"Torture Lite" --- Your Questions Answered

Dr Adequate

Banned
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
17,766
How can torture be said to be "light"?
... they gave way to the so-called light methods (we will see what they are immediately). This way was sure ... it is not really necessary to use a rack or hot coals to drive the average human being out of his mind ...the simple-minded Middle Ages used dramtic and picturesque methods to squeeze out the desired confessions... In the twentieth century, taking advantage of our more highly developed knowledge... people came to realise that the accumulation of such impressive apparatus was superfluous.
Give examples.
They shone automobile lights in the prisoner's face... they made use of the hot air heating system to fill the cell first with icy cold and then with stinkng hot air... Preliminary humiliation was another approach... prisoners awaiting interogation were made to lie face down for several hours... and forbidden to raise their heads or make a sound... If one were systematically to question former prisoners, many more such examples would certainly emerge. They all had but a single purpose: to discourage and humiliate... The prisoner is deafened; sometimes he actually loses his sense of hearing... Light effects involve the use of an extremely bright light... your eyelids become inflamed, which is very painful. And then in the interrogation room searchlights are again directed into your eyes...
How about forced standing and immobilisation?
He is not allowed to stir for several hours. Is that all? Yes, that's all. Just try it yourself... people were compelled to kneel... Then there is the method of simply compelling a prisoner to stand there ... Sometimes even one day of standing is enough to deprive a person of all his strength and force him to testify to anything at all.
But what was the favorite method?
... in 1937 we observe no general consistency of methods --- except for enforced sleeplessness...

Sleeplessness, which they quite failed to appreciate in medieval times. They did not understand how narrow are the limits within which a person can preserve his personality.

"The prison doctor reports you have a blood pressure of 240/120. That's too low, you bitch! We're going to drive it up to 340 so you'll kick the bucket, you viper, and with no black and blue marks, no beatings, no broken bones. We'll just not let you sleep."

Here is how one victim... describes his feelings after this torture: "Chill from great loss of blood. Irises of the eyes dried out as if someone was holding a red hot iron in front of them. Tongue swollen from thirst and prickling as from a hedgehog at the slightest movement. Throat racked by spasms of swallowing."

One can say that sleeplessness became the usual method in the Organs. From being one among many tortures, it became an integral part of the system of State Security.
Were these methods effective in producing large quantities of worthless misinformation?
Sometimes even one day of standing is enough... to force him to testify to anything at all.
But did this really have official sanction even in Stalin's Russia? Did it have open governmental and public approval? Or were they at least ashamed of it?
As always, Stalin did not pronounce that final word ... Even the chief of some provincial NKVD administration... could show Stalin his hands were clean: he had issued no direct instructions to use torture! But at the same time he had ensured that torture would be used!
--- All quotations from ch. 3 ("Interrogation") of vol. I of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago.
 
Grammatron said:
How many were prosecuted for torture or abuse?
I think you're missing my point entirely.

Over on, say, the Torture In Iraq thread, we're discussing the full-fat, full-sugar, unauthorized torture by American personnel which, according to the Pentagon, has led to people being "literally tortured to death". Of course you will try and prosecute them. I still have enough faith in America to believe that.

But on this thread I am talking about "torture lite" --- humiliation, fear, loud noises, bright lights, sleep deprivation --- these are techniques openly endorsed and used by your government for extracting "information" (I put the word "information" in quotes because evidently people wil tell their torturers what the torturers ask them to).

The Americans who use these techniques of extracting falsehoods from prisoners will not be prosecuted for torture or abuse. Because, hey, this is only "torture lite". Such as Stalin's torturers used. Look again at the very last Q&A on my list. With the other questions, I was drawing a parallel: with the last question, I was making a bitter distinction. Stalin was ashamed of "torture lite", the NKVD was ashamed of "torture lite", and "torture lite" was against USSR law. The Americans who openly use "torture lite", as Stalin did covertly, are officialy sanctioned, approved of by the American public, and within the law, it seems. They will not be "prosecuted for torture and abuse". They will be given a promotion, and, eventually, a pension.
 
That's right, lump all of us together. Every American called up his state representative and senator and said "We must have torture, please. Torture lite with some peanuts."

Ahhhh, I don't think so. I am totally, fully, 100000% against torture, physical or mental. I in no way shape or form condone any of this. I am an American by birth. What would you like me to do? And what other causes would you like me to take up as well in order to avoid any semblence of doing anything worthwhile in my life?

Are you going to abandon everything to work the rest of your life to stop torture. Then you have no place to indict me. Thank you very much...

