And you still think it's "just a few bad apples" and "it's not really
torture"?


Vito wrote:
I believe it is a combo of the two.

I used to train horses. I got excellent results by *never* hurting the horse
but instead simply convincing it that sooner or later it wound have to do my
bidding. This is a tried and proven technique.

Ever heard of "Behavioral psychology"? What you are describing is a sort
of rudimentary behaviorism. It is indeed a "tried & proven technique"
and one that can be vastly improved & made more effective by a little study.


... If I got a particular
hard case I would never, ever hurt it. I'd just trip it to the ground and
tie it there, set on it and pet it, offer treats and water, sometimes for
hours until it finally understood that I had complete control and gave up.

I think you have a bizarre idea of what "hurt" consists of. Please
describe in detail exactly how you trip a horse to the ground, tie it
up, and sit on it, without inflicting any pain.

BTW pain is an excellent tool for modifying behavior. However it can
easily be overused, and of course there is the psychological question of
whether or not it is being applied for a gainful purpose, or for the
sadistic pleasure of the person inflicting it.


Was that torture?

Not in my opinion. However I think it's pretty obvious that you'd
benefit from a beginner psych course or two at the local community college.




There in no doubt that some soft heads call the techniques that are
routinely and systematically used by pro interrogators "torture",

Uh huh.

What would you call it when an interrogator stubs out a cigarrette on
the eyelids of the person being questioned? When the person being
questioned is tied up, and has his head forecfully held under water
until he is unconsious? When he has his arms tied behind his back and
has his full weight suspeneded from his wrists until his elbows and
shoulders are not only dislocated but suffer permanent injury? When a
person being questioned is tied up and has an attack loosed upon him, so
that he suffers serious bite wounds on his head and other places?

I call this "torture" and it is documented to have been performed by
U.S. personnel. It is also not recommended by Army field intel manuals,
but is winked at all up & down the chain of command.



.. We are dealing with very dangerous and committed people here, people
who will *eagerly* kill themselves in order to kill an enemies women and
children. I see nothing wrong with depriving them of sleep, insulting the
religion that drives them to these outrages, and otherwise offending and
degrading them until, like a bad horse, they begin to doubt first themselves
then their conditioning and finally realise their captors are in control.

Depending on the methods used, I wouldn't object to that either,
although sleep deprivation can have serious side effects and if taken to
an extreme would definitely be a torture on par with that listed above.

The basic question is not who we are fighting, but who we are ourselves.
Is the U.S. an evil despotism that tortures prisoners? Or is it a
civilized & moral nation that obeys international laws?

If you set aside your principles for convenience, you never had any
principles.


admitting ...that the Bush Administration has set this policy from the
highest
levels...


On the contrary. I have yet to see evidence that Bush, Chaney, Rummy, et
al, ever made it US policy to inflict physical pain or torture (ie break
anybodys legs) on anybody.

Oh? Maybe you should go and find that patch of sand that Dave has his
head buried in... I'm sure he'll move over for you...

DSK

"DSK" wrote
Ever heard of "Behavioral psychology"? What you are describing is a sort
of rudimentary behaviorism. It is indeed a "tried & proven technique"
and one that can be vastly improved & made more effective by a little
study.

Yes! Professional interrogators have done more than a little study and are
still honing skills.

I think you have a bizarre idea of what "hurt" consists of. Please
describe in detail exactly how you trip a horse to the ground, tie it
up, and sit on it, without inflicting any pain.

It's called a "running W". Soft latigo leather straps are put just above
the rear hooves and a 2" thick (so it don't cut) rope collar around the
neck. A rope (ok "line") is run from the collar to the right hoof, back up
between the forelegs to the collar then to the left rear and finally back to
the collar in a W fashion. You hold the horses halter in your left hand and
pull the W rope with your right gradually drawing the horses rear legs under
him til he nearly sits. Then you simply push his shoulder with yours to
gently topple him over, holding his head off the ground with the halter.
Finally, tie the end of the W line to the halter to assure he doesn't rub
his eye struggling.


BTW pain is an excellent tool for modifying behavior. ....

Sure, as in spanking a kid. But not to extract truthful information. Thus a
guard may beat up a prisoner to 'modify his behavior' but never to get info.
The prisoner controls that situation - the beating stops when the bad
behavior stops.

What would you call it when an interrogator stubs out a cigarrette on
the eyelids of the person being questioned? When the person being
questioned is tied up, and has his head forecfully held under water
until he is unconsious? When he has his arms tied behind his back and
has his full weight suspeneded from his wrists until his elbows and
shoulders are not only dislocated but suffer permanent injury? When a
person being questioned is tied up and has an attack loosed upon him, so
that he suffers serious bite wounds on his head and other places?

Held back-down on a table while water is poured up his nose. Hands & feet
duct taped they tossed in a swimming pool (or cess pool)? Blindfolded then
tossed out of a helo.

