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

[Tony]

And the next time the USA is accused of committing "torture," I'll in fact be LESS likely to believe it, given the apparent definition of the word.

The reason you don't and will continue not to believe it more likely has to do with your perpetual hard-on for the military.

 

[Mephisto]

And the next time the USA is accused of committing "torture," I'll in fact be LESS likely to believe it, given the apparent definition of the word.

How do you know that the propaganda isn't working?

When you throw "standing for 30 minutes" in with things like traumatic beatings, having items inserted into rectums, having patrol dogs sic'd on you, it's almost like the teen in the drug store buying everyday items to detract attention from the condoms he's also buying.

Maybe you were meant to concentrate on the least "torturous" punishment?

 

[demon]

bigred:
"And the next time the USA is accused of committing "torture," I'll in fact be LESS likely to believe it, given the apparent definition of the word."

And I`d suggest this is the real intention behind this story.

This Time Magazine article looks like an effort to trivialise the issue t o me.
A well known classic propaganda technique.

 

[Mephisto]

And I`d suggest this is the real intention behind this story.

This Time Magazine article looks like an effort to trivialise the issue t o me.
A well known classic propaganda technique.

Apparently we "demons" think alike. Should I be worried?

 

[demon]

I was just thinking that Mephisto! That time you beat me to it by one minute!

Keep up the good work

 

[bigred]

How do you know that the propaganda isn't working?

When you throw "standing for 30 minutes" in with things like traumatic beatings, having items inserted into rectums, having patrol dogs sic'd on you, it's almost like the teen in the drug store buying everyday items to detract attention from the condoms he's also buying.

Maybe you were meant to concentrate on the least "torturous" punishment?

Interesting point, although it still seems to me this is the crying wolf thing vs the propaganda you suggest. And again not just talking about that article alone, but the general impression of people howling "torture" about things which are hardly that.

 

[Mycroft]

How do you know that the propaganda isn't working?

When you throw "standing for 30 minutes" in with things like traumatic beatings, having items inserted into rectums, having patrol dogs sic'd on you, it's almost like the teen in the drug store buying everyday items to detract attention from the condoms he's also buying.

Maybe you were meant to concentrate on the least "torturous" punishment?

Setting aside the LCT's you touch on an important point.

This is why we avoid overblown rhetoric. When we call things torture that are clearly not torture, we de-value the impact of the word and make it more difficult to highlight real human rights abuses. Ditto with words like "fascism", "Hitler", "Gulag" and any number of concepts that get abused by one side of the political spectrum or another.

 

[Bjorn]

That's the one.

Did you read the report? I saw 1 or 2 things mentioned (out of 13 total) which MIGHT have been torture, although "abusive" is probably a lot more accurate (if that). Just because a General uses certain adjectives to describe what happened doesn't make it torture.

Also note he says "included the following acts" - so there may have been (and I think were) other, lesser things that happened, eg the forcing them to stand part, although I don't have a link offhand.

Regardless.....do I think they went too far, and in some cases were or may have even been abusive? Sure. Was most if not all of it torture? Please.

The Pentagon-sponsored Schlesinger report calls it

acts of “brutality and purposeless sadism,” and rejects the idea that the abuse was simply the work of a few aberrant soldiers.

the general impression of people howling "torture" about things which are hardly that .....

it still seems to me this is the crying wolf thing .....

Sodomizing with a broomstick isn't really torture ... it's rape, at most ....

Rumsfeld, who saw more pictures from Abu Ghraib than we did, called it "blatantly sadistic, cruel, and inhuman". You call it "crying wolf".

 

[Mephisto]

Setting aside the LCT's you touch on an important point.

This is why we avoid overblown rhetoric. When we call things torture that are clearly not torture, we de-value the impact of the word and make it more difficult to highlight real human rights abuses. Ditto with words like "fascism", "Hitler", "Gulag" and any number of concepts that get abused by one side of the political spectrum or another.

You're 100% right, Mycroft. I'm beginning to see that now.

I also inadvertantly left you out of a kudos I gave to others in another string. I do count you among those who have taught me a great deal in spite of my sometimes abrasive attitude. Thanks.

