Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Torture 48

Journal by pudge

A lot of people having complained that Don Rumsfeld last week said, "My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture. ... I don't know if the -- it is correct to say what you just said, that torture has taken place, or that there's been a conviction for torture."

The question asked of him is whether torture took place. He attempted to give a reasonable answer to the question. But many people say, how can it be anything but torture? Look at the pictures! Read the report!

Human Rights Watch quotes the Convention Against Torture, saying it defines torture 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 a third person information or a confession...." (emphasis mine)

That is to say, abuse must be inflicted for a specific purpose -- for example, extracting information -- in order to be called torture. It does not matter how bad the abuse is, or what the abuse is, it must have a specific purpose in order to be torture. That is not to say that torture did not take place, but it is wholly right to question whether abuse amounts to torture, which is something that the photographic evidence does not -- probably cannot -- show. In my reading of the report, it doesn't show it either. It suspects it, which is why further investigations are called for in said report.

That is to say, Rummy was absoultely right to question whether torture has, in fact, taken place. He was wrong to say it in a press conference where people wouldn't understand the relevant legal nuances, and where he might betray his own lack of understanding of the evidence.

From all the little bits of information that have been coming out, from the pervasive allegations that they were told to "soften up" the prisoners, it seems that this likely was abuse for a purpose that makes it amount to torture. But I have not seen enough evidence to convince me of that yet. I would be surprised if I didn't see that evidence eventually.

My only question is whether Rummy had enough evidence to call it torture at the time he said it, and if he has that evidence now.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Torture More

Torture

Comments Filter:
  • Regardless, it was bad form. I don't blame Rummy, but I hope they pin those soldiers that did it up to a wall. We had bad enough arab relations, now we just made it bad times five million.

    Now there is discussion about releasing the pictures. I think that'd just make the whole situation worse. Then the al-quaeda types would have pictures to view before sending their children to a US Base with bombs strapped to them.

    They should release the pictures only if they send the soldiers pictured in them to ar
    • Regardless, it was bad form.

      Yeah, he sometimes forgets how to say things to the press. He should not have addressed the question, or referred them to the lawyers. But what pisses me off is that when someone makes reasonable distinctions, they get their ass kicked from here to next Sunday, and then we complain that politicians won't give us straight or complex answers! Of course they do, because they know what WE will do to them if they DON'T.

      A good politician would have answered, "I don't know if they

  • Rumsfeld (Score:2, Insightful)

    by buffer-overflowed ( 588867 )
    Is being pushed pretty hard right now, between press conference's, congressional hearings and the like.

    I'd wager he was simply tired and couldn't recall specifics, so he went with the safe qualifying statement from a legal POV.

    As to the whole mess, the one thing I'm hoping for is public trials. From a pragmatic standpoint, this will have a short term cost, but it'll help defuse charges(if they're unfounded) of more widespread problems along the chain of command.

    As I said to Red Warrior, I have no doubt
    • Oh and Pudge, here's a related link [armytimes.com] that's not so much interesting because of the content, but interesting because of the source.
      • Note that it was written by civilians, and the paper is owned by Gannett, which also owns USA Today. Once you realize that, I dunno, it isn't as interesting to me as it might have otherwise been. And you're right, the content is not interesting at all. It brings up the eminently uninteresting fact that they had not read the report (they had been briefed on it and knew its contents), and it plays the "since you're in charge, you're to blame" card which just goes to show they don't have any actual blame to
        • I'm aware, it's not as interesting as it would be if something similar appeared in say, Stars & Stripes, but it's still interesting.
          • Dude! You should read what's in Stars & Stripes right now!
            • I found this [stripes.com] (part of a series [stripes.com]), very telling. And this was done BEFORE the pictures came out. Some of the complaints rest around being put into positions and performing duties that they weren't trained for.

              What I wonder is, how are we going to maintain troop strength/morale? Reservists want to go home, re-enlistments are expected to be down (by all sides... they just differ on the reasons), active-duty are going into tighter rotations (in some cases 12 months on, 6 months off). I think this is goin

              • Reservists want to go home, re-enlistments are expected to be down (by all sides... they just differ on the reasons), active-duty are going into tighter rotations (in some cases 12 months on, 6 months off). I think this is going to be a BIG problem for whomever is in office after November.