As far as I'm concerned, the current 'administration' is trying very hard to become the first Dictatorial Theocracy of the United States. The Patriot Act (the hammer and chisel to the Constitution and Bill of Rights), Guantanamo Bay, illegal invasion of Iraq (which I did not support for the very reasons very few support it now), support of 'Faith-based' initiatives, bolstering the wealthy while everyone else pays more and more for oil and gasoline (making the Bushes wealthier), Federal laws to stop the humane termination of a life, Federal law to disallow marriages other than heterosexual monogamous. This country is being run by wackos! I tried my best, twice, to avoid this. Now it's everyone elses turn.

ETA: As V.P. Cheney said in an interview today, "We like to do what's best for the American people." and "I don't follow polls." In other words, they aren't listening to us. This is no longer fully a government of, by, and for the people. It's a government with its own agenda, damn the populace.
 
Dr Adequate said:
The Americans who use these techniques of extracting falsehoods from prisoners will not be prosecuted for torture or abuse.

Could I see your list of torture methods allowed by the US and where you got them?
 
When I say "the American public", I mean as a general trend, and not down to the last particular member of it.
kuroyume0161 said:
Ahhhh, I don't think so. I am totally, fully, 100000% against torture, physical or mental. I in no way shape or form condone any of this. I am an American by birth. What would you like me to do?
Since you ask, I'd like you to go on saying exactly that as loud as you can.

And I'd also appreciate it if you spent a little more time attacking the people on this forum who condone "torture lite" and a little less time attacking people like me, who condemn it. The aim of my OP was to show that "torture lite" is un-American. Apparently you agree with me. So let's be friends.
 
Oh, I forgot to answer WildCat's question about "torture lite". How remiss of me.
Originally posted by WildCat
Do you really think that dripping water on someones forehead is one step away from electric shocks?

Frankly, I find the comparisons despicable at worst, and dishonest at best.
They began to drip cold water on his scalp --- a classic torture --- which then ran down his body in rivulets. They did not inform him, of course, that this would go on for only twenty-four hours. It was awful enough at any rate for him to lose consciousness, and he was discovered the next day apparently dead. He came to on a hospital cot. They had brought him out of his faint with spirits of ammonia, caffeine, and bodily massage. At first he had no recollection of where he had been or what had happened. For a whole month he was useless even for interrogation.
--- same chapter, same source.

So, I guess my own answer to WildCat would be --- I don't know. One step away from electric shocks? Well --- one step away in which direction? I haven't tried both. Have you?
 
Dr Adequate said:
...these are techniques openly endorsed and used by your government for extracting "information" (I put the word "information" in quotes because evidently people wil tell their torturers what the torturers ask them to).
I'm not an expert but I understand that interrogation techniques are not as simple as asking a question and then accepting whatever is offered. Typically intelligence is gathered and the inquisitor asks questions in which many of the correct responses are already known. If the person who is being interviewed gives incorrect information then the "technique" is continued until a more accurate picture is presented. The individual being interrogated doesn't know what the interrogators know and don't know. Lying for the sake of lying is counterproductive, so why lie? It is true that using torture and other methods to extract information can be ineffectual if not down right useless. But that is not always the case and need not be ineffectual if used properly.

This is not an endorsement of interrogation, current interrogation methods and or torture.
 
Dr. Adequate, could you cite your sources?
U.S. interrogation techniques

In late 2002 and early 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved specific interrogation techniques for extracting information from Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Bush administration made the previously classified lists public Tuesday. The final April 2003 list of 24 techniques approved by Rumsfeld, plus three he rejected out of hand and seven that were initially approved but apparently later rejected:

Approved techniques

• "Direct": Asking straightforward questions.

• "Incentive/removal of incentive": Providing a reward or removing a privilege, beyond those that are required by the Geneva Conventions.

• "Emotional love": Playing on the love a detainee has for an individual or a group.

• "Emotional hate": Playing on the hatred a detainee has for an individual or a group.

• "Fear up harsh": Significantly increasing the fear level in a detainee. (This is generally interpreted as yelling or throwing things but not touching the detainee.)

• "Fear up mild": Moderately increasing the fear level in a detainee.

• "Reduced fear": Reducing the fear level in a detainee.

• "Pride and ego up": Boosting the ego of a detainee.

• "Pride and ego down": Attacking and insulting the ego of a detainee, not beyond the limits that would apply to a prisoner of war. (Guidance notes that while the Geneva Conventions prohibit threatening or insulting subjects who refuse to answer, the detainees are not formally considered prisoners of war. Guidance says "consideration should be given" to the views of "other nations" that POWs should be afforded such protections.)

• "Futility": Invoking the feeling of futility in a detainee.

• "We know all": Convincing a detainee that the interrogator already knows the answer to the question he is asking.

• "Establish your identity": Convincing a detainee that the interrogator has mistaken him for someone else.

