3DHS on Torture

[sirs]

1-6 no problem in my book, and none of it "torture" as is traditionally understood to be, though definately not pleasant.

Question Sirs - how do you traditionally define torture?

The infliction of pain purely to inflict pain, including the physical damaging/dismemberment of the body

[Henny]

1-6 no problem in my book, and none of it "torture" as is traditionally understood to be, though definately not pleasant.

Question Sirs - how do you traditionally define torture?

The infliction of pain purely to inflict pain, including the physical damaging/dismemberment of the body

So where do you come up with that definition?

[sirs]

Common sense, Miss Henny. 

Yes, yes, I'm confident many here could give a thorough dissertation on multiple forms of mental anguish, duress, discomfort, that can cause a person to perceive how their life is about to come to an end, and thereby be construed as "torture".  For me, torture is what it's always been, inflicting great bodlily pain & damage, purely to inflict great bodily pain and damage.  And of done so to try and gain "information" is still torture, if inflicting great bodily pain & damage

[Lanya]

[Maybe when it's our children, or mothers, or wives or husbands we will think it's really "torture."]

 IRAQ: Child prisoners abused and tortured, say activists


Photo: Afif Sarhan/IRIN
Children are victims of abuse in Iraqi prisons
BAGHDAD, 25 October 2007 (IRIN) - Iraqi NGOs have raised concerns about the condition of children in local prisons, saying they are abused and tortured during interrogation.

"Children are being treated as adults in Iraqi prisons and our investigations have shown that they are being abused and tortured," said Khalid Rabia'a, a spokesman for the Prisoners' Association for Justice (PAJ).

"Our investigation started after families brought their five sons to our organisation looking for psychological help for their children who were recently released from prison, and what we found out was shocking," Rabia'a added.

According to Rabia'a, child prisoners between 13 and 17 are being accused of supporting insurgents and militias. Most were detained during Iraqi army military operations in the Baghdad neighbourhoods of Adhamiya, Latifiya, Alawi, Doura and Hay al-Adel.

"The five children showed signs of torture all over their bodies. Three had marks of cigarettes burns over their legs and one couldn't speak as the shock sessions affected his conversation," Rabia'a said. "It is against international law that protects children and we call for interventions in all Iraqi prisons to save the lives of these children."

The Ministry of Interior denied the accusations, saying children and youth taken for interrogation are released after a maximum of 48 hours without being abused or tortured. A campaign against child abuse is being launched in Baghdad with the support of Iraq's Vice-President Tarek al-Hashimy.

"Iraq respects human rights conduct for children and adults and our prisons aren't used for torture. Earlier scandals were reported and those responsible were punished. The accusations are wrong and they cannot prove it," Lt Col Ali Khalid Hussein, senior official at the Ministry of Interior, told IRIN.

However, another senior official from the ministry, who requested anonymity and who has been supplying the NGO with daily updates, told IRIN that every Iraqi prison is holding at least 20 children and they are all suffering abuse.

Rabia'a said the NGO had informants in many Iraqi prisons but since they did not want to be named, they could not go to court and prove the abuses were taking place.

At least 220 children are believed to be held in Iraqi prisons. IRIN requested permission to visit the prisons said to be holding child prisoners but the request was denied.
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=74984

[Michael Tee]

CONTRAST THIS:  <<The Ministry of Interior denied the accusations, saying children and youth taken for interrogation are released after a maximum of 48 hours without being abused or tortured. A campaign against child abuse is being launched in Baghdad with the support of Iraq's Vice-President Tarek al-Hashimy.>>

WITH THIS:  <<"The five children showed signs of torture all over their bodies. Three had marks of cigarettes burns over their legs and one couldn't speak as the shock sessions affected his conversation," Rabia'a said. "It is against international law that protects children and we call for interventions in all Iraqi prisons to save the lives of these children.">>

The "defence" that these animals try to establish is ludicrous.  Like it would take more than 48 hours to burn a kid with cigarettes or electroshock him or her into a speech and/or cognitive impairment.  They don't torture because the kids aren't kept more than 48 hours.  The bullshit nature of the "defence" indicates these people don't really give a shit.  They give an excuse and if it makes no sense, they don't care.  They're like Bush, they fabricate one bullshit story after another, KNOWING that no intelligent person will buy it but also knowing that they're gonna get away with it so it makes no difference what they say.

