"Torture Lite" --- Your Questions Answered

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
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.

I'm also skeptical of this claim. I don't believe water dripping on someone can produce those effects after only 24 hours.

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
See the post in which I answered that question.

I did. It's not there.

 

[RandFan]

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.

I was being an a$$. Not the first time won't be the last.

Now you've got some work to do.

All I can do is appologize, sorry.

 

[WildCat]

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. And, according to RandFan's link, is there one single rule which says that this form of torture should not be practiced?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. 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?

I said I doubt that the water alone could cause the symptoms you describe. And I know well how many millions Stalin's regime killed. Which makes me think that maybe there was a little bit more than water dripping on the foreheads of the "torture lite" victims to caise the symptoms described. Such as maybe inadequate nutrition, beatings, untreated illnesses, etc., all of which are well known to have occured in the gulags.

The sources I had were just the accusations flying around this forum and elsewhere, as it turns out they weren't true, and I had foolishly taken the bait.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I'm also skeptical of this claim. I don't believe water dripping on someone can produce those effects after only 24 hours.

(1) Would you like to try it, you fearless skeptic you? Here's an offer: I'll "firewalk", if you'll undergo the "Chinese water torture" for twenty-four hours to demonstrate your skepticism. Are you game?

(2) OK, you win. Stalin didn't really torture people. It's all made up. Solzhenitsyn is a liar. Three cheers for Joseph Stalin!

(3) Why on Earth did they do it, and why on Earth is WildCat offering it as an example of "torture lite", and why has every schoolboy (of the British persusaion, at leat) heard of the "Chinese water torture" if it is not a method of coercion?

I did. It's not there.

Aout a dozen posts up. With a large letter "A" next to it. You can't miss it. Argue with me if you like --- that's what we're here for --- but don't pretend I haven't said anything.

 

[RandFan]

Aout a dozen posts up. With a large letter "A" next to it. You can't miss it.

Dr. Adequate, as far as I can tell I can't find any list of attrocities or sources for your claims. Could you provide them?

 

[Dr Adequate]

All I can do is appologize, sorry.

Sir, you are a gentleman.

 

[RandFan]

Sir, you are a gentleman.

Thank you.

I really am interested in this subject. I will tell you honestly that I suspect that some of the worst incidents were directed from higher ups and I'm afraid the truth is going to be buried. That being said I think we should honestly consider all of the facts and not assume the worst.

I also think that Americans need to understand the things that are being done in their name. Let's just get it right.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
(1) Would you like to try it, you fearless skeptic you? Here's an offer: I'll "firewalk", if you'll undergo the "Chinese water torture" for twenty-four hours to demonstrate your skepticism. Are you game?

Naw. I'd want you to do something equally time consuming. Firewalking is over too quickly.

Drip water on my hear for 24 hours? No prob.

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
(2) OK, you win. Stalin didn't really torture people. It's all made up. Solzhenitsyn is a liar. Three cheers for Joseph Stalin!

Are you talking to someone else? This non sequitur makes no sense at all.

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Aout a dozen posts up. With a large letter "A" next to it. You can't miss it. Argue with me if you like --- that's what we're here for --- but don't pretend I haven't said anything.

You mean the one RandFan provided? I thought yours would be a bit more sinister.

 

[peptoabysmal]

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 would say only a small percentage claiming to be American on this forum represents "typical Americans". If it were otherwise, wouldn't Mr. What's-His-Name have won the election instead of Mr. Bush?

Most Americans are not as politically involved as we who hang out here. We get our news fed to us from CNN or Fox and go about getting a latte and driving to work in our SUV's.

America is the home of cowboys, we shoot the bad guys or kick their a$$es, get the girl and ride off into the sunset. What do we stand for? Where do you think the term frontier justice came from?

 

[Dr Adequate]

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

And I have never seen a list of the things which are legal in the United States. Can you provide one? Of course not. It would be infinitely long.

The rule of a free society is: "anything not specifically made illegal is lawful".

If there are no particular laws, civil or miltary, forbidding, say, sleep deprivation, it is lawful, by US law, to do such things, and the people involved cannot be prosecuted under US law.

The "list of torture methods allowed by the US" may (I don't know your law) be infinitely long, just as the list of actions allowed by the US is infinitely long. The question is --- what have you forbidden?

