If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   US informs Russia that since it doesn't officially torture or kill prisoners, Snowden has no claim to asylum   (nytimes.com) divider line 153
    More: Ironic, Russia, United States, political asylum, torture, prisoners  
•       •       •

1873 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jul 2013 at 2:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



153 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-26 06:01:41 PM

Tigger: They don't officially torture people.

It's just that both the Vice President and the President wrote books in which they said they did.


You're several elections out of date duder
 
2013-07-26 06:02:23 PM

Alphax: Right. Threatens suicide. Because what he's living with is a fate worse than death.


He's been threatening to kill himself since day one. He's behaved himself into the situation he's in now.

Alphax: If that's 'normal' treatment of prisoners, we're far worse of a country than I thought.


It's normal treatment of prisoners who are accused of espionage and passing classified information to foreign nationals to limit their contact with the outside world.
 
2013-07-26 06:05:14 PM

MrSplifferton: Its the purpose that constitutes torture. My point is that they do not need to keep him naked for weeks on end to prevent him from killing himself.


Which is my chief complaint about the over-broad, subjective definition of torture that requires divining intent or motivation applied to things that may or may not be torture. Electrocution, pulling out fingernails, burning, waterboarding, these things are clearly torture regardless of 'motivation'.

Taking away clothes to prevent suicide? it all depends on what the observer thinks the "real" reason is.

MrSplifferton: so then why are they doing that?


Perhaps because (as seen in the links provided), restraints are themselves sometimes considered torture, and enlightened minds frown upon it?

MrSplifferton: He wasn't suicidal until he had spent months in solitary confinement in a military prison.


He was depressed and suicidal even before he leaked the documents. He was plagued with gender identity issues, and deeply lonely. His master sergeant wasn't sure he was mentally fit to deploy to Iraq, fearing he could do harm to himself or others. By August 2009 he was screaming at people and he'd been referred to an Army mental-health counselor.
 
2013-07-26 06:05:14 PM

hardinparamedic: MrSplifferton: Anti-psychotics are not torture. Living without them in a depressed suicidal state with no psychological treatment would be.

10/10. I bought it hook, line and sinker.

 Forcing anti-psychotics against someone's will for behavioral issues IS torture in it's most basic definition.  Ironically, you're against one form of treatment which is in your opinion torture, while promoting another form which is widely accepted as such.

MrSplifferton: He wasn't suicidal until he had spent months in solitary confinement in a military prison.

He's been saying he's going to kill himself since day 1.


Are you saying that having someone commited for a 5150 and treating them with anti psychotics is actually torture? By definition a 5150 is against their will and only invoked when they are a danger to themselves.

Instead of getting him psychological help they thought it would be better to leave him naked, psychotic, and in isolation for 8 months in Quantico.
 
2013-07-26 06:07:28 PM

MrSplifferton: Instead of getting him psychological help they thought it would be better to leave him naked, psychotic, and in isolation for 8 months in Quantico.


Just a suggestion, you may want to make sure you aren't regurgitating over-simplifications and repeating some hyperbole.
 
2013-07-26 06:08:18 PM

MrSplifferton: Are you saying that having someone commited for a 5150 and treating them with anti psychotics is actually torture? By definition a 5150 is against their will and only invoked when they are a danger to themselves.


I'm saying that doping Manning up with Inapsine and Haldol and letting him set there in his cell and drool is, yes, torture. In fact, it's a generally accepted form of torture among people who tend to look out for, and punish people for doing it. There was a whole deinstitutionalization thing in the 1980s because of it. Manning is not a person who is not in custody, either, and is being taken in for an acute psychotic break.

MrSplifferton: Instead of getting him psychological help they thought it would be better to leave him naked, psychotic, and in isolation for 8 months in Quantico.


Actually, he's been seen by multiple psychiatrists. Had you argued that the military was ignoring their recommendations because they feel he's only doing this to be a disciplinary issue, I might have agreed with you on their mishandling of him.
 
2013-07-26 06:11:26 PM
This is just so much total BS.  Right or wrong let's be honest.  If the Russian version of Edward Snowden just showed-up at JFK airport does anyone think we would simply send him packing back to Russia.  If we did not offer him asylum we would at least find a country that would and then send him off to that country, after getting as much info from him as we could.  Of course, maybe Snowden is a CIA plant.
 
2013-07-26 06:12:15 PM

hardinparamedic: Alphax: Right. Threatens suicide. Because what he's living with is a fate worse than death.

He's been threatening to kill himself since day one. He's behaved himself into the situation he's in now.

Alphax: If that's 'normal' treatment of prisoners, we're far worse of a country than I thought.

