

Irony. Umm, I’ll tentatively agree, because I’m not always certain I understand “irony.” I’m sorta a distant part of that “Isn’t it Ironic” generation. <cough>


The US has essentially eviscerated the UN.

Yeah, an international signing statement, so to speak, eh?

Might makes right? Mebbe?

Either that, or Dubya likes his wine Roman-style.