Carter says U.S. tortures prisoners

garysher · 10-12-2007, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

I am sorry, but putting someone in an uncomfortable position, keeping them awake, blaring music, forcing them to endure different extremes of temperatures, and even water boarding are not torture. They may make an individual uncomfortable, however, they do not cause severe pain or suffering, which is the international law definition.

dmk

Bush said last week that the US Govt does not torture detainees.

Which leaves open the whole question of extradition to other countries which DO torture those same detainees - including Egypt, Romania, Pakistan and others.

I think the official US definition of torture requires broken bones and damage to internal organs.

Psychological torture is excluded, for example repeated playing of Barbara Streisand's Greatest Hits at full volume, which most reasonable people would consider to be cruel, unusual and sadistic.

pensacola_niceman · 10-12-2007, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

Psychological torture is excluded, for example repeated playing of Barbara Streisand's Greatest Hits at full volume, which most reasonable people would consider to be cruel, unusual and sadistic.

That's not even a joke. The US has really done that kind of shit before.

forester814 · 10-13-2007, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNN.com

Read full story for latest details.

View the full article here.

He sure wasn't the best president we ever had, but that man's heart and head have always been in the right place.

He has done far more good since leaving office than he ever did IN office, and I respect him a great deal.

This latest bit of news about him... good work Jimmy.

I recommend his recent book "Our Endangered Values" to anyone who doesn't fully embrace the current administration.

To the other 28% of you who still think America is #1 and torture is either OK or doesn't exist, enjoy this time while it lasts.

foundit66 · 10-14-2007, 03:55 AM

How %@#$-ed up is our government?

The CIA is investigating ITS OWN Inspector General, who just happens to be investigating the CIA on the issue of "interrogation programs" ...
Or, to state the obvious, TORTURE...

The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, has ordered an unusual internal inquiry into the work of the agency’s inspector general, whose aggressive investigations of the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation programs and other matters have created resentment among agency operatives.
....
A small team working for General Hayden is looking into the conduct of the agency’s watchdog office, which is led by Inspector General John L. Helgerson. Current and former government officials said the review had caused anxiety and anger in Mr. Helgerson’s office and aroused concern on Capitol Hill that it posed a conflict of interest.
....

A report by Mr. Helgerson’s office completed in the spring of 2004 warned that some C.I.A.-approved interrogation procedures appeared to constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as defined by the international Convention Against Torture.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/wa...2intel.html?hp

CrazyFlamingos · 10-14-2007, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

I am sorry, but putting someone in an uncomfortable position, keeping them awake, blaring music, forcing them to endure different extremes of temperatures, and even water boarding are not torture. They may make an individual uncomfortable, however, they do not cause severe pain or suffering, which is the international law definition.

dmk

Quote:

A federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994, provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture. Torture is defined as an “act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.”

Summary of International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture and Other Ill-treatment of Persons in Custody (Human Rights Watch, 24-5-2004)

If water boarding does not inflict severe mental pain, why does it purportedly work so well?

sgtdmski · 10-15-2007, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyFlamingos

If water boarding does not inflict severe mental pain, why does it purportedly work so well?

When the United States under President Clinton ratified the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment it did so with the following Understanding:

Quote:

U.S. Understandings. In order to clarify the meaning of `torture' and to delineate the scope of application of the Convention with the greater precision required under U.S. domestic law, the United States conditioned its ratification upon several understandings related to Article 1. ..."

a. ... assessment of mental pain and suffering can be a very subjective undertaking. There was some concern within the U.S. criminal justice community that in this respect the Convention's definition regrettably fell short of the constitutionally required precision for defining criminal offenses. To provide the requisite clarity for purposes of domestic law, the United States therefore conditioned its ratification upon an understanding that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from:

(1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(3) the threat of imminent death; or

(4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality."

b. For similar reasons of clarity and specificity, United States adherence was conditioned on the understanding that the definition of `torture' in Article 1 is intended to apply `only to acts directed against persons in the offender's custody or physical control' in order to clarify the relationship of the Convention to normal military and law enforcement operations."

Having water poured over you face while positioned in an averted position may be uncomfortable and may also elicit an autonomic bodily reponse. However, water is not a mind altering substance, nor is is a severe physical pain and suffering or threat of pain and suffering. It will not produce an imminent death, although the body through automated responses may seem to perceive one, or does it extend a threat to another individual.

Why does it work so effectively, because the body and the mind force the individual to make a decision rapidly......continue this perceived threat from the body's automated responses or stop it.

dmk