• "Repetition approach": Continuously repeating the same question to a detainee within interrogation periods of normal duration.

• "File and dossier": Convincing a detainee that the interrogator has a damning and inaccurate file that must be fixed.

• "Mutt and Jeff": Pairing a friendly interrogator with a harsh one.

• "Rapid fire": Questioning in rapid succession without allowing detainee to answer.

• "Silence": Staring at a detainee to encourage discomfort.

• "Change of scenery up": Removing a detainee from the standard interrogation setting — generally to a more pleasant location, but not to a worse one.

• "Change of scenery down": Moving a detainee from the standard interrogation setting to one less comfortable, but not one that would constitute a substantial change in environmental quality.

• "Dietary manipulation": Changing the diet of a detainee, but with no intended deprivation of food or water and without an adverse cultural or medical effect. Example: substituting MREs (U.S. military "meals ready to eat") for hot rations.

• "Environmental manipulation": Altering the environment to create moderate discomfort, such as by adjusting the temperature or introducing an unpleasant smell. Conditions would not be such that they would injure a detainee, and the detainee would be accompanied by an interrogator at all times. (Guidance cautions that some nations view this as "inhumane" and says that "consideration of these views should be given before application of this technique.")

• "Sleep adjustment": Adjusting the sleeping times of a detainee, such as by reversing sleep cycles from night to day. Guidance notes that "this technique is not sleep deprivation."

• "False flag": Convincing detainees that individuals from a country other than the United States are interrogating them. (Some other countries condone torture.)

• "Isolation": Isolating a detainee from other detainees while still complying with the basic standards of treatment. (A lengthy guidance notes that this technique requires detailed instructions and guidelines, has not generally been used for more than 30 days, and requires approval for extensions of the length of the isolation.)

Techniques approved in December 2002 but apparently dropped in April 2003:

• Forced shaving of the beard or the head.

• Hooding during transport and interrogation.

• Interrogations for up to 20 hours.

• Use of mild, non-injurious contact.

• Stress positions, such as standing, for a maximum of four hours.

• Removing a detainee's clothing.

• Use of dogs to frighten a detainee.

Techniques proposed by Guantanamo interrogators but rejected by Rumsfeld in December 2002:

• The use of scenarios designed to convince a detainee that death or severely painful consequences are imminent for him or his family.

• Exposure to cold weather or cold water, with appropriate medical monitoring.

• Use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation.

Contributing: Source: Defense Department memos declassified Tuesday.
 
Mycroft said:
Could I see your list of torture methods allowed by the US and where you got them?
Unfortunately, it so happens that I don't have a copy of Torture Lite For Beginners. Do you?

If you mean: where do I get my information?

(1) What your government boasts about openly.
(2) The British news.
(3) These forums.
(4) The things the my-country-right-or-wrong faction on these forums puts up as straw men when challenged over full-sugar, torturing-people-to-death type torture (see my reply to WildCat above).

And on this last point --- maybe I am wrong, and the people I met on the "Torture In Iraq" thread are not typical of the American people, are condoning tortures which are illegal according to US law, and who are speaking --- vehemently, I might add --- against all that America stands for. In which case, perhaps you would care to tell them so.
 
Dr Adequate said:
...where do I get my information?

(1) What your government boasts about openly.
Sounds like a claim to me. Thanks in advance for citing the source.

(3) These forums.
Oh well, that settles it doesn't it? I mean, these forums are proof of something...right?

And on this last point --- maybe I am wrong, and the people I met on the "Torture In Iraq" thread are not typical of the American people, are condoning tortures which are illegal according to US law, and who are speaking --- vehemently, I might add --- against all that America stands for. In which case, perhaps you would care to tell them so.
The world is full of nut jobs. I'm doing my best to disabuse people of all sorts of crazy things but it is a difficult job. You'll have to be patient. In the mean time I do so appreciate your sourcing your claims.

Thanks again,

RandFan
 
Dr Adequate said:
Unfortunately, it so happens that I don't have a copy of Torture Lite For Beginners. Do you?

If you mean: where do I get my information?

(1) What your government boasts about openly.
(2) The British news.
(3) These forums.
(4) The things the my-country-right-or-wrong faction on these forums puts up as straw men when challenged over full-sugar, torturing-people-to-death type torture (see my reply to WildCat above).

And on this last point --- maybe I am wrong, and the people I met on the "Torture In Iraq" thread are not typical of the American people, are condoning tortures which are illegal according to US law, and who are speaking --- vehemently, I might add --- against all that America stands for. In which case, perhaps you would care to tell them so.

I don't see a list of torture methods allowed by the US there. Did you forget it?
 
Uhhhhh..... Dr. Adequate? Hellooo.... hmmmm...