                Just like every other war ever. :-) Yes, it is a big problem, but it is something we've dealt with before and can deal with again. It's not something I expect to be a catastrophic failing.
  • 1) When acts were being committed by the Baathists in the interest of general terrorization or just plain sadism, we were happy to call it torture without splitting hairs. You can certainly argue that most of the actions committed by US soldiers don't amount to torture in any case, however repulsive they may be, but pointlessness is hardly a defense.

    2) On the contrary, it's *worse*. A little controlled pushing of the bounds of normally appropriate questioning, in order to extract some vital piece of inform
    • When acts were being committed by the Baathists in the interest of general terrorization or just plain sadism, we were happy to call it torture without splitting hairs.

      Perhaps. And perhaps Rumsfeld called it torture. But in those cases he had no legal obligations to call a spade a spade. Here, he does: if he calls it torture and later we find it doesn't meet the legal definition, that could have legal repercussions on the subsequent trials, especially for the civilian contractors, who presumably will f
    • When acts were being committed by the Baathists in the interest of general terrorization or just plain sadism, we were happy to call it torture without splitting hairs. You can certainly argue that most of the actions committed by US soldiers don't amount to torture in any case, however repulsive they may be, but pointlessness is hardly a defense.

      It isn't supposed to be a defense - AIUI Rumsfeld was just correcting the misuse of the word "torture". I think he has a good reason to, too: if the prisoners we

      • AIUI Rumsfeld was just correcting the misuse of the word "torture".

        Yeah, he tends to piss off a lot of people that way. He refuses to let them set the terms of discussion, especially if it has repercusions. He actually understands that "words mean things". Say what you want about the man's politics, as SecDef, he rocks.

  • True (Score:2)

    by mfh ( 56 )
    I guess it's not exactly torture, just needless random acts of violence against prisoners. Abuse or toruture, it's still in bad form, and it works against what the US gov't is trying to achieve. I don't think Rumsfeld could be blamed for it. These are merely a brutal acts, and brutal acts always surface when the majority of military units are deployed, regardless of the theatre of operations or who is President. Controlling the troops is up to the chain of command, which broke down (likely because it has be
  • The White House should set up a website containing all the pictures and movies completely unedited. A lot of pictures are going to be made public anyway, it's better to release the whole thing at once. It will obviously cause a lot of controversy, but the media wouldn't be able to feed the story by dribbling pictures out a little at a time. Furthermore it would be make a defense against accusations that the US is covering things up.
  • I don't care. I don't mean to say I don't care about the torture of people... no I mean I don't care about the torture of Iraqis. I don't hold any specific grudge against them but I don't care. Eff them. Next time you scumbags dance in the streets after you set fire to 4 unarmed "contractors" and string their bodies up from a bridge remember when we catch you we're going to piss on you and make you wear women's underwear.

    Wanna know the real effing problem? We're not offing these mother-effers wholesal

    • Next time you scumbags dance in the streets after you set fire to 4 unarmed "contractors" and string their bodies up from a bridge remember when we catch you we're going to piss on you and make you wear women's underwear.

      There's a small problem of TIMELINE here. The Iraqi prisoner abuse investigation started in January (which means the abuses took place before that -- sometime in October, IIRC). The event you describe above took place in March (?).

      I don't mean to be provative, but you are an angry pers

      • Actually the timeline is irrelevant. I'm probably as pissed as I sounded. We could be feeding them Filet Mignon and AI would be bitching that we fed them red meat.
        • Many of the people abused were likely innocent of any real wrongdoing, which is why we have the presumption of innocence in our judicial system.

          This is not a monolithic people. Today, Iraqis marched in protest in front of al-Sadr's militia, demanding they leave Najaf. It seems clear some of the people in this prison were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. If these were al Qaeda, I can see someone saying, "screw them," though I'd still protest the actions of our troops. But in this case, some
          • buh buh buh bup. No they were NOT. These were absolutely the folks either plotting to or actually attacking out troops which is why they were where they were -- especially in that block.
            • buh buh buh bup. No they were NOT. These were absolutely the folks either plotting to or actually attacking out troops which is why they were where they were -- especially in that block.

              So you disagree with the American tradition of presumption of innocence? These people didn't have trials, many of them. I don't know if any of them DID have trials.
              • pudge I like you but we both know that's not what you were saying.

                You were saying these were poor Iraqi schlubs. Don't dick around with words-we're not Liberals.