<<"Iraq respects human rights conduct for children and adults and our prisons aren't used for torture. Earlier scandals were reported and those responsible were punished. The accusations are wrong and they cannot prove it," Lt Col Ali Khalid Hussein, senior official at the Ministry of Interior, told IRIN.>>

There's no question at all in my mind that these people are being coached by the same people who coach Bush and Cheney.  Just issue a blank denial.  Denying it proves that it didn't happen.  Don't worry about insulting the intelligence of your listeners because either (a) they don't have any or (b) they can't do a God-damn thing about it even if they don't believe you.

[sirs]

I'll look forward to when Lanya or Tee can provide actual evidence of CHILDREN being TORTURED at the hands of Americans, vs accusatory hearsay by a Islamic prisoner activist.  Espcially since now apparently young adults captured as insurgents & terrorists shooting at our soldiers are being classifued as "children", and we already know that even simple head slapping has been designated as "torture"

[Lanya]

...............
There's no question at all in my mind that these people are being coached by the same people who coach Bush and Cheney.  Just issue a blank denial.  Denying it proves that it didn't happen.  Don't worry about insulting the intelligence of your listeners because either (a) they don't have any or (b) they can't do a God-damn thing about it even if they don't believe you.

No question. We are letting loose some awful demons.

And they know where we live.

[sirs]

...............
Denying it proves that it didn't happen.  

While proving it actually.......get this, proves it did happen.  Funny how that works

[Xavier_Onassis]

I'll look forward to when Lanya or Tee can provide actual evidence of CHILDREN being TORTURED at the hands of Americans, vs accusatory hearsay by a Islamic prisoner activist.

========================
WE shall all look forward to that glorious day when criminals out themselves.

Even better if they will punish themselves as well, hunh?

Note: a "dope slap" is not torture. Give yourself one, please.

[Michael Tee]

The other aspect of the story of course is this:  if they are letting out children with cigarette burns and other visible signs of torture, as well as brain-damaged victims of electroshock torture (I'm assuming it's brain damage in the case of the kid whose conversational ability was impaired, although it might be motor nerve damage or even muscle damage) then it can only be imagined what is happening to adult prisoners particularly those who will wind up on the list of the "disappeared," who will never be seen again and whose corpses will never be seen.

If you want to think about the wider implications of this story, then think about this:  did Iraq invent torture?  Is Iraq the only place in the Middle East where torture is practiced?  This kind of thing goes on in every country of the region and except in the case of Iran, by regimes supported lock, stock and barrel by the U.S.A.  And while you have people in the U.S. and elsewhere who will continue till the end of time to deny the obvious, to demand "proof" as if, as XO says, the torturers are going to "out" themselves, the people who actually live in those countries, including the parents of the children involved, are nowhere near that stupid.  They know what is going on and they know who to thank for it.  And I don't think - - unless they are total raving lunatics - - that they are going to accept this as the natural course of a process which is bringing them "democracy" because unless they are mindless and brainless, they don't see any of this as bringing democracy one step closer; what it is actually bringing is a civil war in which nobody is fighting for democracy and the best possible outcome will be one in which their side wins control of the government and its torture chambers.

The other thing to think about is that this sort of thing goes on, to the knowledge of every single thinking person who lives in the region, whether or not it's reported in Amerikkka's MSM.  And has been going on for a long, long, time.  For an obvious example, this is exactly what was going on before the U.S. invasion, under Saddam Hussein.  During all those long years when he had Uncle Sam's blessing and afterwards as well.

Now you can run this backwards, to pre-9-11, and ask yourselves, "How many of the hijackers knew about this?" and the answer is:  ALL of them.  Ask yourselves, how would such knowledge have affected their attitudes towards the U.S.A.?  Legitimate question.  Does anyone here still believe Bush's bullshit that "They hate us for our freedoms?"  (OK, that was a rhetorical question - - I know at least one who does.)  Or you can run this forward, and ask yourselves, "Is it possible that all this shit can go down and nobody is gonna ask for payback?"  I think there's only one answer to that question, again, not that everybody will see the all-too-obvious answer.

