Soviet torture adopted by America, CIA file called techniques torture

[Mathematician]

We considered these techniques torture until we started using them. How wonderful. Looks like we've become our former enemy?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/w...f746dcadd&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

The article describes basic Soviet N.K.V.D. (later K.G.B.) methods: isolation in a small cell; constant light; sleep deprivation; cold or heat; reduced food rations. Soviets denied such treatment was torture, just as American officials have in recent years:

The effects of isolation, anxiety, fatigue, lack of sleep, uncomfortable temperatures, and chronic hunger produce disturbances of mood, attitudes and behavior in nearly all prisoners. The living organism cannot entirely withstand such assaults. The Communists do not look upon these assaults as “torture.” But all of them produce great discomfort, and lead to serious disturbances of many bodily processes; there is no reason to differentiate them from any other form of torture.

[cut]

The Bush administration concluded that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to Qaeda detainees. Similarly, the Soviets argued that international rules did not apply to foreign detainees:

In typical Communist legalistic fashion, the N.K.V.D. rationalized its use of torture and pressure in the interrogation of prisoners of war. When it desired to use such methods against a prisoner or to obtain from him a propaganda statement or “confession,” it simply declared the prisoner a “war-crimes suspect” and informed him that, therefore, he was not subject to international rules governing the treatment of prisoners of war.

The results?

The cumulative effects of the entire experience may be almost intolerable. [The prisoner] becomes mentally dull and loses his capacity for discrimination. He becomes malleable and suggestible, and in some instances he may confabulate. By suggesting that the prisoner accept half-truths and plausible distortions of the truth, [the interrogator] makes it possible for the prisoner to rationalize and thus accept the interrogator’s viewpoint as the only way out of an intolerable situation.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

???

We're not allowed to torture Al Queda detainees?

 

[Mathematician]

We? I don't think we citizens are allowed to torture people, no.

 

[greatcalgarian]

???

We're not allowed to torture Al Queda detainees?

Al Queda detainnes are not human being? Are they animals? We should have different standard treating Al Queda detainess? Who define a particular detainees to be Al Queda? Do they have a tatoo on their forehead telling us that they are Al Queda?

Did the Christian God give us the power to torture the believer of a Mohammad God? What about other believers?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Why do you think Prisoners are kept in Cuba... and transported to countries that are not signatory to the torture convention.

It is certainly not for their health.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

I don't think that is torture. Interrogating a suspected terrorists and making him malleable and suggestible is not torture in my opinion.

 

[Dr. Nosophoros]

And if they did the same to our boys?

Put a chemlight up your *** and force you to masturabate in front of a camera? I'm sure you would tell a different tale if it was you so who gives a damn?
You sit in your ****** chair, making choices just like some ****** cop on the freeway (I had to stop, I had a lot more to say)

 

[Joe_Stocks]

They do much worse; they don't bother with abiding by the Geneva Conventions. I don't think the terrorists are pouring over the latest nuances and changes in international law.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

We? I don't think we citizens are allowed to torture people, no.

I mean American officials...not us civilians!

I don't believe the Geneva Convention applies to Al Queda members. According to Article IV of the Geneva Convention, POWs are persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

It further states that the term "prisoner of war" also applies to the following:

Persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
   
   
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, fulfill the following conditions:
   
   
   1. That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
      
      
   2. That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
      
      
   3. That of carrying arms openly;
      
      
   4. That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

hmmm...as far as I know, the criminals we are fighting in the Middle East are NOT conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war, they are NOT in uniform, they often do NOT carry their weapons openly...seems to me we have every right to use whatever means necessary to get information from these people, especially considering that it will save American lives...

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

Also consider:

The Convention appears to contemplate only two types of armed conflicts. The first is an international conflict. Under Common Article 2, the provisions of the Convention apply to “all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.” Needless to say, al Qaeda is not a state and it was not a “High Contracting Party.” There is an exception, set forth in the last paragraph of Common Article 2, when one of the “Powers” in a conflict is not a signatory but the other is. Then the signatory nation is bound to adhere to the Convention so long as the opposing Power “accepts and applies the provisions thereof.” Even if al Qaeda could be considered
a Power, which we doubt, no one claims that al Qaeda has accepted and applied the provisions of the Convention.

http://www.qoae.net/posts/1121513777.shtml

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The convention can to be applied one sidedly.
However I think the forces of a national army should always behave in a civilised manner no matter what the other side does.

