NationStates Jolt Archive

A couple of Iraqi insurgents have alleged that US troops put them in a cage with a lion because they weren't willing to say where Saddam was. Now maybe I'd believe them if they claimed to have been roughed up a bit, but lions? Makes me wonder how many other detainees alleging cruel treatment are lying as well.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/84631.asp

A couple of Iraqi insurgents have alleged that US troops put them in a cage with a lion because they weren't willing to say where Saddam was. Now maybe I'd believe them if they claimed to have been roughed up a bit, but lions? Makes me wonder how many other detainees alleging cruel treatment are lying as well.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/84631.asp

Or MAYBE teh Bu$hitler and the Amerikkkans did put them in a cage with lions because they knew nobody would beleive it! The Great Satan and the NeoCon Jews are cunning indeed...

/sarc

A lion?

Their little insurgent minds are running out of ideas, methinks.

Come on, everyone knows they were tortured. They saw it on CNN so it HAS to be true.

A lion eh? That's a bit ..... random.

A lion eh? That's a bit ..... random.

Well, he could have said something along the lines of Seabass with laser beams.

Some American soilders denied committing the atrocities in Vietnam, yet were later proved to have done so. Therefore, because a few of them lied, every single American soilder is a dirty liar, and if anyone accuses them of anything and they deny it, they still obviously did it and should be dismissed.

Catch the bit where the ACLU is defending them? I'm wondering how they're going to explain away that one.

Catch the bit where the ACLU is defending them? I'm wondering how thier going to explain away that one.

Good ole ACLU.

Glad I found another organization to belong to.

Some American soilders denied committing the atrocities in Vietnam, yet were later proved to have done so. Therefore, because a few of them lied, every single American soilder is a dirty liar, and if anyone accuses them of anything and they deny it, they still obviously did it and should be dismissed.

Well, we all know all american troops are rapists that eat babies and fuck dogs, now don't we?

Or MAYBE teh Bu$hitler and the Amerikkkans did put them in a cage with lions because they knew nobody would beleive it! The Great Satan and the NeoCon Jews are cunning indeed...

/sarc
Bu$hitler and the Amerikkkans. Isn't there a book by that title? Either way, I'm making that into a patch to put on my white sheet! ;)

Makes me wonder how many other detainees alleging cruel treatment are lying as well.
Clearly all of them. That guy with the marks on his wrists? Just Iraqis playing Chinese burns. That kid with the bullet holes? Unfortunate accident while playing with a gun he'd stolen from the Americans. All those dead wedding guests? That's what happens if you eat too much cake.

Clearly all of them. That guy with the marks on his wrists? Just Iraqis playing Chinese burns. That kid with the bullet holes? Unfortunate accident while playing with a gun he'd stolen from the Americans. All those dead wedding guests? That's what happens if you eat too much cake.

So most suicide bombers are actually people with gaseous colons?

Catch the bit where the ACLU is defending them? I'm wondering how they're going to explain away that one.

"We have principles to uphold. After all, even a werewolf is entitled to legal council."

That was easy.

Catch the bit where the ACLU is defending them? I'm wondering how they're going to explain away that one.
It's probably because it's new legal ground. Something about lions has to be fresh ground for new case law.

A couple of Iraqi insurgents have alleged that US troops put them in a cage with a lion because they weren't willing to say where Saddam was. Now maybe I'd believe them if they claimed to have been roughed up a bit, but lions? Makes me wonder how many other detainees alleging cruel treatment are lying as well.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/84631.asp


Woah, thats a great idea. I think we should do it more often. Except, instead of insurgents it should be Pat Roberston. And instead of a cage it should be an arena. And instead of in Iraq it should be on HBO....

It's probably because it's new legal ground. Something about lions has to be fresh ground for new case law.


mmmmm fresh ground lions

Well, we all know all american troops are rapists that eat babies and fuck dogs, now don't we?

Either that or they are the superior master race who can never possibly make any errors or do anything immoral. After all, they ARE American!

Woah, thats a great idea. I think we should do it more often. Except, instead of insurgents it should be Pat Roberston. And instead of a cage it should be an arena. And instead of in Iraq it should be on HBO....