You know there was once a time when all this shit could happen within a closed environment, a sort of What Happens in the Middle East Stays in the Middle East, but that time is long past.  911 proves that payback is possible, but none of the mainstream politicians wants to admit that payback is even a factor.  Can't admit that payback is a factor, because they are beholden to (owned by, would be a better way of putting it) special interests which demand that present disastrous policies continue forever.  Until the American people wake up and realize what is being done in their name by their government, the cycle of torture, murder, payback will go on forever, as demanded by the special interests.

My prediction: the special interests will not lose their grip on American politics.  Their ownership of both political parties is patently obvious to anyone with eyes to see.  Their ownership of the MSM was locked in even before the Republican deregulation which permitted ownership to be even more tightly concentrated than before.  There is absolutely zero chance of the American people breaking out of that stranglehold.  The real secret weapon of the plutocracy is bread and circuses - - MOST Americans, very simply, just don't give a shit.  And never will.

[_JS]

So, intermittently waking someone up, preventing them from having a pleasant 8hrs of sleep is "torture"??  Again, I'm referring to the act itself, not a DURATION of an act.  So, if you want to argue that getting 5hrs of sleep vs 8 is torture at the hands of our americans, then so be it.  I am simply disagreeing with that premice

What you are describing is not sleep deprivation. You are not "referring to the act itself." Sleep deprivation means no sleep for an extended duration. It is not "preventing them from having a pleasant 8hrs of sleep." Five hours of sleep a night is not sleep deprivation Sirs. Did you not read what the people described that I quoted? Manachem Begin was not this nice, friendly guy and even he considered it torture.  I have no idea what the hell you are talking about, but you live in some Polyanna dream-world if you think 5 hours a night of sleep = sleep deprivation. We're talking about 72, 96, 168 hours with no sleep.

Sleep deprivation is a general lack of the necessary amount of sleep. This may occur as a result of sleep disorders, active choice or deliberate inducement such as in interrogation or for torture. Studies have reported that sleep deprivation affects tens of millions of adults each year in the United States alone.


What is sleep deprivation

But since so many here are ready to rationalize how periodic head slapping and not providing 8hrs of blissful sleep is torture as well, then obviously we have little to talk about

Do you read?

Do you?  The extended amount of hours (meaning the repetition of an act, and NOT the act itself, as i have referenced over and over again) keeping a person from sleeping which would cause physical damage to a person would be considered torture, as is just about anything made repetative or overly extended.  But the act itself, as defined in wikipedia, is NOT

This is a serious post?

You really believe that sleep deprivation used by interrogators is the same as the sleep deprivation defined for medical use?

You're being serious?

Regardless, the real idiocy is thinking that torture actually works. The IRA suffered tortured for years in the tiny country of Northern Ireland, where the entire Government, police, and political authority was rigged to favor Britain and Protestants. The British Army, RUC, and MI5 specialized in different methods of torture. Now, how do you suppose the IRA managed to minimize the damage done by torture and interrogation?

The Eritreans had two rebel organizations: the ELF and EPLF that fought against the Ethiopian Army which was trained by the United States and Israel in counterinsurgency methods. Both the ELF and EPLF suffered some really nasty forms of personal torture and torture of spouses, children, and other family members. How did they minimize any damage done by these methods?

In fact, both the IRA, ELF, and EPLF grew when the tactics used against them got nastier and nastier.

If you were leading a very small group against superior numbers and superior technology, and you knew that anyone captured would face stiff interrogation techniques and likely crumble when faced with them, how might you minimize that liability?

[sirs]

The extended amount of hours (meaning the repetition of an act, and NOT the act itself, as i have referenced over and over again) keeping a person from sleeping which would cause physical damage to a person would be considered torture, as is just about anything made repetative or overly extended.  But the act itself, as defined in wikipedia, is NOT

This is a serious post?  You really believe that sleep deprivation used by interrogators is the same as the sleep deprivation defined for medical use?  You're being serious?

