Gitmo: more whiny BS about "torture" - get real

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
The point of my post was that bigred was being intelectually dishonest in "forgetting" to quote a part of the report that listed more brutal incidents. Nobody has argued that all the points on this list constitutes torture, so I fail to see the point of your question.

He said his portion was an excerpt, there was nothing "dishonest" about it. His point was made, that many of the actions on the list were not torture.

Originally posted by Leif Roar
However, to answer it anyway: it depends on the circumstances. Whether an action constitutes torture depends at least as much on the circumstances as on the severity of the action. To put it in very black and white terms, there is a difference between cutting someone's finger off to save them from gangrene and cutting their finger off to learn where he hid the money.

Yes, it does depend on the circumstances, doesn't it? That's why I'm skeptical about agencies that list actions out of context, and include actions that are clearly not torture under any circumstances.

Yes, there is a difference between cutting a finger off to save from gangrene, and learning where the money is hid. There is also a difference between cutting the finger off to learn where the money is, and just doing it because you're a brutal sadist. They're both crimes, but only one is torture.

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Likewise, there is a difference between pointing a loaded gun at someone that might be the "armed and dangerous" criminal you're looking for, and pointing a loaded gun at a prisoner tied naked to a chair.

FYI, I was hardly "armed and dangerous" at the time.

Your point about the difference, however is completely valid. Which is why the charge of pointing a gun at someone in and of itself is completely nonsensical without context. There are many circumstance where a soldier might legitimately point a gun at a prisoner in a prison, so if you allege "torture" without giving the specific circumstances why the action is out of line, you betray your agenda that makes the entire report suspect.

 

[bigred]

Funny how you left out this part:

8. (U) In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses (ANNEX 26):

a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;

f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;

g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

Funny how you didn't mention that none of these were proven and were claims by DETAINEES, not witnesses. Tags says they're credible, but they aren't exactly proven. Talk to me when they are.

Sheesh. I thought this place was loaded with "I want proof" kinda people. Do you believe in homeopathy and ghosts as well?

 

[bigred]

Pardon me but this is your diffuse, error-filled thread stating your unsupported opinion in which you disregard all contradictory evidence.

Next time I'll try broadcasting in a frequency you're capable of receiving ... AM.

Good one.

How about trying a frequency that deals with reality vs getting your panties in knots and making goofball accusations. That would be nice.

Please, point me to all these errors I've made. I did misquote the standing for 30 min's thing (which is a trivial one anyway).

 

[Leif Roar]

Funny how you didn't mention that none of these were proven and were claims by DETAINEES, not witnesses. Tags says they're credible, but they aren't exactly proven. Talk to me when they are.

I thought the text I quoted made it quite clear that these were not proven, but merely found to be credible: "In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances I find credible..."

 

[richardm]

There is also a difference between cutting the finger off to learn where the money is, and just doing it because you're a brutal sadist. They're both crimes, but only one is torture.

I think you - and some others in this thread - are using a very narrow definition of "torture", and I think it's probably an unreasonably narrow one. You don't have to be trying to extract information for someone for it to be torture.

I don't have my OED to hand, but:

Torture is the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain as an expression of cruelty, a means of intimidation, deterent or punishment, or as a tool for the extraction of information or confessions. Sometimes torture is practiced even when it appears to have little or no functional purpose beyond the gratification of the torturer or because it has become the norm within the context.

- emphasis mine.

From here .

 

[varwoche]

Please, point me to all these errors I've made. I did misquote the standing for 30 min's thing (which is a trivial one anyway).

OK, let's break it down.

The OP set things off on flimsy footing. That's because even though you included a link with your rant, you failed to cite which part of the article supported the rant. Regardless one's position on the issue, this type of sloppy posting inevitably leads to further miscommunication.

Then Bjorn asks you for specifics. You ignore the request and charge ahead with your rant. He asks again. You ignore again, and then make your errant post. Bjorn challenges your errant post. And then you post this truly odd reply:

bigred
The standing part I did mis-quote, pardon. Here's the quote: "standing for prolonged periods, isolation for as long as 30 days, removal of clothing, forced shaving of facial hair..." I have heard 30 min's (or more) on the standing part, but wasn't specified in the CNN article.

Fine, you corrected the record. But then you follow it with idle, unsupported speculation -- still batting zero. (This probably would have been a good time to regroup and post some facts.) Instead we are treated to this:

The torture reference wasn't aimed at the article per se, but a general impression that started after the Abu Ghraib stuff.

Brilliant. On top of the ongoing confusion, we now learn that you are posting random links that have nothing to do with your rant.

And not only had you posted zero evidence to support your rant, you dismiss out of hand contradictory evidence, apparently just because it didn't synch with the rant. (I don't mind rants incidentally, until they pretend to be more than that.)

So yes, "whiny BS" better describes your posts than your target. Note, I've not quoted your puffed-up statements about skepticism.

 

[Nova Land]

... There is also a difference between cutting the finger off to learn where the money is, and just doing it because you're a brutal sadist. They're both crimes, but only one is torture.

Could you clarify that? Which of these do you believe is not torture:

(a) the intentional infliction of severe pain in order to obtain information,

or

(b) the intentional infliction of severe pain simply for sadistic pleasure?

In the US, both of these have traditionally been considered as torture. I am puzzled why you are drawing a semantic distinction here.