Why not put insurgents, Roberston and a lion into an arena? Give Roberston a gun and give the insurgents the bullets. That would be amusing.

i like this bit -
Mr Rumsfeld also said that terrorist are trained to lie about their treatment while in custody.
They do it consistently and it always works

Insurgents say the darndest things

A couple of Iraqi insurgents have alleged that US troops put them in a cage with a lion because they weren't willing to say where Saddam was. Now maybe I'd believe them if they claimed to have been roughed up a bit, but lions? Makes me wonder how many other detainees alleging cruel treatment are lying as well.yeah some crazy people said that US hired prostitutes menstruated on their face....No way in hell I am going to believe that...

and this other stupid morons dared to say they were forced to pile into Naked pyramids... professinal Liars I am telling you..."they are trained to lie about their treatment while in custody"

They sure have a lot of Imagination...

Why not put insurgents, Roberston and a lion into an arena? Give Roberston a gun and give the insurgents the bullets. That would be amusing.


I'd watch that. Go lion!

i like this bit -
Mr Rumsfeld also said that terrorist are trained to lie about their treatment while in custody.
Ha! if I got a penny for every time someone tells me that i'd have 1p!

yeah some crazy people said that US hired prostitutes menstruated on their face....No way in hell I am going to believe that...

and this other stupid morons dared to say they were playing a new game Naked pyramid... professinal Liars I am telling you...they are trained to lie if jailed...

They sure have a lot of Imagination...
As I recall the "menstrual blood" turned out to be red ink smeared on them by a female soldier, didn't it? Or is this a different incident?

Anyway, why lions? Why not dogs, which are readily available and a haram animal to boot?

Well, he could have said something along the lines of Seabass with laser beams.
Atlantis!

As I recall the "menstrual blood" turned out to be red ink smeared on them by a female soldier, didn't it? Or is this a different incident?why the hell should i believe...The US gov? the victim/witness says she menstruated in my face...my mouth...

They denied it ..before flip-flopping again and again...

First Reaction from Guantanamo: "It never happened"

week after: "We just asked some woman to -dance naked-...but no contacts...no menstruation at all...they are day dreaming"

weeks after: "Ok...so there was menstruation...but it was only red ink...it tasted crummy and salty...only because we added texture...after all we need him to be convinced it was real menstruation fluids...the guy was not talking"

why the hell should i believe...The US gov?

They denied it ..before flip-floping again and again...

First Reaction from Gunatanamo: "It never happened"

week after: "We just asked some woman to -dance naked-...but no contacts...no menstruation at all...they are day dreaming"

weeks after: "Ok...so there was menstruation...but it was only red ink"

You'll never know the truth.

And deception about menstrual blood and naked women are not considered torture.

Considering the accused, I'm almost willing to believe the wankers were caged with a lion.

You'll never know the truth.

And deception about menstrual blood and naked women are not considered torture.


Of course we wont. If they are going to lie about something that isn't considered torture, they certainly aren't going to tell the truth about something that is considered torture.

Besides, didn't Bush say that he want's the CIA to be able to torture people? Who cares how he worded it, that's basically what he said.

And deception about menstrual blood and naked women are not considered torture....tying him/her up and letting genital liquids into somemone's face or mouth...

I consider that sexual assault.

and..I consider sexual assault to be torture.

Considering the accused, I'm almost willing to believe the wankers were caged with a lion.

I wonder... any Muslims know if there's any sort of symbolism with the lion thing? Because we know the US is employing torture (or near enough) techniques that scar Muslims for life because they make them do unholy things.
Anything about lions? Might make it a stronger case that they're telling the truth...
Although, as someone mentioned... naked pyramids? Denial after denial? Secret prisons?
The US track record isn't good.
I'm going 50/50 chance that the insurgents are telling the truth.

...tying him/her up and letting genital liquids into somemone's face or mouth...dude...It got to be sexual assault.

I consider sexual assault to be torture.

Ink is not genital liquid. As I said, deception is not torture.

...tying him/her up and letting genital liquids into somemone's face or mouth...

I consider that sexual assault.

and..I consider sexual assault to be torture.
So inkstains on one's skin are now sexual assault? I'm totally suing the company I work for.

Ink is not genital liquid. As I said, deception is not torture.

