is this legal ? - DPChallenge Forums

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/11/2008 09:16:31 PM · #76

Originally posted by David Ey:

Well, if it's torture what the heck difference is it when it is used?

The difference is that the person is already under your control and entirely at your mercy. As a very simple example you can shoot an enemy in battle, but not during interrogation.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

02/11/2008 09:25:52 PM · #77

This is ridiculous. It's like all those medieval intellectuals arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Forget all these questions of "defining torture". There's not a single person on this site that could subject him/herself to waterboarding and not understand that is torture within 15 minutes. And the issue, anyway, is not specific definitions of what is or is not torture, no matter how many people try to flash that red herring and distract us from the real issue.

Are we (the USA) or are we not a civilized nation that holds itself to the highest possible standard? That's the only question that needs pondering here.

R.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

02/11/2008 09:46:56 PM · #78

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Are we (the USA) or are we not a civilized nation that holds itself to the highest possible standard? That's the only question that needs pondering here.

It seems to be getting answered, too.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/11/2008 10:11:44 PM · #79

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

There's not a single person on this site that could subject him/herself to waterboarding and not understand that is torture within 15 minutes.

15 minutes is an eternity. It would take maybe 5 minutes max for that realization.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/11/2008 10:27:12 PM · #80

Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by scalvert:
U.S. police departments and other signatory countries manage to question people without resorting to torture.

Is the use of a taser not torture?

...compared to being shot several times in the chest... I don't think so.

Ray

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

02/11/2008 10:30:28 PM · #81

Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by scalvert:
U.S. police departments and other signatory countries manage to question people without resorting to torture.

Is the use of a taser not torture?

No.

Unless the subject were bound, gagged and tasered over and over during an interrogation.

That's not how tasers are intended to be used or are used.

dacrazyrn

Nikon D300

02/11/2008 10:45:22 PM · #82

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

There's not a single person on this site that could subject him/herself to waterboarding and not understand that is torture within 15 minutes.

From accounts I have heard of people that have been through it (mostly military), it doesn't take minutes, but pretty much seconds for people to "crack." Even though these people knew they were not going to die or have any bodily injury at all, their mind cannot escape that they were drowning and they "gave in" very quickly.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/12/2008 08:27:21 AM · #83

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There's not a single person on this site that could subject him/herself to waterboarding and not understand that is torture within 15 minutes.

15 minutes is an eternity. It would take maybe 5 minutes max for that realization.

It's actually closer to fourteen seconds. CIA officers, their valiant eyes shining, report that "Khalid Sheik Mohammed won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess."

02/12/2008 09:21:11 AM · #84

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There's not a single person on this site that could subject him/herself to waterboarding and not understand that is torture within 15 minutes.

15 minutes is an eternity. It would take maybe 5 minutes max for that realization.

It's actually closer to fourteen seconds. CIA officers, their valiant eyes shining, report that "Khalid Sheik Mohammed won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess."

At least your link included this:

In an editorial Thursday (free registration required), the Wall Street Journal describes waterboarding as "the most coercive interrogation technique that was ever actually authorized" against Al Qaeda. According to the Journal, "it involves strapping a detainee down, wrapping his face in a wet towel and dripping water on it to produce the sensation of drowning." This, the Journal says, "is pushing the boundary of tolerable behavior" but the editors ask for a debate on the question of whether it is "immoral, or unjustified, in the cause of preventing another mass casualty attack on U.S. soil."This afternoon, James Taranto quotes the Journal's definition in his Best of the Web Today column on the WSJ's OpinionJournal.com site, using it to mock Ted Kennedy, who referred to descriptions of waterboarding as "drowning someone to that kind of point" during confirmation hearings for Alberto Gonzales yesterday.
But dripping water on a towel didn't sound like what I had read about in the past, and it turns out that other journalists describe the practice very differently than the Journal. The New York Times reported in May that waterboarding was used by the CIA on Khalid Shaik Mohammed, an Al Qaeda leader. This is how the paper described the practice: "a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown." No towels, no dripping â�� the prisoner is pushed under water. And today the Washington Post defined waterboarding as "an interrogation technique in which a detainee is strapped to a board and pushed underwater to make him think he might drown."
So who's right? This is a hugely important issue, both for US policy toward its prisoners and for the Gonzales confirmation hearings. It would be nice to get some clarity from the press.
Update 1/19: Taranto points out by email that a January 4 story in the Post uses the Journal's definition. I'm emailing the paper to try to get some clarity on this. I'll update this post if I find out more.
Update 1/20: R. Jeffrey Smith, one of the authors of the January 4 story cited above, responded to my email to say that he is confident that the dripping-water definition is correct:
Mr. Nyhan â��
Thank you for calling attention to conflicting accounts in the Post and other newspapers of the interrogation technique known as waterboarding. I am utterly confident â�� based on careful reporting â�� that the description of this technique in our recent article about Mr. Gonzales is a correct and complete account, and that the other depictions are, at best, loosely paraphrased accounts of this technique.â�¦

So what is the right answer? When I contacted Post reporter R. Jeffrey Smith, he claimed that he was sure that the towel definition was correct based on his reporting. But New Yorker writer Jane Mayer uses the submerging definition in an article in the latest issue of the magazine:

It appears that media reporters cannot agree on which definition is accurate.

