Shocked! Shocked I am! Especially with electrified wires on my nipples, standing on one foot on a milk crate above water on the floor... Oh, and a hood. I must have a black Klan hood.

Throw in Cheney and Bush.

FTFA: "One page of the report lists the repeated objections that President Bush and his aides so arrogantly ignored"

Wait so they implicate Bush but the strong case for prosecution stops at Cheney's chief of staff, Gonzales and Rummy?

DMMidwest: Shocked! Shocked I am! Especially with electrified wires on my nipples, standing on one foot on a milk crate above water on the floor... Oh, and a hood. I must have a black Klan hood.

Damn POWs expect us to give them everything. They'll WORK for their wires and hoods, I tell ye.

In order to take the moral high ground, you have to actually occupy that territory first...

And for the Freeper take on this..........

Eventually Levin must be taught the difference between coercion and torture. There's no excuse for his ignorance this late in the game, and there's certainly a whole lot of folks around who would be more than willing to take him aside to teach him.


6 posted on Friday, December 19, 2008 8:07:37 AM by muawiyah


Carl Levin is a disgrace to the United States of America. Where is his discussion of torture suffered by the victims of Mumbai? That is real torture. What about the torture performed by hostile, Arab nations to their own people and to anyone they can capture? What about the beheadings of Americans shamelessly presented on the Internet?

The disgraced Carl Levin failed to put into context the "torture" he presents in his corrupt report.
Anyone with common sense knows that torture is not nice, but you have to get real and present it in the context of a hostile, corrupt, and vicious world, where information provided can save hundreds if not hundreds of thousands of lives. What a moron!

10 posted on Friday, December 19, 2008 8:29:16 AM by olezip


Link (new window)

CDP: And for the Freeper take on this..........

Eventually Levin must be taught the difference between coercion and torture. There's no excuse for his ignorance this late in the game, and there's certainly a whole lot of folks around who would be more than willing to take him aside to teach him.


6 posted on Friday, December 19, 2008 8:07:37 AM by muawiyah


Carl Levin is a disgrace to the United States of America. Where is his discussion of torture suffered by the victims of Mumbai? That is real torture. What about the torture performed by hostile, Arab nations to their own people and to anyone they can capture? What about the beheadings of Americans shamelessly presented on the Internet?

The disgraced Carl Levin failed to put into context the "torture" he presents in his corrupt report.
Anyone with common sense knows that torture is not nice, but you have to get real and present it in the context of a hostile, corrupt, and vicious world, where information provided can save hundreds if not hundreds of thousands of lives. What a moron!

10 posted on Friday, December 19, 2008 8:29:16 AM by olezip


Link (new window)

It's nice to know that they do recognize what nuance and context means, in theory, at least...

Someone please justify how this picture is ever justified:

DamnYankees: Someone please justify how this picture is ever justified:

Really? I didn't see the terrible injustice of that picture. Is there a context that I am unaware of surrounding it?

They will all get pardons as Bush leaves office. He will pardon anyone and everyone for committing any crime between the dawn of time and 2009. :(

DamnYankees: Someone please justify how this picture is ever justified:

Oh noes, sensory deprivation!

gustakooka: DamnYankees: Someone please justify how this picture is ever justified:

Really? I didn't see the terrible injustice of that picture. Is there a context that I am unaware of surrounding it?

Why would an American citizen *ever* need to be deprived of his senses in a courtroom other than to continue a longer pattern of sensory deprivation?

Satan_Sunburn: DamnYankees: Someone please justify how this picture is ever justified:

Oh noes, sensory deprivation!fark you, you torture apologist.

DamnYankees: gustakooka: DamnYankees: Someone please justify how this picture is ever justified:

Really? I didn't see the terrible injustice of that picture. Is there a context that I am unaware of surrounding it?

Why would an American citizen *ever* need to be deprived of his senses in a courtroom other than to continue a longer pattern of sensory deprivation?

While Slate calls that torture, the ECHR does not.

gustakooka: While Slate calls that torture, the ECHR does not.

You and anyone else who wants to defend long term sensory deprivation whose only intent is to scramble your brain and drive you insane can go to hell. You're an embarrassment to humanity.

DamnYankees:

If you can't see that what is pictured there does not equate to



then you should take your ball and go home.

DamnYankees: gustakooka: While Slate calls that torture, the ECHR does not.

You and anyone else who wants to defend long term sensory deprivation whose only intent is to scramble your brain and drive you insane can go to hell. You're an embarrassment to humanity.