Using someone's religious/cultural convictions against them, even if it is only deceptive (which I'm not convinced with the whole "red ink" thing after all the other denials), is still torture. It's psychological warfare, and if you can't see that as torture, you have to at least be able to see that it's horrifically immoral.
And people wonder why there are more and more terrorists all the time... they tell these kinds of stories, and expect the insurgency to lay down?
"Oh Allah! Listen to what they will do to us if they capture us alive! Let's just run for the hills, and herd our goats!"
Not bloody likely.

Ink is not genital liquid. As I said, deception is not torture.
Okay than why would our Govt lie about it to the American public?

Explain why they woud cover up with a lie the truth when they weren't doing anything wrong?

Did our Govt get so wrapped up i their own lie: they forgot what the truth really was?


See that has been my problem with lies: you start forgetting which was the truth.

Ink is not genital liquid. As I said, deception is not torture.until there is a proper unbiased investigation...we will never know...

If if there is ever such an investigation we may find out.

Probably there will never be an full Invetigation or prosecution...why?...Because there was no Video.

AbbhuGrhal atrocities? Naked pyramids?

The only reason the US Gov would find some lower rank scapegoat and jail him/her...

..the only reason the US gov would feel the need to make a semblance of prosecution is...that some Video made it to the Internet...

Without the Video made public...no-one would have made it to prison.
Without the Video made public...The US gov would have said that it was only the POWs imagination.

Okay than why would our Govt lie about it to the American public?

Explain why they woud cover up with a lie the truth when they weren't doing anything wrong?

Did our Govt get so wrapped up i their own lie: they forgot what the truth really was?


See that has been my problem with lies: you start forgetting which was the truth.

I think there's a simpler explanation.

The people in Washington don't know every last detail about what goes on in Guantanamo - and some spokepeople are only given imprecise information and then asked very specific questions.

It's a symptom of most large organizations, and I've seen it enough in corporations to know it when I see it.

Two things I've learned to avoid saying - "you're a liar because the story has changed" and "you stole something because I've discovered it's missing".

Most of the time when I hear people say that, they end up being dead wrong.

So inkstains on one's skin are now sexual assault? I'm totally suing the company I work for.
Maybe you just don't get it...

Try submitting me or someone from the firm to anything remotely similar, whether it's real or faked, and I promise you that not a single one of us will relent 'till we've hunted you down & ripped you to bloody pieces.

Do you think their response will be any different?

Maybe you just don't get it...

Try submitting me or someone from the firm to anything remotely similar, whether it's real or faked, and I promise you that not a single one of us will relent 'till we've hunted you down & ripped you to bloody pieces.

Do you think their response will be any different?

One problem with that - the ones who were treated to that will be spending the rest of their lives in Guantanamo.

I think there's a simpler explanation.

The people in Washington don't know every last detail about what goes on in Guantanamo - and some spokepeople are only given imprecise information and then asked very specific questions.

It's a symptom of most large organizations, and I've seen it enough in corporations to know it when I see it.

Two things I've learned to avoid saying - "you're a liar because the story has changed" and "you stole something because I've discovered it's missing".

Most of the time when I hear people say that, they end up being dead wrong.
Actually those questions usually stem from a guilty mind.

If one says, " your cheating on me aren't you" you should ask if they are cheating on you. Usually people project their own guilt and fears on others.

If one says, " Have you been stealing from supplies, Bob. I check and it is missing some things unaccounted for".
You should ask back, "Sally , are you stealing from suppies?"

Usually they are projecting their own issues.

Using someone's religious/cultural convictions against them, even if it is only deceptive (which I'm not convinced with the whole "red ink" thing after all the other denials), is still torture. It's psychological warfare, and if you can't see that as torture, you have to at least be able to see that it's horrifically immoral.
And people wonder why there are more and more terrorists all the time... they tell these kinds of stories, and expect the insurgency to lay down?
"Oh Allah! Listen to what they will do to us if they capture us alive! Let's just run for the hills, and herd our goats!"
Not bloody likely.

Here's another example of the terrorist factory at work...

BAGHDAD, SEPTEMBER 12, 2004

Twenty-two Iraqi civilians were killed and forty-eight injured when U.S. helicopters opened fire on crowds celebrating around [a U.S. Armored personnel carrier], which was disabled by an insurgent attack. No American soldiers were killed in the fighting.