                Now then -- NEWFLASH -- We're At War. The regular rules do NOT apply.

                Did you see him shooting at us? Yes Sir! Send him to prison, he gets out when the war is over. Perfectly legal, perfectly normal. These people weren't stealing apples from a cart they were actively trying to kill us.

                Does this mean we should abuse them? No. Does this exc
                • Apparently you don't know what I was saying. I am saying that some of them ARE innocent. When you unreasonably asserted that is false, I said, well, even if you don't buy it, you must at least PRESUME they are innocent.

                  And no, the regular rules do not apply, which is why we don't need to have trials. But neither does that mean we can treat them in prison as though they are convicted criminals ... not that this behavior would be acceptable for convicted criminals, either.

                  But let's not wax poetic about
                  • Presumption of innocence is considered the cornerstone of a fair judicial system.

                    Here, here, Pudge.

                  • First, eff the Red Cross they might as well be the Red Flag Of Communism at this point.

                    Second, 90%... yeah right.

                    Third how many Iraqis are burnt to a crisp swinging from a bridge?

                    Fourth the 7 (or so) scumbags are going to go to jail... what more do you want?
                    • Second, 90%... yeah right.

                      It is more reasonable than your presumption that ALL of them are guilty.

                      Third how many Iraqis are burnt to a crisp swinging from a bridge?

                      Non sequitur.

                      Fourth the 7 (or so) scumbags are going to go to jail... what more do you want?

                      I want the officers who told them to do it to go to jail, if anyone did. I want the officers who allowed it to happen through gross negligience to be dishonorably discharged.
                    • 50/50

                      Oh I see what a few Iraqis do doesn't count

                      I'm all for the officers in charge getting discharged.
                    • Oh I see what a few Iraqis do doesn't count

                      In regard to how we treat our prisoners, yes, that's correct. It doesn't count.
                    • In regard to how we treat our prisoners, yes, that's correct. It doesn't count.

                      Look you may think the US Mil is highly organized finely oiled machine but it's not. It's a bunch of men and women who are as flawed as any of us. Their frat pranks aside the 7 idiots & the losers who supervised them do not represent the whole of the US Mil however.

                      If you'd ever like to become a racist become a police officer. I know many very normal folks who got involved in law enforcement (cops, lawyers, judges) and
                    • Look you may think the US Mil is highly organized finely oiled machine but it's not.

                      No, I merely think that those responsible for extreme violations of the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ should be penalized harshly.

                      Their frat pranks aside the 7 idiots & the losers who supervised them do not represent the whole of the US Mil however.

                      I never implied it did, in any way.

                      I'm just saying stop pretending we're above this sort of thing.

                      Since when does calling for appropriate punishment constitute any
                    • OK. I'll wait until next Sunday and we can see what your thoughts bring then. My thoughts on the topic are we're doing something about this, we were already doing something about it before the pictures surfaced. Whatever we did to these Iraqis they're not dead, or swinging from bridges.

                      You sure you're not a Lib becuase you sure argue like one. It's degenerated into You're Stupid and I'm Smart.

                      Sorry I'm not willing to go that route. We both basically agree the US Mil is doing something about this. Yo
                    • My thoughts on the topic are we're doing something about this, we were already doing something about it before the pictures surfaced.

                      I've never claimed differently.

                      Whatever we did to these Iraqis they're not dead, or swinging from bridges.

                      The former is true, the latter is contested. The Pentagon is investigating several deaths as homicides. And again, I don't care, in this context. Whatever they've done is no justification for what our troops have done. And it's not like I am angry only at our tro

      • There is a HUGE difference between the humilation we've seen and physical beating/electricution of privates/causing pain to inocent FAMILY members/etc... Both are wrong, but it's the difference between jay-walking and manslaughter.

        You might hold your horses on this one. Rumsfeld said that a lot worse is going to come out. There have reportedly been investigations into beating deaths, at least one dog attack and there is possibly a tape of an IRAQI woman being raped.

        Some of the stuff is probably not

        • There have reportedly been

          Those are magic keywords which mean "blah blah blah blah blah." :-)

          Please, let's keep to what we know, not what someone else thinks maybe someone else knows. It is far more interesting.

          That said, we do know for fact -- it is not merely "reportedly" -- that there are active investigations into prisoner deaths.
            • Have you read that? Noted blame with the leadership of the 800th? Noted the conclusions?

