Administration of Torture

[@DCGoldPants]

I agree with your example that wouldn't be.

I am sure there aren't real stats on this because in most cases, its secret.

But, they tortured Braveheart, and then killed him. What did he do? He was reborn in "The Patriot" to kill more British....and then hate my fellow Jews.

[Dictator]

I agree with your example that wouldn't be.

I am sure there aren't real stats on this because in most cases, its secret.

But, they tortured Braveheart, and then killed him. What did he do? He was reborn in "The Patriot" to kill more British....and then hate my fellow Jews.

He killed aliens before he hated the jews.

[Dictator]

I agree with your example that wouldn't be.

I am sure there aren't real stats on this because in most cases, its secret.

But, they tortured Braveheart, and then killed him. What did he do? He was reborn in "The Patriot" to kill more British....and then hate my fellow Jews.

He killed aliens before he hated the jews.

[PeterMP]

Interrogator: Tell us what you know.

Terrorist: I know nothing.

Interrogator: Tell us what you know or you'll spend the rest of your life in Prison.

Terrorist: Stop torturing me.

According to the Geneva, this is torture.

It does seem that given plea bargains are frequently given to people that give up information the US justice system (and I would guess most of the countries' in the world) practice torture on a daily basis.

[PeterMP]

Interrogator: Tell us what you know.

Terrorist: I know nothing.

Interrogator: Tell us what you know or you'll spend the rest of your life in Prison.

Terrorist: Stop torturing me.

According to the Geneva, this is torture.

It does seem that given plea bargains are frequently given to people that give up information the US justice system (and I would guess most of the countries' in the world) practice torture on a daily basis.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Interrogator: Tell us what you know.

Terrorist: I know nothing.

Interrogator: Tell us what you know or you'll spend the rest of your life in Prison.

Terrorist: Stop torturing me.

According to the Geneva, this is torture.

Yes, and that line of questioning is what waterboarding is too.

what you just detailed is totally irrelevant to the debate.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Interrogator: Tell us what you know.

Terrorist: I know nothing.

Interrogator: Tell us what you know or you'll spend the rest of your life in Prison.

Terrorist: Stop torturing me.

According to the Geneva, this is torture.

Yes, and that line of questioning is what waterboarding is too.

what you just detailed is totally irrelevant to the debate.

[Dictator]

Yes, and that line of questioning is what waterboarding is too.

what you just detailed is totally irrelevant to the debate.

No. It's not. You are the one who brought up the Geneva. Their defenition is far too vague and leads to any one at any time claiming they were tortured.

[Dictator]

Yes, and that line of questioning is what waterboarding is too.

what you just detailed is totally irrelevant to the debate.

No. It's not. You are the one who brought up the Geneva. Their defenition is far too vague and leads to any one at any time claiming they were tortured.

[Larry]

Geneva does not define the fictional threat above as torture. It says that it's not allowed for use on Prisoners of War.

And it isn't. Prisoners of War are required to be released at the end of the war. Not released if they gave up intelligence, and kept forever if they didn't.

Pick another straw man.

-----

Now, let's see how the conversation goes, when we're a bit closer to reality.

I would assert that any mistreatment of a prisoner that results in the prisoner's unconsciousness at least deserves a nomination as "torture". Anybody got a problem with this standard?

The US does this. It's given a cutesy name, called "temperature extremes", because "hypothermia to the point of unconsciousness" sounds so harsh.

-----

Centuries ago, there was an interrogation technique known as "dunking". (I guess they had politicians back then who thought that if they came up with mild-sounding names for torture, that somehow made it morally OK.)

This technique consisted of intentionally submerging a bound prisoner under water, almost to the point of death. And repeating until the prisoner confessed. (I think it was used against the Salem witches).

This technique is one of the things which the Framers specifically forbid to the US Government, when they wrote the Constitution. (Aparantly, they thought it was torture.)

Could one of the pro-torture people, here, explain to me the difference between this medieval torture and waterboarding? What exactly is the difference that makes one a form of torture that the Framers felt necessary to specifically prohibit, but the other is morally, legally, and Constitutionally just fine?