EDIT: There's no way that anyone can convince me that a crowd of at least 70 people could ALL be insurgents, or terrorists, or "enemy combatants"

Here's another example of the terrorist factory at work...

BAGHDAD, SEPTEMBER 12, 2004

Twenty-two Iraqi civilians were killed and forty-eight injured when U.S. helicopters opened fire on crowds celebrating around [a U.S. Armored personnel carrier], which was disabled by an insurgent attack. No American soldiers were killed in the fighting.
_______________________________________________________________
EDIT: There's no way that anyone can convince me that a crowd of at least 70 people could ALL be insurgents, or terrorists, or "enemy combatants"the crowd was probably much larger than 70.

...they carry away all the injured they can carry...they do not want their friends to make it to the Abbu-Grhaib prison clinic...the rumor is "they are not nice with people celebrating around wrecked Hummers"

Many Iraqi civilians hate the US occupiers...They just gotta learn that the US do not care about the Iraq people's freedom of speech

Here's another example of the terrorist factory at work...

BAGHDAD, SEPTEMBER 12, 2004

Twenty-two Iraqi civilians were killed and forty-eight injured when U.S. helicopters opened fire on crowds celebrating around [a U.S. Armored personnel carrier], which was disabled by an insurgent attack. No American soldiers were killed in the fighting.

EDIT: There's no way that anyone can convince me that a crowd of at least 70 people could ALL be insurgents, or terrorists, or "enemy combatants"
Isn't that standard practice, to destry all tech that could be used to aid the 'enemy'? Not condoning it by the way, just saying...

You got a link for that? Am interested to follow that up.

Isn't that standard practice, to destry all tech that could be used to aid the 'enemy'? Not condoning it by the way, just saying...

You got a link for that? Am interested to follow that up.

Unfortunatly not for this incident directly. This is from a book called Unembedded (http://www.chelseagreen.com/2005/items/unembeddedpa). It's a book of photographs from four photojournalists roaming Iraq without U.S. military escorts.

Maybe you just don't get it...

Try submitting me or someone from the firm to anything remotely similar, whether it's real or faked, and I promise you that not a single one of us will relent 'till we've hunted you down & ripped you to bloody pieces.

Do you think their response will be any different?
I guess I don't get it. It's ink for chrissakes. It's basically a practical joke in poor taste. It's not torture.

Why are you such a big fan of The Firm? Jimmy Page was good, but the rest of the band and their body of work isn't all that great. Certainly not worth killing over.

I guess I don't get it. It's ink for chrissakes. It's basically a practical joke in poor taste. It's not torture.
Yes well, that's a real important detail for you. Not for the person(s) submitted to it, and they'll certainly never believe it was faked when you've managed to convince them it wasn't.

And whether they get out or not isn't important. Whether the stori does is, and obviously it did.

Yes well, that's a real important detail for you. Not for the person(s) submitted to it, and they'll certainly never believe it was faked when you've managed to convince them it wasn't.

And whether they get out or not isn't important. Whether the stori does is, and obviously it did.

Still, it's deception, not torture.

Have you ever thought that perhaps stories like this are intentionally released in order to incite potential terrorists into doing something rash and unplanned in order to find them?

hey, Im glad Dan Rather didnt catch this one!!remeber how well he did with the so called note about Bush, that was obiviously fake?

A couple of Iraqi insurgents have alleged that US troops put them in a cage with a lion because they weren't willing to say where Saddam was. Now maybe I'd believe them if they claimed to have been roughed up a bit, but lions? Makes me wonder how many other detainees alleging cruel treatment are lying as well.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/84631.asp
And there was me thinking it was the Iraqis who are abusing insurgents.

hey, Im glad Dan Rather didnt catch this one!!remeber how well he did with the so called note about Bush, that was obiviously fake?
this one?
http://www.imao.us/img/bush_awol_memo.jpg

Or this?
http://img75.exs.cx/img75/2817/Bushmemo.jpg

Still, it's deception, not torture.
Like I said, perhaps that's true for you. It doesn't matter whether it's real or not to the person(s) subjected to it. The people on the recieving end will never for a second believe it wasn't real, so for all intents & purposes, it might as well have been. There's no practical difference. The victim suffered exactly the same as he would had it been real, and the outrage such shit causes is exactly the same as if it had been real (assuming it wasn't). The difference between real & fake is entirely in your mind, and in this case, that doesn't mean shit.
Have you ever thought that perhaps stories like this are intentionally released in order to incite potential terrorists into doing something rash and unplanned in order to find them?
How this relates to whether it's an act of terror, whether prisoners are credible or whether it'll increase insurgency & terrorism, I can't imagine.