              "What I found particularly disturbing in her [Karpinski] testimony was her complete unwillingness to either understand or accept that many of the problems inherent in the 800th MP Brigade were caused or exacerbated by poor leadership and the refusal of her command to both establish and enforce basic standards and principles among its Soldiers"

              And then the report goes on to site numerous examples of other Soldiers and

              • I am not placing the blame (yet), but I was pointing out that the cruelty is documented and goes beyond "simple" humiliation.

                • but I was pointing out that the cruelty is documented and goes beyond "simple" humiliation.

                  Does it? Have you read the report you cited? I'll direct you to read pages 16 and 17 in particular when it enumerates the alleged abuses. Read them. They ALL appear to be humilation related with two notable execptions:

                  "Punching, slapping, and kicking detaniees; jumping on their naket feet".

                  While clearly abuse, HARDLY warrants the reactions we've seen.

                  "A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;"

                  Wh

                  • You know what, I am honestly tired of arguing with you. Go ahead and find and read the Amnesty International call for independent reviews of the prisons that was dispatched in mid 2003 (way before any of this came out). Interviews with former prisoners (from that same prison) detailed a laundry list of pretty horrible treatments... forced to remain in kneeling positions until their knees bled, beatings, etc. There is also a Red Cross report somewhere that states similar things around the same time frame.

                    • You know what, I am honestly tired of arguing with you.

                      As you wish -- but I would suggest we aren't that far from common ground.

                      Go ahead and find and read the Amnesty International call for independent reviews of the prisons that was dispatched in mid 2003...

                      I am quite familiar with Amnesty International and many of their reports -- most of which are on countries OTHER than America. If you follow this thread up, you'll note I *DO* suggest a call for PERSPECTIVE and cite Amnesty International's reports

                    • You know what, I am honestly tired of arguing with you. Go ahead and find and read the Amnesty International call for independent reviews of the prisons that was dispatched in mid 2003 (way before any of this came out). Interviews with former prisoners (from that same prison) detailed a laundry list of pretty horrible treatments... forced to remain in kneeling positions until their knees bled, beatings, etc.

                      I do want to pipe up here and note that nothing I've heard from the warnings by Amnesty Internation
            • This report says not one thing about any soldiers raping anyone, let alone videotaping it. What it says is that *detainees* were suspected of rape of a fellow detainee, and one of the soldiers photographed the rape suspect naked. Your characterization was wholly unwarranted by the report you linked to. So I stand on my "blah blah blah" and raise you an "oh really?"
              • Sorry... I did confused on this one:

                6. (S) I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

                ...

                k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

                It was not characterized as "rape" in the report. It was characterized as rape somewhere else. You're right, it probably was just "sex." AND there was no mention (in the report) of video... that was somewhere else as well. My guess is that both characterizations (elsewhere) are true (at leas

                • but I will let you stand by your "blah blah blah" and get up on your "oh really."

                  hehe :)

                  Anyway, you can tell I am not making excuses for anyone or trying to make this look not as bad as it is. I am trying to make it look like exactly what it is, and I am just not sure, yet, what it is.

                  I will say that sex with a prisoner probably consitutes violations all over the place.

                  If I had to guess I'd say it was rape, but thankfully, I don't have to guess. I am sure whatever this is, it is being investigated,
        • Some of the stuff is probably not akin to "jaywalking".
          I was refering to the material that we currently know about -- and the reaction the world is having to THAT material.

          If that information proves to be accurate, we can deal with that THEN.
  • The most telling part of the definition is the part that is left off of the Human Right's Watch quote:

    , punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him 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.

    The full definition is th

    • With that, it is obvious that abuse to extract information is just one instance of torture (of the list that is presented).

      I never implied that it was not torture, and I never implied this was the only purpose which could be called torture. I was merely pointing out that torture looks at more specific motivations than the more general abuse.

      Torture is also abuse to punish for an act the person is suspected of committing or being involved in. It is also abuse based on discrimination of any kind.

      So you
  • I just wanted to apologize for droning on and on yesterday.

    I will wait and see what happens. Sad stuff all of it.

    We often don't agree, but I do appreciate conversation.

Slashdot Top Deals

In a five year period we can get one superb programming language. Only we can't control when the five year period will begin.

Close