It's normal treatment of prisoners who are accused of espionage and passing classified information to foreign nationals to limit their contact with the outside world.


I don't buy it.
 
2013-07-26 06:13:12 PM

BojanglesPaladin: MrSplifferton: Its the purpose that constitutes torture. My point is that they do not need to keep him naked for weeks on end to prevent him from killing himself.

Which is my chief complaint about the over-broad, subjective definition of torture that requires divining intent or motivation applied to things that may or may not be torture. Electrocution, pulling out fingernails, burning, waterboarding, these things are clearly torture regardless of 'motivation'.

Taking away clothes to prevent suicide? it all depends on what the observer thinks the "real" reason is.

MrSplifferton: so then why are they doing that?

Perhaps because (as seen in the links provided), restraints are themselves sometimes considered torture, and enlightened minds frown upon it?

MrSplifferton: He wasn't suicidal until he had spent months in solitary confinement in a military prison.

He was depressed and suicidal even before he leaked the documents. He was plagued with gender identity issues, and deeply lonely. His master sergeant wasn't sure he was mentally fit to deploy to Iraq, fearing he could do harm to himself or others. By August 2009 he was screaming at people and he'd been referred to an Army mental-health counselor.


So he was looney toons before during, and after his time in the army, and it's documented that they knew that. So instead of getting him treatment in prison, which they knew he farkin' needed. They isolated and kept him naked.

that really doesn't seem any better to me. Sounds like there are some people in need of a sensitivity class for mental illness.
 
2013-07-26 06:19:45 PM

hardinparamedic: MrSplifferton: Are you saying that having someone commited for a 5150 and treating them with anti psychotics is actually torture? By definition a 5150 is against their will and only invoked when they are a danger to themselves.

I'm saying that doping Manning up with Inapsine and Haldol and letting him set there in his cell and drool is, yes, torture. In fact, it's a generally accepted form of torture among people who tend to look out for, and punish people for doing it. There was a whole deinstitutionalization thing in the 1980s because of it. Manning is not a person who is not in custody, either, and is being taken in for an acute psychotic break.

MrSplifferton: Instead of getting him psychological help they thought it would be better to leave him naked, psychotic, and in isolation for 8 months in Quantico.

Actually, he's been seen by multiple psychiatrists. Had you argued that the military was ignoring their recommendations because they feel he's only doing this to be a disciplinary issue, I might have agreed with you on their mishandling of him.


There seems to be a disconnect. I'm not saying to just dope him till he drools. I'm saying get him grounded with mood stabalizers and maybe an anti-psychotic, and keep him on his medication. Telling me that the army is ignoring the advice of medical doctors is infuriating and makes it seem even more plausible that they were doing that to punish him (aka torture)
 
2013-07-26 06:23:42 PM

MrSplifferton: Telling me that the army is ignoring the advice of medical doctors is infuriating and makes it seem even more plausible that they were doing that to punish him (aka torture)


Having been in the Army for a short period and having to deal with them when you have issues with a mental problem, I can safely tell you that it's not Manning who's alone in that. It's really infuriating.

Unfortunately, you're not just dealing with this. You're dealing with the military culture as well. They don't look highly on Soldiers who give away information that could harm or kill their fellow countrymen or people helping them. If I could find it, and I'll look on google for it, it was a historical paper from a legal journal I was reading which explains why the military culture looks so harshly on people like Manning.
 
2013-07-26 06:38:10 PM

MrSplifferton: So instead of getting him treatment in prison, which they knew he farkin' needed. They isolated and kept him naked.
that really doesn't seem any better to me. Sounds like there are some people in need of a sensitivity class for mental illness.


I do not know the exact circumstances or nature of his mental health diagnosis or his treatment, and neither do you. I do not know if your description is verified or even verifiable, or hyperbolic, inaccurate, or perfectly correct. He had to be competent to stand trial and work with his attorneys, he may have refused drugs, the military may have been too cautious to avoid accusations of drugging him excessively, who knows.

But poor treatment does not necessarily constitute torture, which I recall was your original assertion?

MrSplifferton: Telling me that the army is ignoring the advice of medical doctors is infuriating and makes it seem even more plausible that they were doing that to punish him (aka torture)


Remember, you said that if he was a suicide risk, they should have restrained him and not taken his clothes. See the links on restraint and seclusion as common methodology in prisons and how NOT doing that is considered more sensitive and humane. Instead you take away things he could use to injure himself.

They shouldn't have stripped him, they shouldn't have restrained him, they shouldn't have drugged him too much, they shouldn't have drugged him too little.