Still, it's deception, not torture.

Have you ever thought that perhaps stories like this are intentionally released in order to incite potential terrorists into doing something rash and unplanned in order to find them?
You'd have had no problem with somebody threatening to stick a candiru up your schlong during your own military service, so long as they didn't, then?

The latter is possible, but it implies the people running this fiasco are competent, which I find hard to believe after the events over the last couple of years.

You'd have had no problem with somebody threatening to stick a candiru up your schlong during your own military service, so long as they didn't, then?

The latter is possible, but it implies the people running this fiasco are competent, which I find hard to believe after the events over the last couple of years.

Deception is a perfectly acceptable form of interrogation under international law.

You're allowed to lie to the prisoner, decieve him about time, date, or even the identity of anyone he's meeting (can't disguise yourself as a Red Cross person though). You can give injections of harmless saline and tell him that it's a super wonder drug that makes everyone talk (that works quite well, since most people are really looking for an excuse at some point. "I was drugged" is an excellent excuse).

You'd have had no problem with somebody threatening to stick a candiru up your schlong during your own military service, so long as they didn't, then?

The latter is possible, but it implies the people running this fiasco are competent, which I find hard to believe after the events over the last couple of years.

Wait aren't threats against the law anyway?

Even if you don't do a threat: tortures did break the law than.

Wait aren't threats against the law anyway?

Even if you don't do a threat: tortures did break the law than.

Threatening to do something that does not constitute torture isn't a threat that's against the law.

Deception is not torture.

Still, it's deception, not torture.

Have you ever thought that perhaps stories like this are intentionally released in order to incite potential terrorists into doing something rash and unplanned in order to find them?


Why are you defending an action as perverted as this anyway? Even if it was "fake", that doesn't make it any less depraved. How is the act of smearing a substance thought to be menstral blood on someone's face defensable?

Have you ever thought that perhaps stories like this are intentionally released in order to incite potential terrorists into doing something rash and unplanned in order to find them?Have ever thought that perhaps Osama intentionally destroyed the WTC in order to incite some stupid President into doing something stupid, rash and unplanned...

Why are you defending an action as perverted as this anyway? Even if it was "fake", that doesn't make it any less depraved. How is the act of smearing a substance thought to be menstral blood on someone's face defensable?
It's defensable because it's being used to get information out of the subject. That information might save human lives.

It's defensable because it's being used to get information out of the subject. That information might save human lives.

So, let me guess, by that rationale, you also condone torture in and of itself, even if you think that this particular incident wasn't actually torture.

this one?
http://www.imao.us/img/bush_awol_memo.jpgpic link is not working

So, let me guess, by that rationale, you also condone torture in and of itself, even if you think that this particular incident wasn't actually torture.
I only condone torture under certain circumstances. If the information that can be extracted will save lives immediately. For example, let's say you capture someone involved in a plot to bomb a school. You don't know which school has been rigged to explode, but you're fairly certain the bomb has been planted and it's just a matter of time until a bunch of kids get killed. Torture the fucker. Find out where the bomb is so you can save those kids.

The information must be needed immediately, and the information must save civilian lives. Those two conditions must be met before I would condone what I see as torture.

Threatening to do something that does not constitute torture isn't a threat that's against the law.

Deception is not torture.
So you are saying threats are legal if they aren't torture?

So if I threaten someone, but I don't threaten torture it is legal?

I'll define it for ya:
A threat is an unwanted (deliberate or accidental) event that may result in harm to an asset. Often, a threat is exploiting a known vulnerability(ies). A threat could be the perception of insecurity; see also risk. A threat is also an explicit or implicit message from a person to another that the first will cause something bad to happen to the other, often except when certain demands are met. Often a weapon is used. Examples are a robbery, kidnapping, hijacking, extortion, blackmail

Perception of insecurity... check.
Explicit or implicit message that you'll something something bad to happen... check.
Unless demands met... double check.