Could I see the laws which make "torture lite", when applied to non-citizens, unlawful for US citizens, including the intelligence services, the miltary, etc? In order to prove that it is unlawful, you need to produce the list of regulations which prevents your agents or servicemen from applying "torture lite".

You are, as noted, prosecuting scumbags for killing prisoners. I expected no less. Now, if sleep deprivation is "torture lite", and therefore wrong --- under what law will you bring to justice those who deprived prisoners of sleep?

 

[Mycroft]

And I have never seen a list of the things which are legal in the United States. Can you provide one? Of course not. It would be infinitely long.

The rule of a free society is: "anything not specifically made illegal is lawful".

Then you kinda have the same problem. If we outlawed anything that could be torture, that list would be infinitely long too.

If you're gonna assume that just because we don't have a list of stuff that's allowed or not that anything goes, then you're just ranting for the sake of ranting.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Naw. I'd want you to do something equally time consuming. Firewalking is over too quickly.

Drip water on my hear for 24 hours? No prob.

Equally time consuming? OK, I'll read some interesting books. When will you do the water torture thing? Can we expect to see this at the next TAM?

Are you talking to someone else? This non sequitur makes no sense at all.

(a) Non sequitur is a term in logic. It doesn't apply to sarcasm. This is not apprehended by logic, but by possessing a sense of humour.

(b) To explain my point thoroughly and without sarcasm --- oh all right then, without too much sarcasm --- Solzhenitsyn is a Nobel laureate and the historian of the Soviet gulag. He mentions that the "water torture" was a method used by NKVD interrogators, in a couple of paragraphs in a book which in my edition consists of two volumes of somewhat more than 1300 pages. Was he slandering Stalin? Well... slandering Stalin?. Would he need to make stuff up? Has he in fact ever been caught making stuff up? Another couple of paragraphs in this massive and heartrending indictment? Was Stalin a good guy after all? And now I hear from WildCat about exactly the same thing being done to prisoners of the Americans. The very same water torture. Now, I may doubt that any American has done this at all. I hope not. We may ask WildCat for his sources. But you are pre-emptively doubting that this is torture, although Solzhenitsyn tells us that the NKVD practiced it, and that it was brutal.

You mean the one RandFan provided? I thought yours would be a bit more sinister.

No. If you think about it, I was talking about my post "about a dozen posts up" from where I posted. If I refer someone to an answer I've already given, it will of course be to an answer that I've already given, and not to an answer which RandFan has given.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Then you kinda have the same problem. If we outlawed anything that could be torture, that list would be infinitely long too.

Not at all. To take a parallel example, you could outlaw anything that could be murder with the law "Thou shalt not murder". You don't need to provide an infinitely long list of all the ways you could murder someone.

If you're gonna assume that just because we don't have a list of stuff that's allowed or not that anything goes, then you're just ranting for the sake of ranting.

And yet you manage to have a penal code for civilians --- and where it does not bind them, "anything goes", indeed. And that, Mycroft, is an essential principle of liberty. But perhaps when the Founding Fathers suggested that, you should have been around to point out that they were "just ranting for the sake of ranting".

No?

But when I suggest that your military and interrogators should have a code of law, and be made to abide by it, suddenly I'm "ranting for the sake of ranting", whereas Thomas Jefferson wasn't. Well, I guess I'm just unlucky that way.

 

[RandFan]

If there are no particular laws, civil or miltary, forbidding, say, sleep deprivation, it is lawful, by US law, to do such things, and the people involved cannot be prosecuted under US law.

But there IS a list of allowed and disallowed methods. I have posted it above. It would seem silly to have a list of "allowed" methods but then allow anything the military wants anyway, right?

AIU, anything not on the list is forbidden unless permission is granted. There is a list of those things requested and denied.

Now, it seems to me that you can argue as geni has that the military simply ignores the laws but I don't see how you can argue that there are no regulations governing the methods of interrogation.

BTW, all detainees must receive 8 hours of sleep per day. However, as I noted before this requirement could easily be abused.

The question remains, is their proof that the military is using methods that are not on the list that I provided?

 

[Mephisto]

Hang on, kuroyume0161

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?

I think if you go back and read Dr. Adequate's post again, you'll realize you're inadvertantly agreeing with him. He's trying to make the point that some people don't equate sleep deprivation, remaining in one position for a day, or any of the other torture methods that don't leave physical evidence with their traditional idea of torture.