But what, exactly, do you consider to be the torture? The deliberate, verifiable, non-subjective, unequivocal, on the level of waterboarding and nipple clamps torture?
 
m00
2013-07-26 07:00:50 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: No matter how terrible the US government is, it's only amateur hour compared to the Russian government. Pooty-poot pulling this is pretty rich; you know he doesn't give a damn and is trolling the US. Anyone who distrusts the US government but believes one single word from the Russians is an idiot.


Russia is pretty brutal, and they are pretty bad at civil liberties. But they don't operate against their own best interest. I think if there was a Russian version of Edward Snowden who leaked a bunch of awful stuff about the Russian government, there would be serious public reprisals against mid-level bureaucrats who "over-extended their authority"and private reprisals against people in charge of security procedures. Russia would make a big show of punishing those "responsible," and say to the Russian-Snowden "pretend like you support the reforms and you get a pass on this." Keep him on the payroll, and move him somewhere that has no secrets. If he still doesn't STFU, he goes to one of those bad prisons where prisoners voluntarily eat glass to end up in the prison hospital in order to avoid their daily torture. Usually that's incentive enough to flip the guy.

What's galling about the situation we have instead is that the US government is making a big show about how spying violates these fundamental tenants of our society, which is why Snowden is this awful person... for spilling the beans about how much the US is spying.
 
2013-07-26 07:01:06 PM

BojanglesPaladin: MrSplifferton: So instead of getting him treatment in prison, which they knew he farkin' needed. They isolated and kept him naked.
that really doesn't seem any better to me. Sounds like there are some people in need of a sensitivity class for mental illness.

I do not know the exact circumstances or nature of his mental health diagnosis or his treatment, and neither do you. I do not know if your description is verified or even verifiable, or hyperbolic, inaccurate, or perfectly correct. He had to be competent to stand trial and work with his attorneys, he may have refused drugs, the military may have been too cautious to avoid accusations of drugging him excessively, who knows.

But poor treatment does not necessarily constitute torture, which I recall was your original assertion?

MrSplifferton: Telling me that the army is ignoring the advice of medical doctors is infuriating and makes it seem even more plausible that they were doing that to punish him (aka torture)

Remember, you said that if he was a suicide risk, they should have restrained him and not taken his clothes. See the links on restraint and seclusion as common methodology in prisons and how NOT doing that is considered more sensitive and humane. Instead you take away things he could use to injure himself.

They shouldn't have stripped him, they shouldn't have restrained him, they shouldn't have drugged him too much, they shouldn't have drugged him too little.

But what, exactly, do you consider to be the torture? The deliberate, verifiable, non-subjective, unequivocal, on the level of waterboarding and nipple clamps torture?


My earlier post clarified that I am not advocating enormous amounts of drugs and indefinate restraints. I'm advocating stabilization of his mental illness.

Being suicidal is a strong indicator of mental illness from the run of the mill depression to schizophrenia.

If there was a more humane way to handle him, rather than stripping him naked and keeping him isolated. They should have done that, and from what a previous poster indicated that was the case. So why strip him naked and keep him isolated for 23 hrs a day? The doctors certainly did not recommend that. So, if they have a good reason why they did it, and it's not standard operating procedure to humiliate prisoners (see Abu ghraib)I would like to hear it.

Side note, if that is not considered torture then Snowden should stay the hell away from the us regardless of holder's letter.
 
2013-07-26 07:01:52 PM

hardinparamedic: MrSplifferton: Telling me that the army is ignoring the advice of medical doctors is infuriating and makes it seem even more plausible that they were doing that to punish him (aka torture)

Having been in the Army for a short period and having to deal with them when you have issues with a mental problem, I can safely tell you that it's not Manning who's alone in that. It's really infuriating.

Unfortunately, you're not just dealing with this. You're dealing with the military culture as well. They don't look highly on Soldiers who give away information that could harm or kill their fellow countrymen or people helping them. If I could find it, and I'll look on google for it, it was a historical paper from a legal journal I was reading which explains why the military culture looks so harshly on people like Manning.



That is the most apologistic bit of farktardery I've ever read.  You are excusing torture as 'military culture'.

What next?  Apologizing for police brutality and miscarriages of justice as 'police culture'?

/and I used to consider your government enlightened
 
2013-07-26 07:09:39 PM

Cyber_Junk: You are excusing torture as 'military culture'.


I don't consider what's happened to him to be torture. Some of it might have been inappropriate, such as ignoring psychiatric recommendations, but the only way it's torture is if you throw out the definition of it and invent your own. He has not been physically or psychologically brutalized. He has not been raped. He has not been mutilated. He wasn't even waterboarded.

 You're going to have to accept the fact we have different definitions. Sorry.

