CIA chief admits waterboarding

[sOopahvi]

...

They're using waterboarding on demonic muslim terrorists who blow up innocent civilians, saw innocent people's heads off, and commit other atrocities. I think the terrorists got off way too easy.

maybe a couple of these people are legitimate threats but most are innocent. and it's illegal, on a world scale, so we have no right, being a country that tortures innocent people, to claim that we are helping spread democracy or peace elsewhere. it's shameful.

 

[sOopahvi]

what

I didn't think water boarding is torture. You can almost envision any methods that your captors try on themselves to not really be torture.

You wont find many people willing to test pulling out finger and toenails on themselves.

that is way too simplistic. torture must span over a long period of time and be physically and mentally draining. pulling out 10 toenails would be over in a matter of seconds. THAT is not torture. it has no longevity. there is no real mental anguish. it is only temporary physical pain.

tickling the hell out of someone (something i'm sure they would also be willing to try on themselves) WOULD be torture as far as i can see (if they're really ticklish, anyway... this is totally a made up example). or denying an extremely religious person access to their religion... which they DO do... is also torture of the mental variety.

 

[original]

Ah, hold on there, sOophavi... pulling out toenails is not torture, but tickling is?

You argue that the removal of 10 toenails without consent is not torture, but rather a temporary physical pain. In that case you could argue that tickling is a temporary action, or the denial of religious practices as temporary, and are therefore not to be considered torture. A conclusion which I completely disagree with.

Why do you believe the length of an action determine it's qualification as torture?

 

[sOopahvi]

Ah, hold on there, sOophavi... pulling out toenails is not torture, but tickling is?

You argue that the removal of 10 toenails without consent is not torture, but rather a temporary physical pain. In that case you could argue that tickling is a temporary action, or the denial of religious practices as temporary, and are therefore not to be considered torture. A conclusion which I completely disagree with.

Why do you believe the length of an action determine it's qualification as torture?

i suppose i misspoke in saying that removing toenails is NOT torture, but that person also said that waterboarding is not torture. i find waterboarding to be worse than removing toenails, was all i meant.

you pull out 10 or 20 and you're done with it. the person isn't going to regrow toenails at a fast enough speed for that method of torture to be long-lasting. but you might just be able to waterboard a person or deny a person religious practice until the day they die. shrug.

removing toenails is not very useful torture for all intents and purposes. i mean, they're rather sophisticated about the whole torture thing... making sure that whatever they do causes the most mental and physical anguish so as to wear a person down and crush their spirit and dignity as a human being. pulling out toenails hurts, sure, but it's not embarrassing like denying a person access to their god. it doesn't cause the same amount of mental anguish. it's not hurtful ENOUGH. it's small-scale torture.

not that i would ever want to undergo any of those things. x;

 

[iceaura]

If it causes mental breakdowns, panic attacks, nightmares, insomnia, memory damage, the physical damages of extreme stress, and suicidal depression in victims for years after its infliction,

and if it produces false confessions and other invented information through desperate attempts by the victim to make it stop,

it's torture.

How's that for a working definition ?

But we don't have to define torture to properly label slowly drowning someone as a technique of it.

We could just go with the Geneva Convention, the US Courts, the trials of the Japanese and German "war criminals" after WWII, and the common sense of anybody who has any.

 

[Echo3Romeo]

If it causes mental breakdowns, panic attacks, nightmares, insomnia, memory damage, the physical damages of extreme stress, and suicidal depression in victims for years after its infliction,

and if it produces false confessions and other invented information through desperate attempts by the victim to make it stop,

it's torture.

How's that for a working definition ?

I find the whole spectrum of "psychological damage" to be a bit difficult to use. Bob the hardcore terrorist isn't fazed by having his testicles prodded with hot pokers, but Karl the weenie terrorist suffers nightmares after having to shower with dudes. How can this be worked into a useful legal definition?

 

[iceaura]

I find the whole spectrum of "psychological damage" to be a bit difficult to use.

You don't use it to make a legal definition, and you don't use it day to day - a group of sensible people sit around in a room and use it as a guide in setting policy.

Then you don't end up with torture as your policy. Then you don't pay the price of having such policies.

 

[sOopahvi]

rawr

I find the whole spectrum of "psychological damage" to be a bit difficult to use. Bob the hardcore terrorist isn't fazed by having his testicles prodded with hot pokers, but Karl the weenie terrorist suffers nightmares after having to shower with dudes. How can this be worked into a useful legal definition?

karl needs a huggie poo.

 

[stretched]

President Bush to veto torture Bill

"US President George W. Bush plans to veto legislation passed by the Senate to bar the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods including waterboarding."
(http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23217594-401,00.html)

Surprise ....

 

[stretched]

This article from the February 23 edition of New Scientist

Modern barbarity
The idea that torture can be "clean" needs to be refuted
23 February 2008 From magazine issue 2644 Editorial

(http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19726441.800-interview-darius-rejali.html)

If you don`t have a subscription, you can read more about it below:

Review - Torture and Democracy by Darius Rejali

A "dunk" in water, said Vice President Dick Cheney in October 2006, referring to waterboarding, is "a no-brainer for me" if it can save lives. The statement set off a media uproar and soon was hedged with Orwellian qualifiers and obfuscations: America doesn't torture, full stop. But we use tough, "enhanced" interrogation techniques, and we won't tell you what they are. Apparently, that means that waterboarding is not torture. Watch the trick in slow motion, but with a flashier example: (1) we saw off fingers; but (2) we do not torture; ergo (3) sawing off fingers isn't torture.

(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/27/RVD1UF63Q.DTL)

When are Americans going to stand up for fundamental human rights and persue impeachment against those perpetrating these crimes?