Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Human Rights Watch Update on US Waterboarding


Yamato

Recommended Posts

Maybe the US should come clean and leave/repeal the Geneva Convention which they have signed. One of the most recent points agreed to by all signatory nations was against "willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments"

The Geneva Conventions don't apply to terrorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did our soilders get treated right in the hands of the Japanese? The Koreans? The Vietnamese?

Exactly. Terrorists don't deserve human rights when they want to kill innocent people

It is only in the enemies eye's that the people they refer to as terrorist's are terrorist's, in the eye's of the supposed terrorist's they are in fact freedom fighter's

If Your country was over run with foreign invader's or being run by a dictator, that was killing people or torturing them would You do anything about it ?

Maybe if their live's or the live's of people they know, love and care for was not being killed or tortured then maybe then they would not be terrorist's as You call them

If they had human right's in the first place they would not be terrorist's

People tend to forget that there are alway's two side's to every story, what we see in the news and are told by the government's is not always the full story, it is often one sided

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter....

Edited by Jackofalltrades
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's obviously under medical care - perhaps he had a gown on or was sleeping in the nude.

... medical care? .. on the floor? .. with a grimace of pain on his face ? ya that's obviously it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You speak of it as some contest where the rules are more important than who wins or loses. It's easy enough to stand on principle when it won't affect you personally. I think that the equation would change drastically for most here as soon as the life being saved by it were your own or one of your loved ones.

It defines a nation in the international community under human rights laws. It represents the character, morals, and integrity of a government.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did our soilders get treated right in the hands of the Japanese? The Koreans? The Vietnamese?

Exactly. Terrorists don't deserve human rights when they want to kill innocent people

Well, in some parts of this world, the US can be regarded as a terrorist state.

100,000-110,000+ civilian casualties in the War on Iraq?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rut Roh

Do you consider sleep deprivation to be torture?

(prepares for the setup that was just laid out)

As a general ruling I would have to say no, I do not believe it to be torture, IMO. I would then have to ask what is the full spectrum of the sleep deprivation you are going to implement. Perspective is everything. Pretty much anything that is done to excess has negative side effects. With that being said, I do not have a problem with sleep deprivation because anyone can, and do, that very thing to themselves in regular daily living. As long as it is not done for super extended periods of time and not done with intent to injure or kill I would have no objection to that technique being used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good answer Rut Roh.

Just as a hypothetical, that is, no accusation AT ALL, but by what authority would Joe be able to deprive Harry of sleep, should Joe be that devious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good answer Rut Roh.

Just as a hypothetical, that is, no accusation AT ALL, but by what authority would Joe be able to deprive Harry of sleep, should Joe be that devious?

Well, now we are getting to the true heart of the problem. LOL

Uncomfortable space, loud noise, bright light or someone just standing by them and saying, "hey, WAKE UP!!". The actual sleep deprivation is not the problem, as you are pointing out and I already know, it is the means by which it is caused. I believe that constant interrogation or the "hey, WAKE UP!!" method is the way to apply the correct pressure to keep them awake. The others I listed above just seem kind of like hazing which can lead to interpretation. I also know from firsthand experience that the "hey, WAKE UP!!" method works from when I was a wee lad and my utilization of said technique on friends at sleepovers. :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the heart of the problem! :yes:

And by your answer, it seems there is no cite for any moral or legal authority for Joe to do that to Harry, outside of a sleepover or some other consensual situation.

But the science is that sleep is critical to good function of the human body.

And the law is, and the moral code is, that depriving another of what he needs to function properly is infringing upon his rights and assaulting his liberty, depending upon how one views it.

And for the state to do that to a citizen is cruel and unusual punishment, assuming due process has been met for the state to punish the citizen for some crime he has committed.

THAT is the heart of the matter. :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the heart of the problem! :yes:

And by your answer, it seems there is no cite for any moral or legal authority for Joe to do that to Harry, outside of a sleepover or some other consensual situation.

But the science is that sleep is critical to good function of the human body.

And the law is, and the moral code is, that depriving another of what he needs to function properly is infringing upon his rights and assaulting his liberty, depending upon how one views it.

And for the state to do that to a citizen is cruel and unusual punishment, assuming due process has been met for the state to punish the citizen for some crime he has committed.