Cyber_Junk: What next?  Apologizing for police brutality and miscarriages of justice as 'police culture'?


When I do that, you're more than welcome to call me out on it. And, unless you're reading something I didn't type, I pretty much stated that type of behavior should be called out.
 
2013-07-26 07:15:16 PM

hardinparamedic: I don't consider what's happened to him to be torture

MrSplifferton: if that is not considered torture then Snowden should stay the hell away from the us regardless of holder's letter.


Thank you both for illustrating my point.

Two rational, reasonable and fairly informed people looking at the same fact pattern. For one it is CLEARLY torture. For the other it is DEFINATLEY not.

Which is my main point:

BojanglesPaladin: I think that agencies like the UN are being counterproductive by defining what constitutes torture too broadly, and dilute the level of outrage and urgency of action when pretty much every country in the world is determined to be involved in some form of torture in its treatment of prisoners.


Anyways. Thank guys.
 
2013-07-26 07:27:25 PM

hardinparamedic: Cyber_Junk: You are excusing torture as 'military culture'.

I don't consider what's happened to him to be torture. Some of it might have been inappropriate, such as ignoring psychiatric recommendations, but the only way it's torture is if you throw out the definition of it and invent your own. He has not been physically or psychologically brutalized. He has not been raped. He has not been mutilated. He wasn't even waterboarded.

 You're going to have to accept the fact we have different definitions. Sorry.

Cyber_Junk: What next?  Apologizing for police brutality and miscarriages of justice as 'police culture'?

When I do that, you're more than welcome to call me out on it. And, unless you're reading something I didn't type, I pretty much stated that type of behavior should be called out.



A good metric of  'should we be doing this?'   is to ask yourself what people 2 generations from now will think about it.       I'm betting they'll be sickened by the thought.

My apologies for the language I used earlier.  That wasn't mature of me.
 
2013-07-26 08:50:58 PM
McVeigh? McVeigh? McVeigh?
Garza? Garza? Garza?
Jones? Jones? Jones?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-executions-1927-2003
 
2013-07-26 08:55:22 PM

Tommy Moo: How I feel whenever Obama goes after whistleblowers and vocally opposes any legislative attempts to limit warrantless domestic espionage:
[i.imgur.com image 500x284]


Yes. Then there's this:
Obama promises, including whistleblower protections, disappear from web site.
Sucks to be us, I'd say.
Obama, further right than Nixon.
 
2013-07-26 08:59:45 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: McVeigh? McVeigh? McVeigh?


Really? McVeigh was tortured and extra judicially murdered without due process afforded to him?

That's powerful stupid.
 
2013-07-26 09:34:09 PM
He wouldn't be a prisoner of war. We torture THEM, sure, no problem. But Snowden wouldn't be subject to torture as a political prisoner or POW.

We don't torture criminals. We may subject them to treatment that would appear to be torture, but it's not as part of their sentence, so it's not torture per se. So IF Snowden were extradited, tried, convicted and imprisoned, he wouldn't be facing "torture", just confinement in a penal institution that's less than pleasant. But his punishment wouldn't be to be tortured. So that's out.

And realistically speaking, Snowden made the mistake of fleeing to a country where by all accounts, the "justice system" is so broken, people who have been arrested can expect up to a four-year wait just to be CHARGED with a crime, nevermind getting to trial, so he's not going to have many sympathetic ears about the potential injustice he's facing.

I really think he failed to consider his cunning plan before he executed it.
 
2013-07-26 09:35:20 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Tommy Moo: How I feel whenever Obama goes after whistleblowers and vocally opposes any legislative attempts to limit warrantless domestic espionage:
[i.imgur.com image 500x284]

Yes. Then there's this:
Obama promises, including whistleblower protections, disappear from web site.
Sucks to be us, I'd say.
Obama, further right than Nixon.


Is there some reason your whistleblower cite links to a death-penalty page? It undercuts your outrage.
 
2013-07-26 10:07:27 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: McVeigh? McVeigh? McVeigh?
Garza? Garza? Garza?
Jones? Jones? Jones?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-executions-1927-2003


Manny... Moto
moto
moto
 
2013-07-26 10:39:59 PM

imontheinternet: Manning is kept in 23 hour isolation in a Supermax federal prison.  A UN investigation came back with a report that called it torture.  Even if Russia does worse to its people, the report still serves as a legal basis for granting a claim of asylum under international law.  Source



Isolation is a legal method of detention in the United States and a UN investigation is neither conclusive nor a legal authority.
 
2013-07-26 11:05:45 PM

imontheinternet: Manning is kept in 23 hour isolation in a Supermax federal prison.