You can go to hell, while I have a discussion, moron. Talk about an embarrassment.


I just gave two opinions that conflict with each other. Maybe I would have to try it to appreciate it. Have you?

Err,

gustakooka: I just gave two opinions that conflict with each other. Maybe I would have to try it to appreciate it. Have you?

The ECHR said:

"did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture ... [but] amounted to a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment"

Hell of an endorsement. And that was 30 years ago.

Satan_Sunburn: Err,

Just because one is worse than the other it doesn't mean they aren't both torture, idiot.

DamnYankees: Hell of an endorsement. And that was 30 years ago.

So not torture. Got it.

Hey, when was Geneva Convention thing done? Last week?

gustakooka: So not torture. Got it.

Yes - it is torture. ECHR 30 years ago said this wasn't torture. White House counsel says 6 years ago that crushing a child's testicles wasn't torture. I'm allowed to disagree.

Not to mention Jose Padilla was a goddamm Citizen of the United States. There was nothing remotely legal about what was done to him.

DamnYankees: Just because one is worse than the other it doesn't mean they aren't both torture, idiot.

Exactly true, but I guess you can pin-point where the line should be drawn, right? Idiot.

gustakooka: DamnYankees: Someone please justify how this picture is ever justified:

Really? I didn't see the terrible injustice of that picture. Is there a context that I am unaware of surrounding it?

Just another thing we can thank Star Trek for:



Two words: Neutal Neutralizer

Can you imagine a mind emptied by that thing? Without even a tormentor for company.

It's hard to believe that a man could die of loneliness.

Not when you've sat in that room.

Satan_Sunburn: DamnYankees: Just because one is worse than the other it doesn't mean they aren't both torture, idiot.

Exactly true, but I guess you can pin-point where the line should be drawn, right? Idiot.

Any action which causes severe physical or psychological harm with the intent of punishment or information extraction is torture. It's not complicated. If you think sensory deprivation for god knows how long - weeks, months - doesn't count, I have no respect for your sense of morality.

gustakooka: DamnYankees: gustakooka: DamnYankees: Someone please justify how this picture is ever justified:

Really? I didn't see the terrible injustice of that picture. Is there a context that I am unaware of surrounding it?

Why would an American citizen *ever* need to be deprived of his senses in a courtroom other than to continue a longer pattern of sensory deprivation?

While Slate calls that torture, the ECHR does not.

Do you at least agree it should be illegal to deprive someone of their hearing and sight during their court appearance?

DamnYankees: Just because one is worse than the other it doesn't mean they aren't both torture, idiot.

These people here have an incapacity to understand the non-tangible. The only pain they understand is a simple-minded physical one Anything that is not physical and visible mutilation is not torture to them no matter how psychologicaly/neurologically/or internally physically damaging is not torture because they can't grasp damage that isn't externally and immediately visible.
If they were to be subjected to it they might understand but their imagination is so they can't even speculate as to how terrible that kind of torture might be.

DamnYankees: Any action which causes severe physical or psychological harm with the intent of punishment or information extraction is torture.

So prison, under that definition, would be torture, right? It causes severe psychological harm with the intent of punishment.

Ryan2065: Do you at least agree it should be illegal to deprive someone of their hearing and sight during their court appearance?

From that photo, it looks like the guy is still being escorted into court. I'd be shocked if they didn't remove it during the actual court proceedings.

KaponoFor3: DamnYankees: Any action which causes severe physical or psychological harm with the intent of punishment or information extraction is torture.

So prison, under that definition, would be torture, right? It causes severe psychological harm with the intent of punishment.

Firstly, I deny that prison generally has a severe psychological harm. Certain types of prison conditions may have that and should be reconsidered.

Secondly, even if it did, the purpose of prison is not only to punish. If the purpose was even primarily to punish, it'd be a much bigger problem.

And, of course, prison has nothing at all to do with extcracting information 99% of the time.

KaponoFor3: Ryan2065: Do you at least agree it should be illegal to deprive someone of their hearing and sight during their court appearance?

From that photo, it looks like the guy is still being escorted into court. I'd be shocked if they didn't remove it during the actual court proceedings.

Yeah, I'm sure you'd be shocked. Just one of many articles showing that the US broke Padilla through intense sensory deprivation:

Link (new window)

KaponoFor3: So prison, under that definition, would be torture, right? It causes severe psychological harm with the intent of punishment.

Prison doesn't cause severe psychological harm. There is a reason we do alot (tvs, weight rooms, libraries) to keep the prisoners busy.