He probably had something important to do. Oh well.
 
Thanks for the link RF! I was meaning to search for some sources for the interrogation portion of my 10 Myths essay. That does the trick quite nicely. Dr. Adequate should mark me down in very strong support for those interrogation methods.

The only three from that list that are not used by the armed services during basic training programs are "Establish your identity," "False flag," and "Isolation." Interesting.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Oh, I forgot to answer WildCat's question about "torture lite". How remiss of me. --- same chapter, same source.

So, I guess my own answer to WildCat would be --- I don't know. One step away from electric shocks? Well --- one step away in which direction? I haven't tried both. Have you?
I have to say, I'm a bit skeptical that dripping cold water on a person's forehead alone can couse the symptoms described in that book. At any rate, this method was never approved of, according to RandFan's link. Do you have evidence that it is used?

I have been shocked w/ a cattle prod once, and many times by standard household current.
 
geni said:
I rahter doubt the US goverment is dumb enough to aprove anything in a way the general public can find out about.

Of course it is trivial to show that such tactics have in fact been used:

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en...e=ISO-8859-1&q=Kahtani+sleep&btnG=Search+News
Really? Don't get me wrong, I'm very concerned about the events and I have my suspicions but I've been asking this question for some time and so far no one has offered specific proof.

From your link:

Last weekend, Time magazine published excerpts from a Guantanamo interrogation log covering unusual steps taken to extract information from Kahtani in the winter of 2002-2003. The tactics included sleep deprivation, making him bark like a dog, slapping him with a glove, shaving his head and beard, and forcing him to urinate on himself.[/b]
Except for the sleep deprivation I don't think the others qualify as torture and it is common to call any change in sleep patterns as sleep deprivation. It's true that one could get 8 hours of sleep but be deprived of sleep if one is only allowed to sleep for 1 hour every three hours. The article doesn't tell us how much sleep is given only that it is sleep deprivation.

So more coercive methods were used, including extended isolation and sleep deprivation, having water poured on his head, middle-of-the-night questioning and — horrors! — being forced to listen to Christina Aguilera music.
Again, water poured on head? Sleep deprivation? Is that what the logs said? Why not quote the logs directly?

Time said interrogators used such techniques as dripping water on Mr Kahtani's head; strip-searching him and making him stand nude; and depriving him of sleep. At one point, after receiving fluid intravenously for dehydration, Mr Kahtani was told to urinate in his pants by interrogators who refused his request to use the bathroom so they could continue with their questioning.
In any event I would love something other than a reporters claim of sleep deprivation.
 
WildCat said:
I have to say, I'm a bit skeptical that dripping cold water on a person's forehead alone can couse the symptoms described in that book.
Right. Your "skepticism", versus the carefully annotated book of a Nobel Laureate. Sure, the accounts of the horrors of Stalin's regime are doubtful. He only killed 10,000,000 of his own citizens, so he can't have been all that bad.

Oh... hang on a minute... suddenly you're defending the worst excesses of totalitarian Communism --- so long as good ol' Uncle Sam might have shared in them.
At any rate, this method was never approved of, according to RandFan's link.
And, according to RandFan's link, is there one single rule which says that this form of torture should not be practiced?
Do you have evidence that it is used?
Only one piece of evidence, and it is this: you put up dripping on the forehead as an example of the mild and humane tortures which Americans practice, as opposed to the use of electrodes. I confess, I don't know which source you were citing when you (tacitly) claimed that Americans have practiced this torture. The, ah, "missing link" --- is yours.
I have been shocked w/ a cattle prod once, and many times by standard household current.
And I once got stung by an electric fence. What of it? You seem to be arguing on my side here. You have been shocked "many times", you say. Did any of these incidents make you "useless even for interrogation" for a whole month, or would it take the "water torture" to do that to you?

In your post, you were implicitly --- and angrily --- claiming that electrocution should be seen as more barbaric than the water torture. Would you rather be "shocked" again, or would you like to submit to the water torture --- having read of its effects?
 
RandFan said:
Uhhhhh..... Dr. Adequate? Hellooo.... hmmmm...

He probably had something important to do. Oh well.
The infamous "Argument From Bedtime" is pathetic enough. But you have just come up with the "Argument From The Fact That He Is Answering The Questions He's Been Asked, And Doen't Just Make Up The Answers Off The Top Of His Head, And Cannot Type At More Than 100 Words Per Minute, And Despite His Chronic Insomnia Still Sleeps Occasionally, And Also Has To Fit In His Real Life In The Real World Somehow".

I respected you right up until I read this post. Now you've got some work to do. I mean, what are you playing at? No, I am not at your beck and call. Live with it.
 

Back
Top Bottom