The "serious part" was in debunking that sleep deprivation = torture.  That the ACT is large in its definition & parameters.  YOU were the one trying to apply it as if no one could get any sleep at any time, which is a repetition of the act, to which can make an act deemed torture.  The point remains that if used over an egregious amount of time, where physical damage to the body can occur, THEN it becomes torture

Regardless, the real idiocy is thinking that torture actually works.

Intriguing redirection.  Reminds me of the "even if...." tactics of Tee.  Since I'm not in line with the receiving end, I'm just going to have to defer to those who have

[_JS]

The "serious part" was in debunking that sleep deprivation = torture.  That the ACT is large in its definition & parameters.  YOU were the one trying to apply it as if no one could get any sleep at any time, which is a repetition of the act, to which can make an act deemed torture.  The point remains that if used over an egregious amount of time, where physical damage to the body can occur, THEN it becomes torture

*sigh*

So basically you started a thread to argue semantics? Obviously the sleep deprivation that military interrogators are going to use (even American ones) is NOT going to be that which is in your selected Wikipedia definition.

Common sense should tell you that. If it does not, then the references on sleep deprivation as a technique (in some areas taught by the United States) in interrogation should have given you the clue.

Sirs, I know you aren't this dense. I know you aren't. Surely we can discuss torture without resorting to completely asinine arguments on semantics.

[sirs]

The "serious part" was in debunking that sleep deprivation = torture.  That the ACT is large in its definition & parameters.  YOU were the one trying to apply it as if no one could get any sleep at any time, which is a repetition of the act, to which can make an act deemed torture.  The point remains that if used over an egregious amount of time, where physical damage to the body can occur, THEN it becomes torture

So basically you started a thread to argue semantics?

Yes & no.  What was hoped for was a civil & substantive dialog on what a concensus could be made to what is and isn't "torture".  Unfortunately, right from the beginning, it was obvious that even periodic head slapping and being periodically exposed to cold temperatures and loud music was going to be called "torture".  Since we couldn't even start from a foundation of what is truely barbaric means of torture, there really was no where else to go
[/quote]

Obviously the sleep deprivation that military interrogators are going to use (even American ones) is NOT going to be that which is in your selected Wikipedia definition.

Yea, it'll probably be a tad more involved and made more uncomfortable, though the act is still referred to as sleep deprivation.  Where's your cut-off time at which it becomes "torture"  Where do you think the American's cut off time is?

Surely we can discuss torture without resorting to completely asinine arguments on semantics.

Unfortunately Js, before we can have an actual debate on such, definitions apparently are required, since anytime anyone is found supporting our efforts at gaining information from captured terrorists, that is deemed complete support of torture, as if the same supporters are out there advocating dislocation of limbs, pulling out of tongues, burning flesh, raping, etc.  Until some foundations are put in place, a "discussion on torture" is hardly doable

[_JS]

I'm not going to bother with an abstract time at which sleep deprivation becomes torture. I'm guessing it is different for every individual. I think the difference is more than a "tad" and certainly more than what you callously referred to as "not getting a blissful 8 hours of sleep."

I think the problem with the thread is that it is semantics from the outset. "What is torture?" is a question that has different answers for different people. The only real answer would be to give legal definitions from different sources, including international conventions.

It is the same as asking the question of insurgents, "what makes a valid target?" Are military personnel valid targets? Police? Government employees? Families of military personnel, police, government workers?

The EPLF and ELF in Eritrea decided that no Ethiopian high ranking officers would be allowed to comfortably live in Eritrea. They made sure that those guys had to have bodyguards at all times. They had to switch cars, eat and sleep in different locations each night. It made it difficult to plan strategy. They sent hit men into Asmara (the Eritrean capital) to kill Ethiopian military personnel, people considered to be Eritrean turncoats, and Ethiopian government officials.

The Ethiopians decided that torture and brazen counterinsurgency techniques were in order. It included rape, murder, public hangings, and completely erasing villages off the map through massacres.

In other words, I think if we go beyond mere semantics, and really the word "torture" is just an abstract expression for a much deeper concept, we get into the real questions: how far are we willing to go to "win" the war? What does war justify? or What doesn't war justify?

I think that these philosophical concepts are of far more worth than simply determining what is or isn't torture, which is too ambiguous and far too steeped in semantics anyway.