-----

Another medieval form of torture that the Framers had a problem with (I guess they just hated America) was known as strappado. (wiki) This technique involved suspending the prisoner's weight from his shoulders, with his arms restrained behind his back. (It was used in medieval times, and by such luminaries as the Nazis, the Shah, the Israelis, and modern Iran.) (And by the US, at Abu Gharaib.)

When Newsweek (Time? I read the article, but didn't keep the magazine) was allowed to do a story on Gitmo, one of the techniques which they were actually allowed to photograph had a hooded prisoner on a balcony. He was dangled over the balcony railing, with his restrained arms inside the railing, and the rest of his weight being suspended from his shoulders. The article said that the typical duration of this "stress position" was 24 hours.

Could someone explain the difference between this technique, which the US admits using, and the medieval torture known as strappado?

[Larry]

Geneva does not define the fictional threat above as torture. It says that it's not allowed for use on Prisoners of War.

And it isn't. Prisoners of War are required to be released at the end of the war. Not released if they gave up intelligence, and kept forever if they didn't.

Pick another straw man.

-----

Now, let's see how the conversation goes, when we're a bit closer to reality.

I would assert that any mistreatment of a prisoner that results in the prisoner's unconsciousness at least deserves a nomination as "torture". Anybody got a problem with this standard?

The US does this. It's given a cutesy name, called "temperature extremes", because "hypothermia to the point of unconsciousness" sounds so harsh.

-----

Centuries ago, there was an interrogation technique known as "dunking". (I guess they had politicians back then who thought that if they came up with mild-sounding names for torture, that somehow made it morally OK.)

This technique consisted of intentionally submerging a bound prisoner under water, almost to the point of death. And repeating until the prisoner confessed. (I think it was used against the Salem witches).

This technique is one of the things which the Framers specifically forbid to the US Government, when they wrote the Constitution. (Aparantly, they thought it was torture.)

Could one of the pro-torture people, here, explain to me the difference between this medieval torture and waterboarding? What exactly is the difference that makes one a form of torture that the Framers felt necessary to specifically prohibit, but the other is morally, legally, and Constitutionally just fine?

-----

Another medieval form of torture that the Framers had a problem with (I guess they just hated America) was known as strappado. (wiki) This technique involved suspending the prisoner's weight from his shoulders, with his arms restrained behind his back. (It was used in medieval times, and by such luminaries as the Nazis, the Shah, the Israelis, and modern Iran.) (And by the US, at Abu Gharaib.)

When Newsweek (Time? I read the article, but didn't keep the magazine) was allowed to do a story on Gitmo, one of the techniques which they were actually allowed to photograph had a hooded prisoner on a balcony. He was dangled over the balcony railing, with his restrained arms inside the railing, and the rest of his weight being suspended from his shoulders. The article said that the typical duration of this "stress position" was 24 hours.

Could someone explain the difference between this technique, which the US admits using, and the medieval torture known as strappado?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The difference is we are doing it now, and not someone to us.

If someone does these things to us, we would condemn them as torture. That, and that alone, is the difference.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The difference is we are doing it now, and not someone to us.

If someone does these things to us, we would condemn them as torture. That, and that alone, is the difference.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Aah, now that's a Tailgate I'm used to.

When confronted with a reality you don't want to admit, begin searching for some reason to ignore that reality.

I was thinking I was stuck in a time warp or something.

Hey, you do your fair share of that. Don't act like you're above it

[Spaceman Spiff]

Aah, now that's a Tailgate I'm used to.

When confronted with a reality you don't want to admit, begin searching for some reason to ignore that reality.

I was thinking I was stuck in a time warp or something.

Hey, you do your fair share of that. Don't act like you're above it

[Larry]

Hey, you do your fair share of that. Don't act like you're above it

Find once.

[Larry]

Hey, you do your fair share of that. Don't act like you're above it

Find once.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Find once.

You're a liberal.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Find once.

You're a liberal.

[Sarge]

And who deems whether or not they are lawful combatants or terrorists? OH... the same people who decide whether or not they are going to torture. C'mon man, that's not totally self-fulfilling bs to you? Are you that blind.