No he isn't. He's kept in a single cell, but he can hear and be heard by other inmates. He was kept in a brig at Quantico, not a federal supermax, and is now in a medium security prison with an 80-square-foot cell, which is positively palatial compared to what most prisoners in the U.S. get. (Our overcrowding is out of control.)

The stories of his confinement have been exaggerated with without context. Even his lawyer says his guards never treated him with abuse or even in a manner intended to humiliate him.
 
2013-07-26 11:32:52 PM

stoli n coke: The U.S. is not trustworthy, but a country with a president who looks and behaves like a real-life Bond villain with a history of disappearing people to Siberian prisons forever is trustworthy? For all we know, Putin has a sable cage named "Asylum" that he's ready to throw Snowflake into.


A former KGB agent who has nostalgically wished for the return of the Soviet Union is untrustworthy? The hell you say!
 
2013-07-26 11:37:29 PM
no torture?

dick cheney is already there
waiting with an iron maiden
 
2013-07-26 11:55:45 PM

hardinparamedic: mediablitz: I missed the part where he said Manning was a hero. He just pointed out the treatment Manning received, which was labled Cruel and Inhuman.

It's okay though, cuz you don't like what he did, right? So throw that strawman on to the pile!

Please document what has been done to him that is "Cruel and Unusual".


You've never actually read the opinions of medical experts on what solitary, especially in US prisons, does to people, have you.
 
2013-07-27 12:20:17 AM

hardinparamedic: You're making a claim


No, I am not.
 
2013-07-27 12:22:19 AM

hardinparamedic: I asked you to lay out your claim


I've never made a claim. The U.N. and human rights organizations have. Did you see my name somewhere?

Weird. I do a lot of volunteer work, but never legal work. Why would you think it is ME?

Are you stalking me?
 
2013-07-27 12:55:41 AM
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/solitary-confinement-shan e -bauer

When solitary in Iran is better than in the USA, I'd say there's a pretty strong case for Snowden to have asylum.
 
2013-07-27 01:16:12 AM

vygramul: imontheinternet: Manning is kept in 23 hour isolation in a Supermax federal prison.

No he isn't. He's kept in a single cell, but he can hear and be heard by other inmates. He was kept in a brig at Quantico, not a federal supermax, and is now in a medium security prison with an 80-square-foot cell, which is positively palatial compared to what most prisoners in the U.S. get. (Our overcrowding is out of control.)

The stories of his confinement have been exaggerated with without context. Even his lawyer says his guards never treated him with abuse or even in a manner intended to humiliate him.


He had psychiatrists at Quantico say that he should be taken off of suicide watch http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/29/15545923-bradley-mannings- p sychiatrist-says-his-recommendations-ignored-by-quantico-staff?lite

He's being credited due to his treatment at Quantico http://rt.com/usa/manning-wikileaks-sentence-pretrial-581/

He was in a cell 2x the size of a parrot cage at Quantico  http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/99-99/14836-bradley-manning s -quantico-cell-2x-the-size-of-parrot-cage

Physical damage is not required for torture.  Punishment of an individual without trial is torture.
 
2013-07-27 01:19:28 AM

BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: Sure. Snowden would probably be treated roughly the same as Bradley Manning.

I don't see why. Manning was active military and subject to a different legal system.

Snowden is 100% guaranteed to get mirandized, A line of high profile pro-bono attorneys will be lined up to defend him, and his treatment will be the subject of intense, press-conference scrutiny.

If he truly is some sort of champion of free information, he will have the best platform possible from which to launch his 95 theses and preach his manifesto.

He's a public, internationally known, United States private citizen. He's going to be just fine. Sure, he might accidentally fall off a ledge while in prison, but let's be honest, if that IS going to happen, it will happen no matter where he goes.


The Supreme court recently gutted Mirandization. So the 100% gaurantee really isn't there anymore and any information he provides or fails to provide (e.g. silence)  before he personally explicitly calls for his right to prevent self incrimination could be applicable in court.
 
2013-07-27 02:22:15 AM
Well, seeing that sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation and waterboarding aren't torture according to the US, I guess they are right
 
2013-07-27 02:29:11 AM

lucksi: Well, seeing that sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation and waterboarding aren't torture according to the US, I guess they are right


Politics 101.

US >UN
 
2013-07-27 03:13:43 AM

MrSplifferton: vygramul: imontheinternet: Manning is kept in 23 hour isolation in a Supermax federal prison.

No he isn't. He's kept in a single cell, but he can hear and be heard by other inmates. He was kept in a brig at Quantico, not a federal supermax, and is now in a medium security prison with an 80-square-foot cell, which is positively palatial compared to what most prisoners in the U.S. get. (Our overcrowding is out of control.)

