Amnesty International has commissioned a stunning two-minute anti-torture ad. It’s footage of an actual person who has been put into a so-called “stress position” for six hours. It’s pretty disturbing, so know what you’re getting into before you watch it. I only wonder how much time will pass before the current support of torture will be viewed as we now view McCarthyism or Jim Crow laws. Will it be five, fifteen, or fifty years before people wonder how anybody could have thought this was a good idea?
Comments are closed.
Waldo,
Watching Republicans other than Sen. John McCain squirm when being questioned about torture in general, and waterboarding in particular — inventing extreme scenarios and talking about “simulated drowning” or a “little dunk in the water” — has revealed that torture could be a lollapalooza of a problem for many of the GOP’s 2008 candidates.
The more it is discussed the more disgusted everyday Americans are likely to become with the knowledge their president authorized the use of such a barbaric practice. If this issue stays in play for the presidential candidates for the next couple of months the change you suggest could happen fast.
I feel confident that John Q. Public knows in his heart that nobody’s legs are long enough to stand for torture and stand on the moral high-ground at the same time.
F.T., I’d like to believe that, but I’ve seen no squirming by Republicans, and they seem perfectly happy to outdo one another in reveling in abuse of “terrorists” (meaning people suspected of terrorism, or perhaps an even larger group). It seems to me that a great many Americans, out of fear, have been and continue to be willing to abandon all pretense of actually being the good guys and to follow Bush in dragging this country into a moral sewer.
What are the mechanics of that particular type of torture? I get the squatting, but I wasn’t sure how the cardboard boxes played into it.
In addition to squatting, the subject must also balance on the pair of cardboard boxes. As his legs get tired and begin to shake, that becomes increasingly difficult to do.
Does anybody know the details of how these sorts of stress torture procedures are enforced? That is, what happens if the victim decides to climb down off the box and lie down on the floor? Is there some worse “hands-on” torture awaiting those who don’t comply? Or is there some psychological control that renders victims incapable of refusing to follow the orders of their captors, despite the agony of compliance?
The reluctance to make folks who blow up schoolchildren uncomfortable for a few hours is the reason the majority of Americans don’t trust bedwetting liberals on national security.
Nearly a decade in the military, alum of a service academy, antiterrorist-related naval combat (Libya, ’86), reserve service as an infantryman…I’m hardly a bedwetting liberal. (Much of my family has long considered me an irredeemable, knuckle-dragging militarist.)
That said, this sort of nonsense absolutely incenses me: this is the crap the Soviets and its satellites–the “Evil Empire” we fought during the Cold War–used to pull.
There was a time when imprisonment without charge and/or legal representation, torture, etc. was what “They” did–and what the U.S. was noteworthy for standing against! (Or perhaps you reject the spirit behind Reagan’s “America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere” rhetoric? Perhaps Reagan was a bedwetting liberal too?)
To assert “either you’re for torture or you’re for the terrorists” is, quite frankly, spiteful bullshit.
Judge, how many of the folks we’re torturing have blown up schoolchildren, or is the idea that all brown people are responsible for the actions of other brown people?
The reluctance to distinguish between terrorists and people suspected of terrorism (or just random people turned over by their enemies for a bounty), as well as the abandonment of the idea that there are certain things we don’t do even to terrorists, is the reason bedwetting conservatives have lost their moral compass and given up the idea of America as a shining city on a hill.
“Imprisonment w/out charge?” They’re merely being detained until the cessation of hostilities in a war they started.
Nice work shoehorning the racist angle in there so quickly.
We already feed these fuckers such lavish meals down in Gitmo that most of them gain weight in our care. And didja know that the guards down there handle the inmates’ Korans with gloves on? I kid you not. Since these maniacs regard us infidels as “unclean” only gloved hands may touch their books. Strange that. I mean it’s one thing for these savages to regard us as unclean, quite another for us to agree with them and thus validate their bigotry. Who’re the racists again?
All this isn’t enough for blame-America-firsters who probably wouldn’t even be satisfied if each Taliban/al Queada/Sunni Triangle headhacker were given the full panoply of rights and protections afforded US citizens by the Constitution.