Checkmate!

I only condone torture under certain circumstances. If the information that can be extracted will save lives immediately. For example, let's say you capture someone involved in a plot to bomb a school. You don't know which school has been rigged to explode, but you're fairly certain the bomb has been planted and it's just a matter of time until a bunch of kids get killed. Torture the fucker. Find out where the bomb is so you can save those kids.

The information must be needed immediately, and the information must save civilian lives. Those two conditions must be met before I would condone what I see as torture.

I could condone deception. In virtually any case.

I could condone deception. In virtually any case.
Absolutely. Also psychotropic drugs and sleep deprivation.

[QUOTE=Drunk commies deleted]A couple of Iraqi insurgents have alleged that US troops put them in a cage with a lion


Thats some shit they are smoking

Absolutely. Also psychotropic drugs and sleep deprivation.

Hell, I would pay money for someone to inject me with psychotropic drugs and have a naked woman give me a lap dance.

Hell, I would pay money for someone to inject me with psychotropic drugs and have a naked woman give me a lap dance.
How much? I can arrange that.

I could condone deception. In virtually any case.


There's a good sig quote IMO.

How much? I can arrange that.

We can take a road trip to Daytona!

so for all of you claiming "it's not torture, just deception." and "it's basically just a practical joke"...

suppose you're in some military prison, captured by the 'enemy' (pick one, any one..).
they tie you over a table, put a bag over your head, and then the male soldiers "rape" you in the a$$. you feel "it" in you, and you feel them "let go" all over your back.

a few months later, you find out it was actually a rubber dildo, and a squeeze bottle of mayonnaise.

does that mean that you weren't -really- hurt at all, and the suffering and humiliation you felt at the time weren't real? that it was all just a practical joke? are you going to laugh about it now?


and for anyone feeling offended by the graphicness of my example, take a minute to consider the offensiveness to a deeply religious person, who is listening to a long discussion about something they feel is truly "unholy" or "unclean".

*edit: typos. lolz i suck.*

so for all of you claiming "it's not torture, ust deception." and "it's basically just a practical joke"...

suppose you're in some military prison, captured by the enemy.
they tie you over a table, put a bag over your head, and then the male soldiers "rape" you in the a$$. you feel "it" in you, and you feel them "let go" all over your back.

a few months later, you find out it was actually a rubber dildo, and a squeeze bottle of mayonnaise.

does that mean that you weren't -really- hurt at all, and the suffering and humiliation you felt at the time weren't real? that it was all just a practical joke? are you going to laugh about it now?


and for anyone feeling offended by the graphicness of my example, take a minute to consider the offensiveness to a deeply religious person, who is listening to a long discussion about something they feel is truly "unholy" or "unclean".
Nobody actually penetrated the insurgents. It's a false analogy. The squeeze bottle of mayonaise alone might be a proper analogy. In that case, no, I wouldn't laugh about it, but it wouldn't be torture either.

Well, if you're afraid you'll have to overlook it....

You see you knew the job was dangerous when you took it...

Naked pyramids? Make believe period blood?

That isn't torture, it's a Frat house prank.
I can't believe all the liberals make a fuss about that, and then are near silent when they tear off someone's head with a hacksaw or blow up a mosque. Quit playing politics and support your country you damn pinkos..

Well, if you're afraid you'll have to overlook it....

You see you knew the job was dangerous when you took it...
Kimli I proved in my lasdt post Threat are against the law.
Doesn't matter if it was torture. Threats are still against the law!

Prove threat are no longer against the law than prove it wasn't torture: either way illegal.

Naked pyramids? Make believe period blood?

That isn't torture, it's a Frat house prank.
I can't believe all the liberals make a fuss about that, and then are near silent when they tear off someone's head with a hacksaw or blow up a mosque. Quit playing politics and support your country you damn pinkos..
Look at my sig, notice the political compass score? Look at my posts. Now what was that about liberals not supporting their country?

Kimli I proved in my lasdt post Threat are against the law.
Doesn't matter if it was torture. Threats are still against the law!

Prove threat are no longer against the law than prove it wasn't torture: either way illegal.