The stories of his confinement have been exaggerated with without context. Even his lawyer says his guards never treated him with abuse or even in a manner intended to humiliate him.

He had psychiatrists at Quantico say that he should be taken off of suicide watch http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/29/15545923-bradley-mannings- p sychiatrist-says-his-recommendations-ignored-by-quantico-staff?lite

He's being credited due to his treatment at Quantico http://rt.com/usa/manning-wikileaks-sentence-pretrial-581/

He was in a cell 2x the size of a parrot cage at Quantico  http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/99-99/14836-bradley-manning s -quantico-cell-2x-the-size-of-parrot-cage

Physical damage is not required for torture.  Punishment of an individual without trial is torture.


Now we can all argue for the next 50 years on what exactly constitutes torture. There are ways to define torture (Like in the Woo memos) to make sure extreme psychological duress is not included; there are ways to define torture--as you have done--so even the most inconsequential action becomes torture, if the individual feels like defining it as such (punishment without trial? Then what constitutes "punishment"? Detention?)

Myself, I'd like to see the definition of torture revised so completely that it takes all focus off WHAT IS BEING DONE (racking, waterboarding, stress postures) and puts the focus on WHY IT IS BEING DONE. In other words, stop looking at the subjective impact on the subject and start looking at the objective intent of the interrogator. After all, the line at which "interviewing" becomes "interrogation" and "interrogation" becomes "torture" exists first in the mind of the person doing the questioning. Interviewing is done to any individual who may have pertinent information about an incident. Interrogating is done to an individual believed to be more than casually involved in the same incident. Torture is used when the questioner believes that the subject has information which is being deliberately withheld, the nature of which is mission-critical and therefore requires harsher extraction. Thus, the gradation is dependent not upon the mindset of the interviewee, but upon the mindset of the interviewer.

So here's my definition of "torture": Any questioning, by more than one interrogator, beyond mere verbal questioning, intended to elicit information which the interrogator believes the subject possesses, which continues after the subject's initial denial of knowledge of that information. Period.

Note the beauty of this definition. It means that tag-team interrogation by the local cops that lasts for 19 hours because they "JUST KNOW" that scumbag committed the murder, is as much torture as waterboarding an al-Qaeda terrorist at Gitmo to see what he knows about 9/11. It would make sneaky buddy-buddy interrogations and the Reid Technique borderline torture as much as solitary confinement. If the intent of ANYTHING is to make the subject come up with information after he says "I don't know about that," and consists of ANYTHING beyond one interrogator talking to the subject--it would be considered torture. Period.

Would this make police interrogations a great deal more difficult? Absolutely. Would it virtually eliminate jailhouse confessions? You bet. Would it almost guarantee that interrogation of terrorists could not be done in the field? Most definitely. But it would draw the brightest of lines across what is and is not torture. Of course, nobody would ever endorse such a definition, much less sign off on it. But we would never again have to argue about whether standing on one's feet all day long constitutes "torture" or not. Are we hoping it makes them talk? Yes? then it would be torture.
 
2013-07-27 04:32:49 AM

Gyrfalcon: So here's my definition of "torture": Any questioning, by more than one interrogator, beyond mere verbal questioning, intended to elicit information which the interrogator believes the subject possesses, which continues after the subject's initial denial of knowledge of that information. Period.


Interrogations are often shiat, confessions are unreliable and you'll get no argument from me on that. However, people are often asked the same question more than once for the sake of consistency. Widely varying details are often used in serious criminal cases (such as murder) where the person being charged was questioned repeatedly over a length of time, and their story wildly changed.

So already we are at a very reasonable and necessary change to this definition of torture, and the line in the sand gets scribbled out and moved. :\
 
2013-07-27 04:34:54 AM

MrSplifferton: lucksi: Well, seeing that sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation and waterboarding aren't torture according to the US, I guess they are right

Politics 101.

US >UN


Actually, to Russia, I bet UN > US on this issue.

Which is the point.
 
2013-07-27 08:22:26 AM

Gyrfalcon: HotIgneous Intruder: Tommy Moo: How I feel whenever Obama goes after whistleblowers and vocally opposes any legislative attempts to limit warrantless domestic espionage:
[i.imgur.com image 500x284]

Yes. Then there's this:
Obama promises, including whistleblower protections, disappear from web site.
Sucks to be us, I'd say.
Obama, further right than Nixon.

Is there some reason your whistleblower cite links to a death-penalty page? It undercuts your outrage.