Nothin’ wrong with a little belly slappin if it loosens the tongues of terrorists as it did w/ 9/11 mastermind KSM. When captured he confidently told the CIA boys he’d talk to them in New York after he had his lawyer. He was quickly disabused of that notion.
How do you know the individuals there started “the war”? How do you know they’re “maniacs”?
You don’t.
Judge, we’ve been over this before. You don’t believe due process is important in this situation, but that means that you can’t reasonably make any generalizations that the people we imprison are terrorists. Sure, some of them probably are, but you have no proof that there aren’t a good number of people there who aren’t. Not that torture is reasonable in any case anyway.
Also, weight gain is often the result of malnutrition, and doesn’t exclusively come from meals of foie gras and caviar in truffle oil, though I’ll admit that I’m not exactly an expert on the food of our black sites.
As far as handling Korans with gloves, do you think it’s hurting our interests that we’re trying to respect their religious needs when it doesn’t significantly impact us? Personally, I think it’s important for us not to appear as crusaders, and thus we should accommodate religious needs when it’s not unreasonable to. Are their needs ridiculous? Yeah, of course, but it doesn’t hurt us to comply in this case.
So was the point of the meals and the gloves that somehow this means we’re morally superior enough to torture these people, who, as MB and I have pointed out, you have no way to know are actually all bad people, aside from blind faith in the US government?
@JS: Have you ever watched Brazil, a dystopic film by Terry Gilliam?
(And everyone else, if you haven’t seen Brazil, it’s well worth checking out.)
Your need to excuse terrorism on the part of zealots in conjunction with the desire to blame the US whenever possible, even when implausible, “weight gain is often the result of malnutrition”!!!!!) pisses regular Americans off. We starved him to make him look fat? Really? I’m certain that’s why Ahmed bin Ahole has a spare tire after six months at Gitmo. You got me.
At least make a little bit more of an effort if you wanna shit on your own country next time.
Wait. Did you just mistake yourself for a regular American? Heh. No. Regular Americans have a much better sense of human decency than you do.
Whatever. I guess that’s why self-styled liberals do so well in presidential elections, eh?
But while we’re at it – how about you actually deal with the substance here? Tell us why you’re so sure that everyone that was at Guantanamo is the World’s Evilest Terrorist, and why the values and processes that have been fundamental to American for a couple hundred years aren’t strong enough to stand up to them.
Instead of being such a whiny and cowardly git, stand on your beliefs and show us why we’re wrong. And if you can’t, you should reconsider which of us is shitting on this country.
? Who did that?
Indeed. I’d refer the speaker to my question here.
The people who are shitting on their own country are the ones who’ve turned the United States of America into a place that tortures people, runs secret prisons, and thinks caring about human rights is for wimps. It’s going to take a long time to clean up the stain they’ve made.
JS,
I’ll address the one part of your screed that had anything to do with what I wrote,
“We starved him to make him look fat? Really? I’m certain that’s why Ahmed bin Ahole has a spare tire after six months at Gitmo.”
I never said that starvation leads to weight gain, I said malnutrition can. There’s a huge difference there, and if you don’t see that, perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word “malnutrition.” I also never claimed that malnutrition was the reason that our prisoners gain weight, I just meant to call into question your assertion that we’re feeding people “lavish meals.” But as I disclaimed earlier, I’m no expert on the subject of what we’re feeding people we imprison, and perhaps we really are feeding these people ridiculously nice meals, and it’s not the case that the weight gain is caused by a dramatic decrease in physical activity, or a diet high in fat and simple sugars.
Anyway, let me know when you get back from beating those straw men so we can have an actual conversation.
I can’t believe that in 2007 we are having a conversation not about why torture is wrong but what degree of torture is ok.