THAT is the heart of the matter. :tu:

Wait wait wait.... Who is Joe? Who is Harry? Again, perspective. If you are keeping close to topic then I would have to assume that "Harry" is a captured enemy combatant. Under what was asked, of which I didn't properly answer before, "Harry" could have sleep deprivation used as an intel gathering technique and not have the tactic deemed "torture".

As for legal authority, really? Again an assumption, high value target with large knowledge base of organization. Of course they have a legal standing because of the declaration of war. Not as if we are plucking independent, random people off the street and hog tying them to a chair with their manly parts hanging out a cut out hole in the bottom and swinging a large heavy knotted rope at those said parts. (The absolute MOST I have ever squirmed while watching ANY movie. Those who have seen it, KNOW what I am talking about!!)

As for the science behind what sleep deprivation causes....lets be real here, we are talking short term symptoms that go away with sleep. We are not talking about not letting someone sleep for a month and a half and then trying to gather intel. Jeez

I really do not know how this went from asking about if I perceived sleep deprivation as torture to an individual citizen (again perspective, American citizen?) having sleep deprivation used on them (for what end or purpose?) as a form of punishment(?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end, assuming that the rule of law applies, it doesn't matter who Joe is or who Harry is.

As a practical matter, sleep deprivation can lead to hallucinations and faulty memory. It seems to me that if one wanted to interrogate the enemy SO THAT the truth might be discovered, a subject that is hallucinating might not provide the best insight into the truth, eh?

Yes, I recognize that the symptoms of sleep deprivation are short term.

My effort was to try to develop some sort of legal or moral authority for one person to deprive another of sleep, not necessarily within a military conflict sort of context. So far, it seems you are reluctant to provide either?

And my larger point is that, whether short term or not, sleep deprivation is a form of assault against another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like if some people had it their way, anything more than politely asking for information would be deemed "torture" and be considered ineffective.

Clearly the most lawful and effective method of obtaining information it to politely ask the enemy for it, right?

No one here has any experience in interrogation nor methods of extracting information, yet everyone here seems to be talking as if they're an expert on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end, assuming that the rule of law applies, it doesn't matter who Joe is or who Harry is.

As a practical matter, sleep deprivation can lead to hallucinations and faulty memory. It seems to me that if one wanted to interrogate the enemy SO THAT the truth might be discovered, a subject that is hallucinating might not provide the best insight into the truth, eh?

Yes, I recognize that the symptoms of sleep deprivation are short term.

My effort was to try to develop some sort of legal or moral authority for one person to deprive another of sleep, not necessarily within a military conflict sort of context. So far, it seems you are reluctant to provide either?

And my larger point is that, whether short term or not, sleep deprivation is a form of assault against another.

The problem I am having with your argument is in what context are you asking me when sleep deprivation can be used. You are just kind of making an assumption that it can be used on regular law abiding citizens? Are you asking if it can be used on citizens within the USA? To what end? For what purpose? Whose rule of law are you refering too?

Legal authority is relegated to whatever jurisdiction (country) it falls too in a non-combat situation. Moral authority is subjective and what the whole torture issue is all about.

And as for your larger point, I am calling the police as we speak. My 8 month old just assaulted me last night. :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RR

I'm saying sleep deprivation, or waterboarding to stay on topic, is an assault on a person and illegal and immoral.

Pity about last night. I never slept more than 4 hours until my kids were somewhere over two. :w00t: But of course that was (yours and mine) a consensual situation. We brought the babies into the world.

But you did finally end up getting where I thought we would end up. Right and wrong is a situational matter. What might be wrong in 1945 is right in 2005, at least according to John Yoo and others, apparently including yourself. The rule of law is really nothing but a slogan and an illusion in this country today, and that greatly disappoints me.

And you also explain how and why we render people to other countries for torture. While, at least on the surface, we were a nation of laws obeying the Geneva Conventions, we render people to OTHER countries where waterboarding pulling out fingernails is perfectly legal and moral.

My goodness, how things have changed in this country. So it is that OTHER countries with stronger morals than ours, and stronger laws than ours, must now lead the world in defending human rights and prosecuting torture.

Stellar

Actually, there was a US fellow, perhaps FBI, that I saw on TV a few years back. A professional interrogator, he made the point that honesty with, and decent treatment of, subjects to be interrogated is FAR MORE effective in achieving cooperation and intelligence than is torture and insult. Put yourself in the other man's shoes, and you will agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RR

I'm saying sleep deprivation, or waterboarding to stay on topic, is an assault on a person and illegal and immoral.