Good. Stick it in 'em and break it off.

/Cue the usual traitors with their torture rationales

.

DamnYankees: Yeah, I'm sure you'd be shocked. Just one of many articles showing that the US broke Padilla through intense sensory deprivation:

Oh, so you are saying it works? Well then...

Ryan2065: DamnYankees: Yeah, I'm sure you'd be shocked. Just one of many articles showing that the US broke Padilla through intense sensory deprivation:

Oh, so you are saying it works? Well then...

I said they broke him. Psychologically. Not that they got any benefit from it. No one denies torture can break your mind. Someone tell me this moral:



According to defense motions on file in the case, Padilla's cell measured nine feet by seven feet. The windows were covered over. There was a toilet and sink. The steel bunk was missing its mattress.

He had no pillow. No sheet. No clock. No calendar. No radio. No television. No telephone calls. No visitors. Even Padilla's lawyer was prevented from seeing him for nearly two years.

For significant periods of time the Muslim convert was denied any reading material, including the Koran. The mirror on the wall was confiscated. Meals were slid through a slot in the door. The light in his cell was always on.

DamnYankees: Firstly, I deny that prison generally has a severe psychological harm.

I think that most prisoners would disagree with you. Ever watched those "Lockup" shows on MSNBC or any of the other multitude of prison documentaries? The prisoners always say that the psychological aspect of prison does more harm than the physical aspect.

Secondly, even if it did, the purpose of prison is not only to punish

There are rehabilitation aspects, sure. But the purpose of sensort deprivation is not only to punish either -- it's to extract information.

Yeah, I'm sure you'd be shocked. Just one of many articles showing that the US broke Padilla through intense sensory deprivation

"Broke through intense sensory deprivation" =/= he had it occurring during his court appearances, which was asserted above.

Ryan2065: Prison doesn't cause severe psychological harm. There is a reason we do alot (tvs, weight rooms, libraries) to keep the prisoners busy.

Right, that's why so many prisoners are able to re-adjust to life outside of prison and don't return, right?

Ryan2065: KaponoFor3: So prison, under that definition, would be torture, right? It causes severe psychological harm with the intent of punishment.

Prison doesn't cause severe psychological harm. There is a reason we do alot (tvs, weight rooms, libraries) to keep the prisoners busy.

You know what else causes severe psychological harm? Having members of your family die from a bomb blast. Though their credibility is questionable, he was accused of trying to set off a bomb, and had material information about others who would try the same. The bigger crime would be him withholding that information.

KaponoFor3: The prisoners always say that the psychological aspect of prison does more harm than the physical aspect.

That's not the same thing. This is like saying when you break up with someone, the emotional harm is worse than the lack of sex. That may be true. But its not relevant.

KaponoFor3: But the purpose of sensort deprivation is not only to punish either -- it's to extract information.

Yeah, I gave both motivations.

KaponoFor3: "Broke through intense sensory deprivation" =/= he had it occurring during his court appearances, which was asserted above.

Give me a single motivation - just one - that you would deny a person his senses in court. Just give me one. Considering everything done to this US Citizen, I see no problem putting the burden of proof on the government. You can't just make the assumption that they left him in isolation for months, used sensory deprivation transporting him inside the courtroom - but you're sure they took it off during the hearing.

Yeah. Right.

gustakooka: You know what else causes severe psychological harm? Having members of your family die from a bomb blast. Though their credibility is questionable, he was accused of trying to set off a bomb, and had material information about others who would try the same. The bigger crime would be him withholding that information.

In other words, you support torture.

KaponoFor3: Ryan2065: Prison doesn't cause severe psychological harm. There is a reason we do alot (tvs, weight rooms, libraries) to keep the prisoners busy.

Right, that's why so many prisoners are able to re-adjust to life outside of prison and don't return, right?

Oh, there is psychological harm, I am not denying this. I am saying it is not severe by any stretch of the imagination. Of all the things you could do to someone psychologically, sending them to prison isn't anywhere near the worst.

DamnYankees: gustakooka: You know what else causes severe psychological harm? Having members of your family die from a bomb blast. Though their credibility is questionable, he was accused of trying to set off a bomb, and had material information about others who would try the same. The bigger crime would be him withholding that information.

In other words, you support torture.

I would not define sensory deprivation of torture..but I know that it has never happened to me, so that is pliable.

No, I do not support torture.