IMO, what’s being discussed is not whether torture is OK, but whether stress positions, sleep deprivation, belly-slappin’, water-boardin’, etc. constitute torture. I hold that they do not since they do not result in any sort of irreparable physical injury. It’s just a mind-fuck to get information from people who use religion as a justification for the wanton and cruel murder of civilians. That many people here feel the need to condemn their own country and defend the “rights” of murderers says a lot about their priorities.
No, you’re the only one discussing that. The rest of us have functioning moral compasses.
Judge, if waterboarding isn’t torture, then should we be giving posthumous pardons to the Japanese we prosecuted for doing it? Why were we able to handle the Nazis without abusing prisoners?
So the Judge’s definition of a torture threshold is “irreparable physical injury”?
By that standard, breaking bones with pipe wrenches isn’t torture; after all, broken bones can be set and will heal.
Ditto scalding in hot water (short of third-degree burns), rape and forced sodomy, electrical shock of the genitals…
Fair enough, Jeff. You make a very good point with regard to acts that are obviously torture yet do not cause (obvious) permanent physical injury. I doubt you’ll find anyone who will suggest that scalding or rape should be in the discussion.
So where do you draw the line at interrogation? Should we limit it to asking “pretty please with a cherry on top, won’t be a good sport and tell us the name of the shopping mall where you plan to blow yourself up?”
You doubt we’ll find anyone who suggests that? Did you miss JS’ post?
And in case you’ve willingly blinded yourself to the facts and reporting over the past couple of years (something that does seem to be possible, in your case), I think it’s been made pretty clear that TORTURE DOESN’T WORK.
Ah, Jeff’s got me pretty good. Clearly my definition was insufficient for the jackals lying in wait to scream “Gotcha!”
Nevertheless, I maintain the position that tricking a terrorist into believing he’s about to drown when in fact he’s in no mortal danger whatsoever does not amount to torture.
Oh yeah, the Americans tortured by the Japanese were protected by the Geneva Conventions. In order to recieve these protections, it’s important to do things like:
1. Fight on behalf of a nation
2. Carry arms openly
3. Wear distinguinshing uniform/insignia
4. Refrain from deliberately targeting civilians
When terrorists comply with these requirements, well, they’ll no longer be terrorists and, when captured, can look forward to serving out their time in a POW camp untroubled by interrogation.
I wonder if it’s acceptable, under existing international standards, to torture spies? They don’t carry arms openly or wear distinguishing uniforms. Incidentally, neither did American troops during the Revolutionary War. It’s a big part of why we won.
“Jackals”?
Because I (we) disagree with you and point out a glaringly obvious flaw in a most basic premise of your argument–the premise upon which your definition of torture appears to depend?
Nice ad hominem.
Can the rest of the commenters here explain to me why we should treat Smails as a decent member of society, again?
So you’re saying that American troops not being in uniform significantly contributed to the outcome? According to whom? I’ve been an American Revolution buff for decades, and have never heard or read such a claim. As always, though, I stand ready to learn and be corrected.
It’s one of the fairy tales I recall being exposed to in school during a course mislabeled as “History.”
You bet. The Regulators rose up and managed to fight the crown for a decade because they wore no uniforms to allow them to be identified; they could mix back in with the populace seamlessly. (Only something like a dozen were ever caught. All were hanged.) The Stamp Act riots confounded the British, because there was no enemy, per se, but only a bunch of people. Look at one of the early moral victories — the Boston Tea Party. What would we call them today? Terrorists? :) General Marion (“The Swamp Fox,” spiritual father of the Army Rangers) was especially big on guerilla tactics like that. And the Green Mountain Boys, perhaps even more famously.
Of course, there’s no telling how things would have been different if all the colonies’ troops wore uniforms and if the open warfare hadn’t been preceded by a 15-year-old insurgency wearing down the Brits. But I learned my history from Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History,” so in my view, we’d still be spelling color with a “u.” :)
OK, you’re talking civil unrest and insurrections, primarily in Boston. That was certainly more effective because there was no proper army involved. I thought you meant that the actual campaigns (against Howe, Clinton & Cornwallis) in the field were significantly impacted by the lack of uniforms. Rest assured that when the American/French and British/German armies did battle, everyone knew who was who.