Pity about last night. I never slept more than 4 hours until my kids were somewhere over two. :w00t: But of course that was (yours and mine) a consensual situation. We brought the babies into the world.

But you did finally end up getting where I thought we would end up. Right and wrong is a situational matter. What might be wrong in 1945 is right in 2005, at least according to John Yoo and others, apparently including yourself. The rule of law is really nothing but a slogan and an illusion in this country today, and that greatly disappoints me.

And you also explain how and why we render people to other countries for torture. While, at least on the surface, we were a nation of laws obeying the Geneva Conventions, we render people to OTHER countries where waterboarding pulling out fingernails is perfectly legal and moral.

My goodness, how things have changed in this country. So it is that OTHER countries with stronger morals than ours, and stronger laws than ours, must now lead the world in defending human rights and prosecuting torture.

Stellar

Actually, there was a US fellow, perhaps FBI, that I saw on TV a few years back. A professional interrogator, he made the point that honesty with, and decent treatment of, subjects to be interrogated is FAR MORE effective in achieving cooperation and intelligence than is torture and insult. Put yourself in the other man's shoes, and you will agree.

The assumptions you make are just staggering. Again I ask, what "law" are you talking about? International? US? Iraqi? Whose?

BTW, where did I say anything about "rendering" people to other countries. I said legal authority is based on jurisdiction. Are you saying that we shouldn't give back criminals to other countries that are caught here? We should detain them and try them here under our legal code even though the crime may not have been committed here? How is the sleep deprivation question you asked me relevant in this civil criminal scenario? I do not follow your reasoning AT ALL.

Also, never said moral authority was situational, I said it was subjective. One persons morals are another persons toilet paper.

So now you want the US to not only be the world police but its moral police as well? Wow, tall order. I do believe that some countries are going to have a SEVERE problem with that idea. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like if some people had it their way, anything more than politely asking for information would be deemed "torture" and be considered ineffective.

Clearly the most lawful and effective method of obtaining information it to politely ask the enemy for it, right?

No one here has any experience in interrogation nor methods of extracting information, yet everyone here seems to be talking as if they're an expert on the matter.

No, not once have I claimed to be an expert. I was asked a specific question and gave an opinion in return. Yeah yeah, I know I know... what an unexpected thing to happen in a discussion forum. :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end, assuming that the rule of law applies, it doesn't matter who Joe is or who Harry is.

As a practical matter, sleep deprivation can lead to hallucinations and faulty memory. It seems to me that if one wanted to interrogate the enemy SO THAT the truth might be discovered, a subject that is hallucinating might not provide the best insight into the truth, eh?

Yes, I recognize that the symptoms of sleep deprivation are short term.

My effort was to try to develop some sort of legal or moral authority for one person to deprive another of sleep, not necessarily within a military conflict sort of context. So far, it seems you are reluctant to provide either?

And my larger point is that, whether short term or not, sleep deprivation is a form of assault against another.

So if something as short term uncomfortable as sleep deprivation can be considered torture then you are saying that we have no right to attempt to gain info that might be vital in saving innocent lives. We consign our own to death while protecting the comfort of those who kill them. That's a strange morality BR.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, there was a US fellow, perhaps FBI, that I saw on TV a few years back. A professional interrogator, he made the point that honesty with, and decent treatment of, subjects to be interrogated is FAR MORE effective in achieving cooperation and intelligence than is torture and insult. Put yourself in the other man's shoes, and you will agree.

Can you please explain to us what you believe interrogations should look like?

No, not once have I claimed to be an expert. I was asked a specific question and gave an opinion in return. Yeah yeah, I know I know... what an unexpected thing to happen in a discussion forum.

I wasnt referring to you. I was referring to those that keep talking matter-of-fact about issues which they have no experience in, and those that'll seem to define everything as torture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RR

The law I'm talking about is primarily the US Constitution, but as it applies to military conflict, also the Geneva Conventions. And I assume that you are familiar with the Nuremberg Trials after WWII and the US role in those trials, and what is loosely called the Nuremberg Principle regarding excuses for having committed crimes against humanity.