The people that came up with the Conventions determined what the catagories are. I don't have the **** memorized anymore, like they used to require

They are basically as follows

Legal/Lawful combatants. People that wear uniforms and fight for a country

Illegal/Unlawful combatants. Civilains that wear no uniform, nor are part of an ARmy nor are authorized by a country to fight for them

Non combatants. Civilains who do not fight and are basically caught up in war

POW's. Troops of another lawful country captured by the other side. THey are entitled to Geneva Convention protections. OUt side rarely if ever gets treated by them

[Sarge]

And who deems whether or not they are lawful combatants or terrorists? OH... the same people who decide whether or not they are going to torture. C'mon man, that's not totally self-fulfilling bs to you? Are you that blind.

The people that came up with the Conventions determined what the catagories are. I don't have the **** memorized anymore, like they used to require

They are basically as follows

Legal/Lawful combatants. People that wear uniforms and fight for a country

Illegal/Unlawful combatants. Civilains that wear no uniform, nor are part of an ARmy nor are authorized by a country to fight for them

Non combatants. Civilains who do not fight and are basically caught up in war

POW's. Troops of another lawful country captured by the other side. THey are entitled to Geneva Convention protections. OUt side rarely if ever gets treated by them

[Larry]

The people that came up with the Conventions determined what the catagories are. I don't have the **** memorized anymore, like they used to require

They are basically as follows

Legal/Lawful combatants. People that wear uniforms and fight for a country

Illegal/Unlawful combatants. Civilains that wear no uniform, nor are part of an ARmy nor are authorized by a country to fight for them

Non combatants. Civilains who do not fight and are basically caught up in war

POW's. Troops of another lawful country captured by the other side. THey are entitled to Geneva Convention protections. OUt side rarely if ever gets treated by them

'Course, what Sarge likes to skip over are things like:

All prisoners, under Geneva, are entitled to a hearing to determine which category of prisoner they are. (Such hearings were canceled by Presidential Order.)

Before such "classification hearings" were canceled by Presidential Order, the Pentagon actually had begun doing the paperwork, preparing to hold hearings for the prisoners at Gitmo. According to the DoD people working on those cases, less than 10% of the prisoners at Gitmo were captured in combat or even near a battle.

(He also seems to have this idea that it's possible to declare war on someone, and then claim that the rules of war say the person you're at war with doesn't have Sarge's permission to fight back.)

[Larry]

The people that came up with the Conventions determined what the catagories are. I don't have the **** memorized anymore, like they used to require

They are basically as follows

Legal/Lawful combatants. People that wear uniforms and fight for a country

Illegal/Unlawful combatants. Civilains that wear no uniform, nor are part of an ARmy nor are authorized by a country to fight for them

Non combatants. Civilains who do not fight and are basically caught up in war

POW's. Troops of another lawful country captured by the other side. THey are entitled to Geneva Convention protections. OUt side rarely if ever gets treated by them

'Course, what Sarge likes to skip over are things like:

All prisoners, under Geneva, are entitled to a hearing to determine which category of prisoner they are. (Such hearings were canceled by Presidential Order.)

Before such "classification hearings" were canceled by Presidential Order, the Pentagon actually had begun doing the paperwork, preparing to hold hearings for the prisoners at Gitmo. According to the DoD people working on those cases, less than 10% of the prisoners at Gitmo were captured in combat or even near a battle.

(He also seems to have this idea that it's possible to declare war on someone, and then claim that the rules of war say the person you're at war with doesn't have Sarge's permission to fight back.)

[Larry]

You're a liberal.

Wrong again. (But that doesn't seem to bother a lot of people.)

Just for one example, I'll point out that I voted straight Republican in my first four Presidential elections.

(I stopped doing so when Bush I (who I voted for) decided that the War on Drugs was more important than the Constitution.)

[Larry]

You're a liberal.

Wrong again. (But that doesn't seem to bother a lot of people.)

Just for one example, I'll point out that I voted straight Republican in my first four Presidential elections.

(I stopped doing so when Bush I (who I voted for) decided that the War on Drugs was more important than the Constitution.)