US petition

[Busyman]

I know but was encouraged to step in since they don't frequent here (unless it's to do a spamming rip).

They may have missed your post but keep in mind it's only me they follow.

The one I speak of watches me much more closely than he does you, B.

O RLY!!!

I find that hard to believe.

[Biggles]

What has become a bit obscured is the fact that the critics are objecting/referring to the more benign methodologies (sleep deprivation, sensory overload, etc.) as incredibly heinous and brutal.

When such trespasses are viewed as equivalent to bamboo shoots, electrified genitalia, physical beatings and the like, we end up with no effective way to properly hone the points we wish to debate.

I am a fan of black-and-white debate, and generally abhor those who come equipped with palettes of varying shades of gray, but there are occasions when distinctions must be made; I feel this is one of them.

I've made a bit of light of the issue of chemical treatments as a means of procuring information, but the actual use of (for example) sodium pentathol doesn't produce any lasting effect, and there are surely other options as well.

What many seem to object to more than anything else is that any particular method may actually be foolproof, and thus constitutes an unfair advantage, especially when the "no harm" aspect renders the "brutal and heinous" arguments (as well as those who use them) moot.

OMG j2 but if we deprive a prisoner of sleep we have reduced ourselves to the roles of barbarians.

That's just not right. I mean Saddam beat the shit out of folks so we definitely can't go around keeping folks from their 8 hours of rest. We have to be gentlemanly and stuff. If we show our prisoners how nice we are, they will like us and the wars will stop and whatnot.

However, there are suggestions that much nastier methods than those spoken of by J2 were employed. This may or may not be the case no doubt we shall find out in due course because things do appear to leaking out on a regular basis.

[Busyman]

OMG j2 but if we deprive a prisoner of sleep we have reduced ourselves to the roles of barbarians.

That's just not right. I mean Saddam beat the shit out of folks so we definitely can't go around keeping folks from their 8 hours of rest. We have to be gentlemanly and stuff. If we show our prisoners how nice we are, they will like us and the wars will stop and whatnot.

However, there are suggestions that much nastier methods than those spoken of by J2 were employed. This may or may not be the case no doubt we shall find out in due course because things do appear to leaking out on a regular basis.

Agreed but the amendment in question is too broad.

Do you agree?

[Agrajag]

OMG j2 but if we deprive a prisoner of sleep we have reduced ourselves to the roles of barbarians.

Yeah and make sure the perp gets his 3 squares as well.

The point is that your Govt refuses to preclude the use of torture. I'm not sure if they listed which methods they intended to deploy. They seemed to want to keep their options open.

Here's an interesting quote

The international legal definition of torture is universally recognized and accepted -- and is very different from what Administration lawyers claim. The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment forbids torture under any circumstances and does not allow the prohibition to be derogated even in conditions of national emergency.

The United States are signatories to that convention, and under the Constitution, treaties ratified by the Senate are U.S. law, just like statutes and Supreme Court decisions. So claiming the U.S. has the right to differ from this definition is simply untenable.

Here is the Torture Convention's definition of "torture": "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

from http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/25/leavitt.torture/

You will also no doubt note the part ".... by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

[j2k4]

OMG j2 but if we deprive a prisoner of sleep we have reduced ourselves to the roles of barbarians.

That's just not right. I mean Saddam beat the shit out of folks so we definitely can't go around keeping folks from their 8 hours of rest. We have to be gentlemanly and stuff. If we show our prisoners how nice we are, they will like us and the wars will stop and whatnot.

However, there are suggestions that much nastier methods than those spoken of by J2 were employed. This may or may not be the case no doubt we shall find out in due course because things do appear to leaking out on a regular basis.

But of late, the need for great copy and inflammatory rhetoric has carried the day, and, as I noted, you fellows are not the sole purveyors of the "torture doesn't work" theory; those responsible for the regimen are certainly aware of it, too.

Anecdotal "evidence" is routinely given more weight, credibility and reportage than it warrants.

No matter general perceptions, the keepers desire above all else to be effective, and so actual "torture" would necessarily be viewed as punishment rather than a way to gather intelligence.

That would be to say that any torture is somewhat less than endemic or systematic.

[Busyman]

Yeah and make sure the perp gets his 3 squares as well.

The point is that your Govt refuses to preclude the use of torture. I'm not sure if they listed which methods they intended to deploy. They seemed to want to keep their options open.

Here's an interesting quote

The international legal definition of torture is universally recognized and accepted -- and is very different from what Administration lawyers claim. The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment forbids torture under any circumstances and does not allow the prohibition to be derogated even in conditions of national emergency.

The United States are signatories to that convention, and under the Constitution, treaties ratified by the Senate are U.S. law, just like statutes and Supreme Court decisions. So claiming the U.S. has the right to differ from this definition is simply untenable.

Here is the Torture Convention's definition of "torture": "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

from http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/25/leavitt.torture/

You will also no doubt note the part ".... by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

Excellent info.

I think the U.S. needs to go back from that then. It's too broad.

We can't use sleep deprivation ffs. Fuck that.

[Biggles]

All police forces use mild sleep deprivation up to a point as it makes it easier to determine whether people are making stuff up or not. It is hard to stick to a fabrication if one is a bit sleepy.

However, prolonged sleep deprivation can cause serious physical and mental problems and in extreme cases death. That I think would be classed as torture.

J2 is right in that much is unclear at the moment. However, the report I read appeared to suggest that a modern day version of the Chinese Water Torture was being employed. The clue in that one is, I would say, in the name.

As to the USA stepping back from International agreements on torture, this might allow some wriggle room but it is hard to see how a President could go to a place like China and talk about human rights on the back of such a move. It would be the thin end of the wedge and set a rather dangerous precedent in my view.

[ilw]

I agree biggles, he is a rather dangerous president

[j2k4]

I (for one) am heartened that he is not eager to march in lockstep with international sentiment that is dedicated to policies meant to hamstring America while abiding the presence of such as China and Libya, et. al. on the U.N.'s Human Rights Council.

To shrink from such policy is less to denigrate it than to question the intent of it's authors.

If that sounds as if I believe the U.S. might be balking due to it's lack of involvement in the formulation of these "guidelines" for international behaviors, then you'd be right.

Everyone is consumed with the idea that the U.S. will bigfoot international policy and so would deny "bigfoot" it's due.

The ability of the international community to browbeat the U.S. is somewhat less than it enjoys in the case of, say, East Timor.

The U.S. has every right to play a major role in the process.

Clinton paid lip-service to Kyoto and gave the impression the U.S. would be aboard in short order, but failed to follow through; can you guess why?

It cannot be said that Bush is practicing similar deception.

Sorry for the colloquialism, but there you are.

[Busyman]

All police forces use mild sleep deprivation up to a point as it makes it easier to determine whether people are making stuff up or not. It is hard to stick to a fabrication if one is a bit sleepy.

However, prolonged sleep deprivation can cause serious physical and mental problems and in extreme cases death. That I think would be classed as torture.

J2 is right in that much is unclear at the moment. However, the report I read appeared to suggest that a modern day version of the Chinese Water Torture was being employed. The clue in that one is, I would say, in the name.

As to the USA stepping back from International agreements on torture, this might allow some wriggle room but it is hard to see how a President could go to a place like China and talk about human rights on the back of such a move. It would be the thin end of the wedge and set a rather dangerous precedent in my view.

The amendment's to broad, Biggles.