I call this "torture" and it is documented to have been performed by
U.S. personnel. ....

When? These once common tortures have been abandoned for decades because
they yield *unreliable* info. I have seen no evidence that US interogators
are doing any of these things and I doubt they do so because they are
counter productive in that they harden the prisoners resolve to be
uncooperative. He may tell you anything to stop the pain - anything but the
truth.

.. We are dealing with very dangerous and committed people here, people
who will *eagerly* kill themselves in order to kill an enemies women and
children. I see nothing wrong with depriving them of sleep, insulting
the
religion that drives them to these outrages, and otherwise offending and
degrading them until, like a bad horse, they begin to doubt first
themselves
then their conditioning and finally realise their captors are in
control.

.... sleep deprivation .... if taken to
an extreme would definitely be a torture on par with that listed above.

I disagree - unless pain is used to keep them awake.

Is the U.S. an evil despotism that tortures prisoners? Or is it a
civilized & moral nation that obeys international laws?

Again, AFAIK it is not US policy to torture anybody. In fact even relatively
minor excursions over the line are routinely punished. We are obeying
international law. The relatively few held at Gitmo are not POWs.
International law says we can shoot them. It doesn't limit how long we hold
them before doing so.

admitting ...that the Bush Administration has set this policy from the
highest levels...


On the contrary. I have yet to see evidence that Bush, Chaney, Rummy,
et
al, ever made it US policy to inflict physical pain or torture (ie break
anybodys legs) on anybody.

Oh? Maybe you should go and find that patch of sand that Dave has his
head buried in... I'm sure he'll move over for you...

Better yet, why not provide us the evidence that makes you think otherwise.

Vito wrote:
Again, AFAIK it is not US policy to torture anybody.

That's because you haven't bothered to look, and keep both hands clapped
over your ears so you won't hear.

... We are obeying
international law.

No, we are not. The Bush Administration thinks 'interntional law' is for
pussies.



...The relatively few held at Gitmo are not POWs.

Of course not.

International law says we can shoot them.

No, it does not.

Since you're not Dave, insisting that any & all evidence against your
statements is contrived & falsified leftist propaganda, I will humor you
and provide a few links. Since you *still* believe all that malarkey
about how the brave & noble Ho Chi Minh liberated Viet Nam and was
acclaimed by popular support, I doubt it will do any good.

http://reference.allrefer.com/encycl.../prisoner.html

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004.../usint8614.htm

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/

ANd here's a piece of liberal propaganda from that leftist pandering
trash, the Washington Post, which fingers Rummy directly
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...0540-2005Feb28

And that's not even the tip of the iceberg.

Why is President Bush insistent on Congress not restricting his "right"
to torture prisoners? Why are they denying that they knew these foreign
gov'ts practiced torture ("I mean, really... nobody told us!")?

The whole thing stinks.

DSK

"DSK" wrote
....., I doubt it will do any good.

Not when your references support my position and impeach yours.

http://reference.allrefer.com/encycl.../prisoner.html

prisoners of war, in international law, persons captured by a belligerent
while fighting in the military. International law includes rules on the
treatment of prisoners of war but extends protection only to combatants.
This excludes civilians who engage in hostilities (by international law they
are war criminals; see war crimes) and forces that do not observe
conventional requirements for combatants (see war, laws of).

war crimes, in international law, violations of the laws of war (see war,
laws of). Those accused have been tried by their own military and civilian
courts, by those of their enemy, and by expressly established international
tribunals.

Those being held at Gitmo are war criminals tried by Afghan military courts.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including
those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the
conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this
territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps,
including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following
conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and
customs of war.

Those held at Gitmo were not fulfilling these conditions hence they are war
criminals not POWs

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004.../usint8614.htm

Interesting but not applicable to the war criminals held at Gitmo. Moreover,
it simply forbids torture. They are not being tortured.

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/

Rehash of the above .....

ANd here's a piece of liberal propaganda from that leftist pandering
trash, the Washington Post, which fingers Rummy directly
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...0540-2005Feb28

"The State Department's annual human rights report released yesterday
criticized countries for a range of interrogation practices it labeled as
torture, including sleep deprivation for detainees, confining prisoners in
contorted positions, stripping and blindfolding them and threatening them
with dogs -- methods *similar* to those approved at times by the Bush
administration for use on detainees in U.S. custody.
"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved in December 2002 a number of
severe measures, including the stripping of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, and using dogs to frighten them. He later rescinded those tactics and
signed off on a shorter list of "exceptional techniques," including 20-hour
interrogations, face slapping, stripping detainees to create "a feeling of
helplessness and dependence," and using dogs to increase anxiety."

So DoD and DoS disagree. I agree with DoD. YMMV

Why is President Bush insistent on Congress not restricting his "right"
to torture prisoners? Why are they denying that they knew these foreign
gov'ts practiced torture ("I mean, really... nobody told us!")?

