Skip to main content

View Diary: Rumsfeld's Revenge: Army Field Manual to Allow Torture (217 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Separation and Sensory Deprivation are not (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    walkshills

    torture.

    Definition of Torture

    1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
    1. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
    1. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
    1. Something causing severe pain or anguish.

    Separation while I'm sure it sucks I don't think anyone could describe as excruciating Mental pain.

    Sensory deprivation unless causing serious medical problems should be allowed. I.e. prolonged darkness can permanently damage eyesight.

    I'm all for keeping torture illegal but that refers to actual torture.

    •  Not only are you wrong (19+ / 0-)

      but the AFM itself bans the use of "total sensory deprivation," because its use would constitute cruel treatment or torture.

      You are also wrong about isolation and sensory deprivation not being torture. By what credentials and study do you present your opinion? Just your brilliant analysis, I suppose. The link to your MySpace page from your i.d. here will satisfy all to your impeccable credentials.

      Why do you waste our time with your inane comments?

      For those whom you may have confused by your comment, I refer them to this excellent 2007 article by Salon.com's Mark Benjamin, The CIA's Favorite Form of Torture.

      War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

      by Valtin on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 03:37:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ok now you want to throw insults (0+ / 0-)

        but I'll leave that to you. Since it's obvious the only thing you can fall back on when you're perfect logic is challenged.

        First Total Sensory Deprivation is banned? Why would you use that as an example? That's like arguing Water boarding is torture, I agree.

        Second, sensory deprivation causes no long term harm unless coupled with other forms of abuse such as neglect etc...

        Third, Isolation which while extremely unpleasant is in no way life threatening, as long as it is not coupled with neglect to the prisoners health.

        And I'm not arguing that these interrogation methods be used on people who's guilt is in doubt. Their use on actual enemy combatants. And not for the use of getting evidence in a trial.

        While the UN convention against torture does prohibit severe pain which if you wanted to you could argue happen from Sensory deprivation. It also makes an allowance for techniques that do cause pain but are within the law.

        Article 1.1 UN Convention Against Torture

        It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

        The problem with Sensory deprivation is when it is done to the extreme. That is when it becomes torture, it is not torture when done properly with the prisoners long term health in mind. However that's a form of abuse called neglect and that's illegal for a number of reasons.

        •  Hmm - are those using methods described here (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Valtin

          >really<concerned about the "prisonor's long term health" ? I'm skeptical.</p>

        •  You can't be a little pregnant.Torture is torture (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Chacounne

          What real justification is there for it to begin with? It's a slippery slope.

          We ought not to be involved in such things to begin with.Especially since we have been told by military personnel trained to do interrogations that it doesn't give you the information you want and often leads to bad information.

          So why go there? Why spend all this energy trying to rationalize unethical behavior? It makes you look nuts or cruel.

    •  The Torture Statute (10+ / 0-)

      which applies overseas, has an interesting construction in the definition of what torture is. It has the obvious "severe physical pain or suffering", as in this dictionary definition.

      It also has "severe mental pain or suffering," with the interesting construction.

      Intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering causes prolonged mental harm, by definition, and not needing to be shown.

      The administration or threatened administration of procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the personality also cause prolonged mental harm, also just by definition.

      In their theoretical discussions on limits on techniques, they have always shown awareness of problems with use of combinations of techniques, and concerns over lengths of time any one technique may be used.

      In practice, they have thrown the whole host of techniques against individuals, for amazingly long periods of time.

      The whole purpose in using solitary confinement in combination with all the other shit is to profoundly disrupt the personality. It is the very definition of torture. Anyone knows that solitary confinement is a part of how torture is routinely practiced.

    •  IT IS TORTURE. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Creosote, walkshills, Valtin, Chacounne

      And you are dangerously ignorant about this. It destroys people's psyches, and often causes permanent brain damage. Read the Shock Doctrine. The author interviews Americans who were subjected to it in mental institutions.

      How we know Daffy Duck is Republican: "It's mine, understand? Mine, all mine! Get back down there! Down down down! Go go go! Mine mine mine! Mwahahaha!" --BiPM

      by rhetoricus on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 06:33:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You have absolutely no idea what sensory (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Creosote, marina, Valtin

      deprivation and the deprivation of human contact can do to a person. Jose Padilla's mind has been destroyed by these techniques.

          Standing for justice and accountability,
                  For Dan,
                  Heather

    •  Bush's Torture Lite=Torture (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina, Valtin

      For the record diaries by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse.

      Bush's Torture Lite=Torture (Pt. 1):

      Bush thinks he can beat a torture prosecution because he has conned the public and DC into believing that his torture lite is not torture under US and international law. Bush has generally succeeded because he has relied upon the public’s  perception of torture as limited to gruesome, excruciating and barbarous physical mutilations.  

      However, torture has also historically included methods that superficially appeared not harmful, painful or injurious, but which can produce the same pain, suffering, death, and permanent injuries as the gruesome methods.  This is the heart of Bush’s torture lite system:  Inflict the pain, suffering, injuries or death by a method that is called an innocent-sounding euphemism, such as stress positions, and the public will not think that torture is being committed in our names.

      Bush's Torture Lite=Torture (Pt. 2):

      Bush has instituted a torture regime that is comprised of ostensibly innocent sounding techniques that in reality can be as deadly, harmful and injurious as torture by horrendous physical acts. Some of the techniques have been  sourced back to Chinese torture used for the purpose of extracting false confessions from captured US soldiers, and thus are not designed to obtain valid intelligence to protect our security.

      The coercive psychological torture technique, which is a package of multiple methods, was renounced by the US as torture years ago. However, it was used against prisoner 063, and then again renounced as torture by a senior Pentagon official recently. Another torture technique of sleep deprivation was also renounced by the US as torture in 2001, yet is apparently still used by the US. It’s no longer just left progressives: More and more people around the world and in our government are stating the obvious – Bush and Cheney et al must be prosecuted for war crimes.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site