But I'm also talking about any moral codes that might apply, perhaps something as ordinary as "do unto others as you would have done unto you" Just looking for conversation, and I thank you for your time. :tu:

You did NOT say anything about rendition, I did. I offered it as relevant to the thread topic as historical perspective.

Rendition is NOT the legal principle of extradition. Perhaps you have them confused, but this has nothing to do with the criminal code, except that what the US government has done over these last 10 years or so constitute criminal actions. This has to do with torture, as reported by Human Rights Watch.

No sir, I am not advocating for the US to be the world's moral police. While there was a time when our government and our country DID act in accordance with fairly high moral standards, those days are long gone. :cry:

No, I am just trying to discover your opinions about how it is legal or moral for 1 man (or 1 government) to torture another.

And I would offer the Eighth Amendment as some sort of guidance, in addition to Geneva.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if something as short term uncomfortable as sleep deprivation can be considered torture then you are saying that we have no right to attempt to gain info that might be vital in saving innocent lives. We consign our own to death while protecting the comfort of those who kill them. That's a strange morality BR.

No sir, I'm all for attempting to gain info that might be vital in saving innocent lives. All for it.

My position is that such attempts comply with the applicable laws, that's all. And from a practical perspective, I think the former FBI interrogator was quite right--much more information and cooperation can be gained by respectful interrogation.

Much LESS information and cooperation can be gained by way of torture. It's really not rocket science. All it really takes to understand it is to place oneself in the position. Would YOU be more cooperative to respectful interrogation, or do YOU respond better to waterboarding and sleep deprivation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with that. I think that is a plastic sort of argument though. When IS a situation important enough? When a squad of soldiers could be saved? A company or battalion? How many saved lives is the decision worth? Real life and death here Prof. I realize that the act of torture is abhorrent and that when we do it as a nation it makes us as dirty as those we fight. But if we cannot survive without it then what do we do? Are we to allow those who are most willing to be evil to survive while our way of life fails? Quite a dilemma. I personally could not torture another human being. That being the case I guess I would lose my right to an opinion here but I cannot imagine living in a world where our enemy's sense of what is acceptable becomes our way of life.

Just offer the carrot every prisoner craves - Freedom. But only if they offer up everything they know. If they attempt to make up elaborate tall tales to earn their freedom, repeated interrogations will reveal their deception eventually. Dangling the carrot might be a form of torture all its own. Whether they're ever actually released can still be an independent affair, dependent on the quality of the information, whether they're even guilty of a crime, and so forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No sir, I'm all for attempting to gain info that might be vital in saving innocent lives. All for it.

My position is that such attempts comply with the applicable laws, that's all. And from a practical perspective, I think the former FBI interrogator was quite right--much more information and cooperation can be gained by respectful interrogation.

Much LESS information and cooperation can be gained by way of torture. It's really not rocket science. All it really takes to understand it is to place oneself in the position. Would YOU be more cooperative to respectful interrogation, or do YOU respond better to waterboarding and sleep deprivation?

Having spent nearly a year experiencing the near panic of being unable to breathe properly (blood clots in lungs) I am HORRIFIED by the idea of waterboarding. But you are talking about an average man trying to survive in captivity after being captured in combat. The only instance where I would approve of waterboarding or other true forms of torture would be when a captive is known to be in a position to have critical information that might save many lives. As routine interrogation over a period of weeks or months while the captive is in a POW camp I fully believe the kinder, more respectful methods would be more effective. It's all about urgency as far as I'm concerned. But I also submit to you that these radicals we are fighting are religious zealots as well. They fully, sincerely believe that their god approves of their actions and I think that a person who does not fear death is the most difficult person to "reason" with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, "legitimate" torture, eh? Rather like "legitimate" rape?

Yes, religious zeal is certainly a factor in this controversy. They say their god supports their killings, we say our god supports our torture. Pretty sad state of affairs, and strong comment about how and why so many wars in mankind's history are for religious themes. To borrow from Alan Watts all those years ago, the 2 most dangerous books in the world are probably the Koran and the Bible.

What I meant to develop here was how easily some folks can rationalize torture and inhumane practices. You had established your position before in that regard, but Rut Roh was unknown. It is not pleasant for me to expose this kind of rationalization. Actually it is a bit depressing coming to terms with the apparent fact that so many of my fellow citizens CAN rationalize such behavior, whether for religious reasons or otherwise.

I guess just too darn many viewings of 24?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.