DamnYankees: That's not the same thing. This is like saying when you break up with someone, the emotional harm is worse than the lack of sex. That may be true. But its not relevant.

You are really grasping at straws here. Your definition of torture includes both physical and psychological harm, just like prison does. You think people in prison don't worry about their physical health EVERY day?

Give me a single motivation - just one - that you would deny a person his senses in court. Just give me one

As an officer of the court, I'm not asserting there is one. I just said I'd be shocked if the seeing/hearing deprivation devices remained on DURING the proceeding he was involved in. Transferred to/from the courthouse like that? No problem. Wearing that while other defendants are brought before the judge? OK with that. During his own proceeding? Totally, utterly unacceptable.

but you're sure they took it off during the hearing.

Wow you are just not paying attention in this thread -- I never said I was sure they did. I said I'd be shocked if they didn't.

Your arguments are usually better than this, you are slipping today for some reason.

Ryan2065: Oh, there is psychological harm, I am not denying this. I am saying it is not severe by any stretch of the imagination. Of all the things you could do to someone psychologically, sending them to prison isn't anywhere near the worst.

Sure, that's true. But by that logic, what the US did that you consider "torture" isn't really "torture" because off all the things you could do to someone psychologically, sensory deprivation isn't anywhere near the worst.

gustakooka: You know what else causes severe psychological harm? Having members of your family die from a bomb blast. Though their credibility is questionable, he was accused of trying to set off a bomb, and had material information about others who would try the same. The bigger crime would be him withholding that information.

1. What happened to him is worse than losing a family member in a bomb blast.
2. It took them how many years to break him so he would give credible evidence?
3. It has been shown that more often than not you will get bad information out of someone when you torture them because they will say what you want to hear, not what is true.

KaponoFor3: Sure, that's true. But by that logic, what the US did that you consider "torture" isn't really "torture" because off all the things you could do to someone psychologically, sensory deprivation isn't anywhere near the worst.

This just shows how ignorant you are.

Ryan2065: 1. What happened to him is worse than losing a family member in a bomb blast.

I'd personally rather suffer from sensory deprivation than lose, say, my wife in a bomb blast. But that is totally subjective to most people.

3. It has been shown that more often than not you will get bad information out of someone when you torture them because they will say what you want to hear, not what is true.

This is, IMO, the best argument against interrogation via "torture"

gustakooka: No, I do not support torture.

You just defended causing severe psychological harm in order to get information. You defended torture.

KaponoFor3: Your definition of torture includes both physical and psychological harm, just like prison does. You think people in prison don't worry about their physical health EVERY day?

The definition is *severe* harm. This is obviously debateable as to what is too much, but prison is going to be unpleasant. We should do what we can to reduce the harm prisoners suffer.

KaponoFor3: During his own proceeding? Totally, utterly unacceptable.

Glad to hear it.

KaponoFor3: I said I'd be shocked if they didn't.

And without evidence either way, since we aren't allowed to observe these trials, the burden is on the government to show that they gave this man his hearing. They haven't given him any of his other rights.

Ryan2065: 1. What happened to him is worse than losing a family member in a bomb blast.

You are dead wrong about this.

Ryan2065: 2. It took them how many years to break him so he would give credible evidence?

This is a valid point.

Ryan2065: 3. It has been shown that more often than not you will get bad information out of someone when you torture them because they will say what you want to hear, not what is true.

This is very valid point, but does not apply here.

Ryan2065: This just shows how ignorant you are.

Right. Here's what you said:

Oh, there is psychological harm, I am not denying this. I am saying it is not severe by any stretch of the imagination. Of all the things you could do to someone psychologically, sending them to prison isn't anywhere near the worst.

You are saying because you do not view the psychological stress brought on by incarceration as "severe" because sending someone to prison isn't anywhere near the worst of things you could do.

I'm saying sensory deprivation is FAR from the worst things you could do to someone psychologically as well. Under your definition, that means its not torture.

DamnYankees: You just defended causing severe psychological harm in order to get information. You defended torture

I said one crime was worse than the other. And that this isn't torture.

KaponoFor3: I'd personally rather suffer from sensory deprivation than lose, say, my wife in a bomb blast.

By the end of the isolation, you would literally be insane. It is the destruction of your mind. Now, whether your would prefer to lose your mind or your wife is a hard call. But neither is remotely acceptable.

KaponoFor3: This is, IMO, the best argument against interrogation via "torture"

I personally prefer the argument that torture is beyond cruel and is downright evil. I dont like letting torturers off with a practical condemnation rather than a moral one.