Sorry. I was blinded by the messianic aura.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/obama-whistleblower-website _n _3658815.html
 
2013-07-27 08:27:03 AM

hardinparamedic: HotIgneous Intruder: McVeigh? McVeigh? McVeigh?

Really? McVeigh was tortured and extra judicially murdered without due process afforded to him?

That's powerful stupid.


The United States killed him.
The United States kills prisoners by death penalty.
This is why many other countries will not extradite to the US if the subject could be tried and executed.
Study it up.
 
2013-07-27 08:35:57 AM

hardinparamedic: Nemo's Brother: Look how Obama has treated Bradley Manning.

[i565.photobucket.com image 600x590]

Tell us more about how Manning's a hero. Specifically the part where he dumped thousands of documents that were compartmentalized/classified/NOFOR without having any knowledge of what was in them. Or how he dumped it to a NGO intelligence dump frequented by both terrorist groups and foreign intelligence services, under the guide of a foreign national, who then "Creatively edited" the information to his own ends.


He doesn't have to be a hero to expect human rights in this country. But I know people like you. You're a useful idiots. Laws don't apply to people you don't agree with.
 
2013-07-27 10:57:11 AM

MrSplifferton: vygramul: imontheinternet: Manning is kept in 23 hour isolation in a Supermax federal prison.

No he isn't. He's kept in a single cell, but he can hear and be heard by other inmates. He was kept in a brig at Quantico, not a federal supermax, and is now in a medium security prison with an 80-square-foot cell, which is positively palatial compared to what most prisoners in the U.S. get. (Our overcrowding is out of control.)

The stories of his confinement have been exaggerated with without context. Even his lawyer says his guards never treated him with abuse or even in a manner intended to humiliate him.

He had psychiatrists at Quantico say that he should be taken off of suicide watch http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/29/15545923-bradley-mannings- p sychiatrist-says-his-recommendations-ignored-by-quantico-staff?lite

He's being credited due to his treatment at Quantico http://rt.com/usa/manning-wikileaks-sentence-pretrial-581/

He was in a cell 2x the size of a parrot cage at Quantico  http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/99-99/14836-bradley-manning s -quantico-cell-2x-the-size-of-parrot-cage

Physical damage is not required for torture.  Punishment of an individual without trial is torture.


He's not on suicide watch, getting credit for pretrial confinement is SOP, and the parrot cage comparison is just silly and you should KNOW it's wrong. Otherwise, you'd have not waited for Bradley Manning to whine about the size of the standard prison cell.
 
2013-07-27 11:52:39 AM

Nemo's Brother: He doesn't have to be a hero to expect human rights in this country. But I know people like you. You're a useful idiots. Laws don't apply to people you don't agree with.


25.media.tumblr.com 

He's been treated no different than any other military prisoner would have been treated given his behavior and disciplinary issues, and would you like to quote what "laws" have been ignored with Manning?
 
2013-07-27 01:50:35 PM
1993 - "The US government, torturing people? That's a little far fetched, did you forget your meds?"

2013 - "Sure our goverment tortures people, but not "torture" torture. For that we hire independent contractors, so it's all good. As for domestic drone use, its for surveillance only...relax!"

2033 - "Drone assasinations of US citizens on American soil is perfectly legal, if the local police have reason to believe they may at some point in the future have probable cause to do so. The usual procedure is a couple of drone-fired .50 cal rounds into the insurgents bedrooms while they sleep, so the danger to neighboring "Real Americans" is minimized. Of course, all the proper procedures are followed, after all we are a nation of laws!"
 
2013-07-27 02:04:50 PM

BojanglesPaladin: ikanreed: Since the bolded part is requisite,

It's not. Note the rest where it says "OR for any reason based on discrimination of any kind."

My point is that a definition that relies on the subjective assessment of the motivation of the actors is prone to problems of interpretation. If you've ever been in a hospital under medical care, you know that you often get woken up for one reason ot another every few hours, which is sleep deprivation, though unintentional. A prisoner under medical supervision, would likewise be woken up at regular intervals and that too, would be sleep deprivation.

But we could not say objectively that one was intended to be torture because it happened in a prison. Maybe it was. Maybe not. but a too broad definition can lead to false positives.

As an example, I was once taken into custody on a warrant for expired registration. All in all, I spent 3 days in county. During that entire time I was never afforded a place to sleep, having to find a piece of floor in a crowded room with 40 or more other people. I was fed two pieces of bread with bologna or applesauce in between and had to drink from a fountain on top of the toilet by filling the bologna wrapper. With only a threadbare prison jumpsuit and cold concrete, it was freezing the whole time. No cots, no beds, no chairs, and not even a bench most of the time. Just concrete holding tank after holding tank. There was one open toilet in each room, and in some of them it was clogged and full of feces and urine. Every 3 hours the guards would arrive yelling the name of those who were being released, or moving us on to the next holding cell meaning that you never got more than about two hours of sleep at a time, around the clock for days. So I was sleep deprived, underfed, kept in unsanitary conditions, and in unsuitable temperatures.