I have no idea why Bush does things but my slight aquantance with psychology
suggests he is mad - that like many religious people, he hears "voices" he
attributes to God that tell him to do things. I never heard anyone deny
that these foreign government practiced torture, just that these governments
had promised not to torture the ones we deported to them.

"Vito" wrote
I have no idea why Bush does things but my slight aquantance with
psychology
suggests he is mad - that like many religious people, he hears "voices" he
attributes to God that tell him to do things......


One day a fourth-grade teacher asked the children what their fathers did for
a living. All the typical answers came up: fireman, mechanic, businessman,
salesman, doctor, lawyer, and so forth.


But little Justin was being uncharacteristically quiet, so when the teacher
prodded him about his father, he replied, "My father's an exotic dancer in a
gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes in front of other men and they put
money in his underwear. Sometimes, if the offer is really good, he will go
home with some guy and make love with him for money."


The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other
children to work on some exercises and then took little Justin aside to ask
him, "Is that really true about your father?"


"No," the boy said, "He works for the Republican National Committee and
helped re-elect George Bush, but I was too embarrassed to say that in front
of the other kids."

....., I doubt it will do any good.


Vito wrote:
Not when your references support my position and impeach yours.

Hardly


Those being held at Gitmo are war criminals tried by Afghan military courts.


Yeah, right.


Those held at Gitmo were not fulfilling these conditions hence they are war
criminals not POWs


And did it say that war criminals can be held indefinitely, shot on
whim, etc etc, without trial?

I notice that you have yet to provide one single scrap (other than your
conitnued ludicrous assertion) that these prisoners have had anything
resembling a trial.




Cuba, and using dogs to frighten them. He later rescinded those tactics and
signed off on a shorter list of "exceptional techniques," including 20-hour
interrogations, face slapping, stripping detainees to create "a feeling of
helplessness and dependence," and using dogs to increase anxiety."

So DoD and DoS disagree. I agree with DoD. YMMV

So, no you realize that Rumsfeld *did* give the orders? Only you think
it's OK because he changed his mind... sort of?




Why is President Bush insistent on Congress not restricting his "right"
to torture prisoners? Why are they denying that they knew these foreign
gov'ts practiced torture ("I mean, really... nobody told us!")?


I have no idea why Bush does things but my slight aquantance with psychology
suggests he is mad - that like many religious people, he hears "voices" he
attributes to God that tell him to do things. I never heard anyone deny
that these foreign government practiced torture, just that these governments
had promised not to torture the ones we deported to them.


Yeah right.

Never mind, I'm not interested in arguing with your "voices."

DSK

"DSK" wrote
And did it say that war criminals can be held indefinitely, shot on
whim, etc etc, without trial?

Yes.

I notice that you have yet to provide one single scrap (other than your
conitnued ludicrous assertion) that these prisoners have had anything
resembling a trial.

Like I told Dave, you keep looking for a US or UK type trial with all the
hoopla, but that's not the way the rest of the world works, including many
"western democracies" using Napolionic law. There, a judge hears the
evidence, determines guilt and passes sentance. The accused may or may not
be invited. Happened to a dude I knew - got drunk and wrecked his car in
Mexico and did a year. In Afghanistan the judge is likely some local tribal
elder but he has the same authority. Bottom line is if you want US/UK
justice don't get drunk and wreck in Mexico and don't go making trouble in
Afghanistan.

So, no you realize that Rumsfeld *did* give the orders? Only you think
it's OK because he changed his mind... sort of?

Sure, I simply dispute whether the things he OK'd are torture.



Why is President Bush insistent on Congress not restricting his "right"
to torture prisoners? Why are they denying that they knew these foreign
gov'ts practiced torture ("I mean, really... nobody told us!")?


I have no idea why Bush does things but my slight aquantance with
psychology
suggests he is mad - that like many religious people, he hears "voices"
he
attributes to God that tell him to do things. I never heard anyone deny
that these foreign government practiced torture, just that these
governments
had promised not to torture the ones we deported to them.


Yeah right.

Never mind, I'm not interested in arguing with your "voices."

DSK

And did it say that war criminals can be held indefinitely, shot on
whim, etc etc, without trial?


Vito wrote:
Yes.


Where?


I notice that you have yet to provide one single scrap (other than your
conitnued ludicrous assertion) that these prisoners have had anything
resembling a trial.


Like I told Dave, you keep looking for a US or UK type trial with all the
hoopla, but that's not the way the rest of the world works

Yeah, I' sure... blah blah blah.

There is no evidence that even a rudimentary tribunal has been held for
even a small minority of these prisoners. The U.S. gov't and the
military has not made any such claim.

You're pushing hot air, buddy. You have no facts and you can't admit the
truth, same as our discussion on Viet Nam.

Bye. I hope you and your voices have a good time together.

DSK