The definition of torture contained in Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture is incorporated into U.S. law. Torture is defined at Chapter 8 Code of Federal Regulations Section 208.18 as:

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or her or a third person information or a confession, punishing him or her for an act he or she or a third person has committed, or intimidating or coercing him or her or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

Mental pain or suffering must be prolonged and must be caused by or result from: (i) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (ii) the administration of mind altering substances; (iii) the threat of imminent death; or (iv) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration of mind altering substances or procedures. The act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering. A public official may acquiesce in torture if he or she breaches a legal responsibility to intervene to prevent torture.

Not... Even... Close...

Absolutely. Also psychotropic drugs and sleep deprivation.
That's cult brainwashing, not terrorists. Maybe it'll happen after the $cientologists try to crash a plane or three into New York...

Nobody actually penetrated the insurgents. It's a false analogy. The squeeze bottle of mayonaise alone might be a proper analogy. In that case, no, I wouldn't laugh about it, but it wouldn't be torture either.

But it's still savagry. And, it strips away any "nobility" the initial cause had. Not to mention how inspiring it can be to our enemies, and how dispiriting it can be to our friends. And that doesn't even go into its dubious effectiveness.

Nobody actually penetrated the insurgents. It's a false analogy. The squeeze bottle of mayonaise alone might be a proper analogy. In that case, no, I wouldn't laugh about it, but it wouldn't be torture either.

no, the anaolgy is meant in comparison that you are doing something 'unspeakable' to the victim. being smeared in menstrual fluid to a muslim (by my understanding) is somewhat equivalent to wanking off all over a christian's family heirloom bible. is it "unholy and wrong in all ways under the eyes of god".

thus penetration.. being wanked at is on the level of Frat Pranks, like many have suggested. what most of the posters are ignoring is that to the muslims, it's like the equivalent of religious rape.

Look at my sig, notice the political compass score? Look at my posts. Now what was that about liberals not supporting their country?

Who ever said that comment was directed at you?

Nobody actually penetrated the insurgents.says who?

That's cult brainwashing, not terrorists. Maybe it'll happen after the $cientologists try to crash a plane or three into New York...

The primary goal of most interrogation techniques is to gain the willing cooperation of the subject as rapidly as possible.

There are several ways to achieve this:

1. Deceive them into doing so
2. Convince them that for them at least, the war is over, and they are in a safe place where nothing they say will bring retribution
3. Make them emotionally dependent on you (i.e., break by sensory deprivation)
4. Use drugs to lower their resistance to questioning (Versed, Ativan, Haldol, etc).
5. Combination of the above
6. Actual pain

Depeding on the subject, the appropriate method must be chosen - and in some cases, especially the die hards, the methods listed either take longer, garner fewer results (or none), or the subject expires.

Methods 1, 2, and 3 are the most commonly employed. And they work rather well. When we hear about the excesses, we're hearing about the treatment of the hard cases, and the interrogators have likely run out of ideas.

The primary goal of most interrogation techniques is to gain the willing cooperation of the subject as rapidly as possible.

There are several ways to achieve this:

1. Deceive them into doing so
2. Convince them that for them at least, the war is over, and they are in a safe place where nothing they say will bring retribution
3. Make them emotionally dependent on you (i.e., break by sensory deprivation)
4. Use drugs to lower their resistance to questioning (Versed, Ativan, Haldol, etc).
5. Combination of the above
6. Actual pain

Depeding on the subject, the appropriate method must be chosen - and in some cases, especially the die hards, the methods listed either take longer, garner fewer results (or none), or the subject expires.

Methods 1, 2, and 3 are the most commonly employed. And they work rather well. When we hear about the excesses, we're hearing about the treatment of the hard cases, and the interrogators have likely run out of ideas.
A fair point, actually: there is a big overlap with Hubbard and Moon's lot, then. I take nobody's tried a protein free diet because that would take too long to produce any results?

Who ever said that comment was directed at you?
It was a blanket statement about liberals. Therefore it was directed at me as well as all other liberals.

says who?
Joe Mamma
http://members.aol.com/papajoemom/papajoemom.html

A fair point, actually: there is a big overlap with Hubbard and Moon's lot, then. I take nobody's tried a protein free diet because that would take too long to produce any results?