It was a torturous experience, but at no point do I think I was being tortured.

Of course, If I was a terrorism suspect, and I told that exact same story, it would be clear evidence of being tortured, and a UN investigative team would dutifully report it as such.

I say that to say this: I think that agencies like the UN are being counterproductive by defining what constitutes torture too broadly, and dilute the level of outrage and urgency of action when pretty much every country in the world is determined to be involved in some form of torture in its treatment of prisoners.


So basically you were subjected to the prison scene from "Idiocracy" because of a problem with your car registration. And you still don't think you were being tortured?

Ever heard of "The Stockholm Syndrome"?

/look it up, we'll wait
//dont forget to herp before you derp
 
2013-07-27 06:56:56 PM

madgordy: Section 31: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

article IV section 2 paragraph 2

2: A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

---------------

What war has Congress declared?   no war, no treason.


Here's the real question. What aid and comfort did they give to the enemy, and who specifically are the enemy they gave aid and comfort to?
 
2013-07-27 07:00:43 PM

hardinparamedic: Nemo's Brother: He doesn't have to be a hero to expect human rights in this country. But I know people like you. You're a useful idiots. Laws don't apply to people you don't agree with.

[25.media.tumblr.com image 498x279] 

He's been treated no different than any other military prisoner would have been treated given his behavior and disciplinary issues, and would you like to quote what "laws" have been ignored with Manning?


Still no need for him to be naked. They could give him a paper suit at least.
 
2013-07-27 08:02:35 PM

Lawyers With Nukes: So basically you were subjected to the prison scene from "Idiocracy" because of a problem with your car registration. And you still don't think you were being tortured?

Ever heard of "The Stockholm Syndrome"?

/look it up, we'll wait
//dont forget to herp before you derp


You're kind of an idiot, aren't you?

You know, of course, as an alleged lawyer, that the slippery slope applies to just about everything. If you're going to apply "torture" to Bojangles' less-than-idyllic stay in county lockup, then virtually anyone can claim he was "tortured" if conditions don't conform to his standards of perfection. If I require eight uninterrupted hours of sleep in absolute silence, 2230 calories of ideally balanced food, and NASA clean-room levels of sterility in my domicile at all times, then any incarceration becomes "torture" and I can claim it under your standards, regardless of the conditions of the prison or the intent of my jailers. In fact, under that definition, ANY inconvenience would become torture if it interrupts my basic standard of living.

Yet another good reason to disallow subjective experience as the definition of torture. Oh, and by the way, here's an actual definition of Stockholm Syndrome with link. You'll see that merely thinking a few days of bad food in a county lock up was not torture does not constitute Stockholm Syndrome.

Stockholm syndrome refers to a group of psychological symptoms that occur in some persons in a captive or hostage situation...[it is] considered a complex reaction to a frightening situation, and experts do not agree completely on all of its characteristic features. Most experts, however, agree that Stockholm syndrome has three central characteristics:
The hostages have negative feelings about the police or other authorities.
The hostages have positive feelings toward their captor(s).
The captors develop positive feelings toward the hostages.

Stockholm syndrome does not affect all hostages (or persons in comparable situations); in fact, a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) study of over 1200 hostage-taking incidents found that 92% of the hostages did not develop Stockholm syndrome. FBI researchers then interviewed flight attendants who had been taken hostage during airplane hijackings, and concluded that three factors are necessary for the syndrome to develop:
The crisis situation lasts for several days or longer.
The hostage takers remain in contact with the hostages; that is, the hostages are not placed in a separate room.
The hostage takers show some kindness toward the hostages or at least refrain from harming them. Hostages abused by captors typically feel anger toward them and do not usually develop the syndrome.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stockholm+sy ndrome
 
m00
2013-07-28 12:04:02 AM

Gyrfalcon: We don't torture criminals. We may subject them to treatment that would appear to be torture, but it's not as part of their sentence, so it's not torture per se. So IF Snowden were extradited, tried, convicted and imprisoned, he wouldn't be facing "torture", just confinement in a penal institution that's less than pleasant. But his punishment wouldn't be to be tortured. So that's out.


Syria doesn't torture criminals. Syria may subject them to treatment that would appear to be torture, such as torturing them to death, but it's not part of their sentence so it's not torture.

Just pointing out the logical flaw there. :p
 
Displayed 50 of 153 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report