I would be interested in seeing how many people who don't consider "torture lite" as actual torture would still hold that opinion after being forced to balance on a box all day and not allowed to sleep at night.

(edited to add) Regarding Wildcat's assertion that water dripping on an immobilized forehead might not be torture - there was an episode on Mythbuster's (an American television program that uses science to question myths and urban legends) regarding the "Chinese Water Torture." The lady who underwent the test described it as psychologically stressing and agreed that she couldn't have gone much past her hour+ time limit (they had medical personnel standing by gauging her vitals). The "torture expert" at the end of the program asserted that what they had done was very dangerous because the long-term affects of this type of torture were unknown. Episode 25

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/episode/episode_02.html

 

[kuroyume0161]

I do agree with Dr. Adequate that 'torture lite' is no more humane than torture. It has been shown that during interrogations (not torture sessions), valid information will be given rather quickly or not at all. Torture has not been shown to be effectual at gaining valid information.

My contention was with:

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 may be officially sanctioned by somebody, but I don't think by the 'American public'. I would contend that at least 60% of the American public does not approve of this. Why is it allowed to continue? Ask the government since they don't listen to polls or what the people want anymore.

And it's nice that they can ship these victims off shore or to countries where torture is allowed in sereptitious ways in order to try to avoid incrimination.

The best way to gain information is by gathering physical evidence - as skeptics and scientists we all know this. Stressing other humans as a means to gain pertinent information is no better than eyewitness testimony - not very credible.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Hang on, kuroyume0161

I would be interested in seeing how many people who don't consider "torture lite" as actual torture would still hold that opinion after being forced to balance on a box all day and not allowed to sleep at night.

I'm not sure that not sleeping at night is a big deal. I know lot's of people that do this. I think you mean something else. This IS the problem. What is exactly are the claims and is there any proof. What did the logs at Gitmo state and why will people only describe what they think was meant. What and where is the proof? It is clear that wrong occurred. Was it sanctioned and are these acts still sanctioned? Why is there a list of approved of methods at all? Why a list of disallowed methods?

The issue warrants serious discussion but how do you have that discussion without knowing exactly what it is you are talking about?

 

[WildCat]

(1) Would you like to try it, you fearless skeptic you? Here's an offer: I'll "firewalk", if you'll undergo the "Chinese water torture" for twenty-four hours to demonstrate your skepticism. Are you game?

(2) OK, you win. Stalin didn't really torture people. It's all made up. Solzhenitsyn is a liar. Three cheers for Joseph Stalin!

(3) Why on Earth did they do it, and why on Earth is WildCat offering it as an example of "torture lite", and why has every schoolboy (of the British persusaion, at leat) heard of the "Chinese water torture" if it is not a method of coercion? Aout a dozen posts up. With a large letter "A" next to it. You can't miss it. Argue with me if you like --- that's what we're here for --- but don't pretend I haven't said anything.

The whole water torture thing is beside the point, as it was specifically prohibited for use by the US military. RandFan gave a list of what was allowed, as well as some things specifically not allowed. Obviously, it is impossible to list everything that isn't allowed.

One thing that seems to be overlooked here is that the interrogations at Gitmo and elsewhere aren't aimed at getting a "confession", as the N. Vietnamese and Iraqi's did w/ their POW's. They're aimed at getting information, and it is usually just a matter of time before the interrogators know whether the information was true or not. It does the interrogator no good to use methods that get false information, does it?

 

[demon]

Wildcat:
"It does the interrogator no good to use methods that get false information, does it?"

I guess not but that assumes that "methods", oh damn, I`ll call it what it is, "torture", is always used with such a defined purpose in mind ie getting information.

Sometimes it can used be fun can`t it?

 

[RandFan]

I guess not but that assumes that "methods", oh damn, I`ll call it what it is, "torture", is always used with such a defined purpose in mind ie getting information.

Sometimes it can used be fun can`t it?

I honestly don't know if the activities that are depicted in the picture and the activities in the aother pictures related to this one, the one you posted, were sanctioned. It is one of numerous pictures that depict acts that are not allowed and people are going to jail. The problem is that I personally question whether the abuse was directed by higher ranking officers who are not taking responsibility.

Could you detail the abuses that you think are both illegal and sanctioned? Do you have evidence that illegal practices were conducted and sanctioned?