Yes.

You are familiar that all of the first ideas came from the Chinese during the Korean War? The US was mystified that US POWs came back praising Mao.

Interesting technique. They allowed US medics who were captured to try to treat the wounded, but the Chinese did not assist - the wounded largely died. During this time, meals were not regularly provided (about 72 hours). After that time, Chinese medics stepped in and saved some lives. Made POWs lose faith in their own.

It went on from there. You don't have to torture someone to break them. You can fool them into doing it, or manipulate them. And stay well within the Geneva Convention.

The US then invested in research at McGill University as a result - they wanted to know how to achieve this. The research went on at McGill until the early 1960s.

Techniques in neurolinguistic programming are used by US police in standard interrogations - and they are legal.

It's not a coincidence that modern cults use these techniques.

From the Army manual
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/app-h.htm

And something from the good old days

http://www.parascope.com/articles/0397/kub_ix.htm

All coercive techniques are designed to induce regression. As Hinkle notes in "The Physiological State of the Interrogation Subject as it Affects Brain Function"(7), the result of external pressures of sufficient intensity is the loss of those defenses most recently acquired by civilized man: "... the capacity to carry out the highest creative activities, to meet new, challenging, and complex situations, to deal with trying interpersonal relations, and to cope with repeated frustrations. Relatively small degrees of homeostatic derangement, fatigue, pain, sleep loss, or anxiety may impair these functions." As a result, "most people who are exposed to coercive procedures will talk and usually reveal some information that they might not have revealed otherwise."

<Snip>
I think you're giving me a hardon.

I cant belive how people even think there is torture, seriously, people are believing terrorists who hate this country over our on military???? What the hell?

I normaly dont insult people for thier political beliefs, but, their backup for thier claim that there is torture is just STUPID!:headbang:

...people are believing terrorists who hate this country over our on military???? What the hell?Its all about credibility...

go ahead believe the US gov all the way...

Yes.

You are familiar that all of the first ideas came from the Chinese during the Korean War? The US was mystified that US POWs came back praising Mao.

Interesting technique. They allowed US medics who were captured to try to treat the wounded, but the Chinese did not assist - the wounded largely died. During this time, meals were not regularly provided (about 72 hours). After that time, Chinese medics stepped in and saved some lives. Made POWs lose faith in their own.

It went on from there. You don't have to torture someone to break them. You can fool them into doing it, or manipulate them. And stay well within the Geneva Convention.

The US then invested in research at McGill University as a result - they wanted to know how to achieve this. The research went on at McGill until the early 1960s.

Techniques in neurolinguistic programming are used by US police in standard interrogations - and they are legal.

It's not a coincidence that modern cults use these techniques.
Did the Korean brainwashing hld up in the long term, though? I was led to believe it faded once these sorts got home and started to unwind a bit.

Woah, thats a great idea. I think we should do it more often. Except, instead of insurgents it should be Pat Roberston. And instead of a cage it should be an arena. And instead of in Iraq it should be on HBO....
Only if we can put Chavez in with Robertson, as well as Fred Phelps and Putin.

Come on, everyone knows they were tortured. They saw it on CNN so it HAS to be true.
Of course! CNN is the mouthpiece for the White House! :D

Did the Korean brainwashing hld up in the long term, though? I was led to believe it faded once these sorts got home and started to unwind a bit.
In some cases it lasted a lifetime.

Breaking someone psychologically isn't an exact science, and the basic variability of each human being makes the effect different.

A very small percentage of people never break - very often the same people who never get PTSD. Others break easily and for a long time.

It's not like they can't carry on in life - it's just that their brain is now set to the intended world view.

It's also how during the Stalin period, you got people who would get up and speak in public against their own friends. Confessional speeches, etc.

We're only hearing about the failures. And not too many, I think.

Only if we can put Chavez in with Robertson, as well as Fred Phelps and Putin.Chavez VS Bush works for me :D

Clearly all of them. That guy with the marks on his wrists? Just Iraqis playing Chinese burns. That kid with the bullet holes? Unfortunate accident while playing with a gun he'd stolen from the Americans. All those dead wedding guests? That's what happens if you eat too much cake.

Yea or if some Iraqis decide to crash your wedding in Jordan..........