02/12/2008 09:34:21 AM · #85

Originally posted by Flash:

It appears that media reporters cannot agree on which definition is accurate.

What difference does it make which kind of torture they're using?

02/12/2008 09:45:44 AM · #86

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
It appears that media reporters cannot agree on which definition is accurate.

What difference does it make which kind of torture they're using?

Because method and severity of action seem to help in defining what is and what is not torture. The link provided by Louis discussed the varying accounts with the one on record by the Journal author being the least invasive (towel and dripping water) versus the more sensational account posed by other articles.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/12/2008 09:50:57 AM · #87

Originally posted by Flash:

Because method and severity of action seem to help in defining what is and what is not torture.

Both techniques rely on making the individual believe/feel like he's being executed, and THAT is illegal torture regardless of the method or degree of severity.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

02/12/2008 09:59:58 AM · #88

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I am just realizing (duh) that for "waterboarding" I have been visualizing the "Chinese water drop torture"...

R.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/12/2008 10:02:23 AM · #89

Originally posted by Flash:

It appears that media reporters cannot agree on which definition is accurate.

Bah. Who cares? Watch Keith Olbermann editorialize on the Orwellian doublespeak of torture apologists as he eviscerates George Bush.

02/12/2008 10:29:20 AM · #90

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
Because method and severity of action seem to help in defining what is and what is not torture.

Both techniques rely on making the individual believe/feel like he's being executed, and THAT is illegal torture regardless of the method or degree of severity.

Lots of things are illegal. Some things are legal and illegal in different countries. Amsterdam has a different definition of illegal drugs than than the US. Saudi Arabia has a different definition of Valentines Day than the US. There it is illegal. Interrogation techniques legality differ from country to country. Rendition was adopted under the Clinton administration, most likely for that very reason. Therefore the definitions do matter.

What I think you are arguing is the traditional "slippery slope" argument, in that if we the US allow rendition to countries where torture is legal, then what stops us from using that practice on our own citizens? Or even, is it moral to use torture on any one for any reason anywhere? You likely believe it is not.

02/12/2008 10:33:37 AM · #91

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Flash:
It appears that media reporters cannot agree on which definition is accurate.

Bah. Who cares? Watch Keith Olbermann editorialize on the Orwellian doublespeak of torture apologists as he eviscerates George Bush.

Louis - I can't stand Keith Olberman. I'm a fan of Chris Matthews (MSNBC), but Olberman is too partisan for me. I wouldn't care what he said.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/12/2008 10:59:52 AM · #92

Originally posted by Flash:

Lots of things are illegal. Some things are legal and illegal in different countries.

Deluded doublespeak used to justify cruelty toward others (this sounds disappointingly familiar). Torture is illegal in at least the 142 nations that have ratified the "United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" including this one (another 9 countries have signed on, but not ratified it). Rendition to other countries for torture is illegal too, so the definition in other countries is irrelevant.

"Article 3
1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture."

Louis

Nikon D800

02/12/2008 11:01:01 AM · #93

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
Because method and severity of action seem to help in defining what is and what is not torture.

Both techniques rely on making the individual believe/feel like he's being executed, and THAT is illegal torture regardless of the method or degree of severity.

Lots of things are illegal. Some things are legal and illegal in different countries. Amsterdam has a different definition of illegal drugs than than the US. Saudi Arabia has a different definition of Valentines Day than the US. There it is illegal. Interrogation techniques legality differ from country to country. Rendition was adopted under the Clinton administration, most likely for that very reason. Therefore the definitions do matter.

Perhaps to moral relativists like yourself.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

02/12/2008 11:01:51 AM · #94

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Are we (the USA) or are we not a civilized nation that holds itself to the highest possible standard? That's the only question that needs pondering here.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/12/2008 11:04:47 AM · #95

Watching so many people try to create semantic distinctions that can "justify" torturing prisoners to extract information is making me a little ill.

It's not OK to torture people, ever, for any reason whatsoever! Any nation that engages in state-authorized torture has no right to call itself civilized, and its citizens should speak out loud and clear against such practices.

Is there ANYONE here who honestly believes the above position is open to debate?

R.

02/12/2008 11:11:49 AM · #96

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
Because method and severity of action seem to help in defining what is and what is not torture.

Both techniques rely on making the individual believe/feel like he's being executed, and THAT is illegal torture regardless of the method or degree of severity.

Lots of things are illegal. Some things are legal and illegal in different countries. Amsterdam has a different definition of illegal drugs than than the US. Saudi Arabia has a different definition of Valentines Day than the US. There it is illegal. Interrogation techniques legality differ from country to country. Rendition was adopted under the Clinton administration, most likely for that very reason. Therefore the definitions do matter.

Perhaps to moral relativists like yourself.

Except when being a moral absolutist suits the discussion at hand.

02/12/2008 11:18:23 AM · #97

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It's not OK to torture people, ever, for any reason whatsoever! Any nation that engages in state-authorized torture has no right to call itself civilized, and its citizens should speak out loud and clear against such practices.

Is there ANYONE here who honestly believes the above position is open to debate?

R.

Yes.

02/12/2008 11:56:11 AM · #98

non-coercive methods do work.

There seems to be a distinction between the CIA and the FBI.