Perhaps the Geneva convention should be revised, to give guidance on the rules that should apply in terrorist and guerilla conflicts.

We should not let our behaviour degenerate, just because we are fighting people who do not fit in with last century definitions of an enemy.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

The convention can to be applied one sidedly.
However I think the forces of a national army should always behave in a civilised manner no matter what the other side does.

Perhaps the Geneva convention should be revised, to give guidance on the rules that should apply in terrorist and guerilla conflicts.

We should not let our behaviour degenerate, just because we are fighting people who do not fit in with last century definitions of an enemy.

But is it wrong to use such methods is the question. My point is that it's not wrong to use extreme methods to get information from the people who are trying to kill us, and according to the Geneva Convention, it is within our rights as a nation to do so.

Maybe it should be revised. I would like to see how that played out.

 

[Valjean]

When you adopt the methods of your enemy you become indistinguishable from your enemy.

It amazes me that many on the right still maintain that the US is a nation of Christian values.

 

[Panda]

And the US moan about China. Hmmm they seem to have been taken lessons from old enemy's. These methods are used to manipulate the truth, to convict those that could be innocent or guilty of a lesser crime. Anyone who believes in this, you disgust me and don't deserve to be called a human being. People like you are what gives religions bad names. It's people like you I hate.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

But is it wrong to use such methods is the question. My point is that it's not wrong to use extreme methods to get information from the people who are trying to kill us, and according to the Geneva Convention, it is within our rights as a nation to do so.

Maybe it should be revised. I would like to see how that played out.

I have pointed out before Torture never finds the truth
It always finds what the torturer wants to hear.
It is jut not a useful tool for getting new information.

 

[Faminedynasty]

When you adopt the methods of your enemy you become indistinguishable from your enemy.It amazes me that many on the right still maintain that the US is a nation of Christian values.

Who would Jesus torture, eh?

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

I have pointed out before Torture never finds the truth
It always finds what the torturer wants to hear.
It is jut not a useful tool for getting new information.

I would disagree with that statement. If that is the case, why are specific U.S. pilots put through a rigorous course where they are dropped off in "enemy territory" and then tortured (not enough to threaten their lives, mind you, very mild compared to what they would really be dealing with if captured) by US military personell? Seems to me that would be so that they are trained not to give away important information if ever captured by the enemy. I knew a man who was tortured during WWII. He would also disagree with you, as well as tell you that it can be quite effective. Unless you have experienced it yourself, or known someone who has personally experienced torture at the hands of the enemy, I don't think you're exactly qualified to say it's not useful for getting information.

 

[Jaymes]

I knew a man who was tortured during WWII. He would also disagree with you, as well as tell you that it can be quite effective. Unless you have experienced it yourself, or known someone who has personally experienced torture at the hands of the enemy, I don't think you're exactly qualified to say it's not useful for getting information.

It amuses me how your definition of who is allowed to have an opinion on the matter conveniently includes yourself.

Luckily today we don't base actual psychiatric study off "well I know someone who did this, so that means this and this". Actual studies are carried out and confounding factors are eliminated, or nearly eliminated.

And I know of no psychiatric institute that has found torture to be an effective way to get information.

 

[Mathematician]

John McCain underwent systematic torture for five and half years, and he's one of the few Republicans against torture. This arguement is not limited to people who know tortured individuals, and that's coming from someone whose [great]-uncle was also a POW during Vietnam.

I can't comment on his position because the war experience drove a wedge between him and a normal social life, especially politics, but I'm positive he'd have no problem about people removed from the situation commenting.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

It amuses me how your definition of who is allowed to have an opinion on the matter conveniently includes yourself.

Luckily today we don't base actual psychiatric study off "well I know someone who did this, so that means this and this". Actual studies are carried out and confounding factors are eliminated, or nearly eliminated.

And I know of no psychiatric institute that has found torture to be an effective way to get information.

Glad I gave you a laugh. I was just pointing out that I've heard firsthand from someone who has experienced torture, and someone who saw many comrades get tortured. And I know for a fact he would scoff at the idea that torture could be "ineffective" in getting information out of someone.

So it's an ineffective way to get information...?

Even if you don't like the people who run the government, they're not complete idiots. I really don't think that the CIA would waste time using ineffective methods when they're trying to protect us. I could be wrong, but that does seem sorta obvious...