 

[Leif Roar]

When we call things torture that are clearly not torture, we de-value the impact of the word and make it more difficult to highlight real human rights abuses.

I agree with what you're saying, but I think it's also important to point out that certain methods, such as sleep deprivation or forcing someone to stand for prolonged periods (many hours, even days,) are far less innocous than they sound and were historically used, to great effect, by the kind of torturers that also used hot irons and whips.

 

[gnome]

I heard that Mr. Mugabwe recently bulldozed a mosque into the ground.

I haven't heard a single voice of "outrage" over this from any of the usual "offendees".

Is Allah only offended when the US "desecrates" something.......or is this just part of Mugabwe's urban renewal program?

Ok, here's one: Mugabwe sucks.

I could have sworn this has been covered before... but it seems to me there is a simple psychological basis for being more outraged by evil acts committed by a group one is a member of, than worse acts committed by a group one doesn't bleong to. I don't know why some people find this so unusual.

 

[Ralph]

Ok, here's one: Mugabwe sucks.

I could have sworn this has been covered before... but it seems to me there is a simple psychological basis for being more outraged by evil acts committed by a group one is a member of, than worse acts committed by a group one doesn't bleong to. I don't know why some people find this so unusual.

What does Mugabwe have in common with the Muslims that are screaming about US desecration of the Koran?

He's not a Muslim last I knew....

He's doesn't "belong" to the group protesting Koran desecration any more than US Marines do.....

He does suck though----no question about that.

 

[Mycroft]

I agree with what you're saying, but I think it's also important to point out that certain methods, such as sleep deprivation or forcing someone to stand for prolonged periods (many hours, even days,) are far less innocous than they sound and were historically used, to great effect, by the kind of torturers that also used hot irons and whips.

In bringing the issue to these specifics, you're absolutely right. The real issue is where to draw the line, what we label torture and what we don't. Instead, we have jokers polarizing the issue with inflamatory rhetoric.

 

[Tmy]

we have jokers polarizing the issue with inflamatory rhetoric.

I hate it when people point at worse behavior as an excuse for BAD behavior.

 

[SlippyToad]

Ok, here's one: Mugabwe sucks.

I could have sworn this has been covered before... but it seems to me there is a simple psychological basis for being more outraged by evil acts committed by a group one is a member of, than worse acts committed by a group one doesn't bleong to. I don't know why some people find this so unusual.

It's an attempt to distract you by changing the subject, as is this entire thread. There's a flowery latin phrase for it which I don't recall at the moment. The modern colloquialism is "red herring."

 

[bigred]

The Pentagon-sponsored Schlesinger report calls it

Sodomizing with a broomstick isn't really torture ... it's rape, at most ....

Rumsfeld, who saw more pictures from Abu Ghraib than we did, called it "blatantly sadistic, cruel, and inhuman". You call it "crying wolf".

So if Rumsfeld and/or the Pentagon says it, it must be true - ? I can tell you from personal experience that it aint necessarily so.

And the sodomizing bit was a claim by a prisoner which the Taguba report "feels is probably true" (not exact words but the gist of it).

 

[bigred]

This is why we avoid overblown rhetoric. When we call things torture that are clearly not torture, we de-value the impact of the word and make it more difficult to highlight real human rights abuses. Ditto with words like "fascism", "Hitler", "Gulag" and any number of concepts that get abused by one side of the political spectrum or another.

Why we SHOULD avoid, I assume you mean....and right on.

 

[bigred]

There's a flowery latin phrase for it which I don't recall at the moment. The modern colloquialism is "red herring."

"Reddimus Herringus"

You're welcome

 

[Bjorn]

So if Rumsfeld and/or the Pentagon says it, it must be true - ? I can tell you from personal experience that it aint necessarily so.

It might be that when Rumsfeld, who isn't exactly a leftist commie, says it is "blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman", I tend to believe it is at least as bad as he is willing to admit.

He also stated about the other pictures (the ones we mortals haven't been shown) that "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse".

But it might be, of course, that you know better.

 

[Cleon]

So if Rumsfeld and/or the Pentagon says it, it must be true - ? I can tell you from personal experience that it aint necessarily so.

Yeah, but he doesn't exactly have strong motivation to over-exaggerate the abuse at Gitmo.