Torture and the CCC - Non Negotiable

[Isidore_AK]

y’all really need to define what torture is- and isn’t- before you can have this conversation.

Many of the things mentioned are a part of military training- I daresay that only a pantywaisted liberal would call them torture. Sure, they are uncomfortable- thats the point. Sleep dep sucks, believe me I know, but I don’t think I’d ever call it torture. Same thing with a a “cold room”…they weren’t letting people get to hypothermia, just making sure that they were uncomfortable as can be. “Uncomfortable” does NOT equal torture.

If we were talking about electrocutions, the rack, beatings, and hota brands, then I could understand the concern. What we are dealing with (mostly) is inducing fear into the subjects…a barking dog may be scare the pants off of 'em, but it never touched the buggers. In the same line, the threat of physical force or torture, is NOT the same as the USE of physical force or torture. A bluff is often all you need…

Now, making somebody watch a Brady Bunch marathon- THATS torture (or attending Mass at Mahoney hall… )

 

[detrockcity3]

y’all really need to define what torture is- and isn’t- before you can have this conversation.

Many of the things mentioned are a part of military training- I daresay that only a pantywaisted liberal would call them torture. Sure, they are uncomfortable- thats the point. Sleep dep sucks, believe me I know, but I don’t think I’d ever call it torture. Same thing with a a “cold room”…they weren’t letting people get to hypothermia, just making sure that they were uncomfortable as can be. “Uncomfortable” does NOT equal torture.

If we were talking about electrocutions, the rack, beatings, and hota brands, then I could understand the concern. What we are dealing with (mostly) is inducing fear into the subjects…a barking dog may be scare the pants off of 'em, but it never touched the buggers. In the same line, the threat of physical force or torture, is NOT the same as the USE of physical force or torture. A bluff is often all you need…

Now, making somebody watch a Brady Bunch marathon- THATS torture (or attending Mass at Mahoney hall… )

That’s exactly the distinction I had in mind.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Now, making somebody watch a Brady Bunch marathon- THATS torture (or attending Mass at Mahoney hall… )

That’s exactly the distinction I had in mind.

So do either or both of you wish to go on record as attending Mass equals torture?

If you want to change your definition you may want to read many things first but here is a short sweet article you may want to consider
prisoncommission.org/statements/grassian_stuart_long.pdf

 

[detrockcity3]

So do either or both of you wish to go on record as attending Mass equals torture?

If you want to change your definition you may want to read many things first but here is a short sweet article you may want to consider
prisoncommission.org/statements/grassian_stuart_long.pdf

Wow, relax buddy, I think he was joking.

My comment was in reference to his entire post.

 

[Isidore_AK]

So do either or both of you wish to go on record as attending Mass equals torture?

If you want to change your definition you may want to read many things first but here is a short sweet article you may want to consider
prisoncommission.org/statements/grassian_stuart_long.pdf

C’mon, haven’t you seen his liturgical dancers?

Being forced to go to one of the heretical masses of “Cardinal” Mahoney? That is the definition torture…

C’mon, you have to know that I’m only kidding…mostly…

 

[mlchance]

Torture is:

…“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….” (Art. 1, The Convention against Torture).

It may be “inflicted by or at the instigation of or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”
The prohibition against torture under international law applies to many measures—e.g. beating on the soles of the feet; electric shock applied to genitals and nipples; rape; near drowning through submersion in water; near suffocation by plastic bags tied around the head; burning; whipping; needles inserted under fingernails; mutilation; hanging by feet or hands for prolonged periods.

Nothing the U.S. government is doing qualifies as torture. One can argue certain techniques run afoul of international laws against “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,” but such treatment does not meet the legal definition of torture (and also opens up the can of worms about whether international law trumps a sovereign nation’s national laws).

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[bad_catholic]

I would suggest you read the Geneva Conventions in their entirety as well as the Cathecism. It is intersting that orthodox Catholics accuse (and rightly so) dissenting Catholics of “cafteria Cathoicism” and using spurious arguments to support their position. This cuts both ways, and we are seeing it right now.

This slavish devotion to the GOP and President Bush is really pathetic. It is almost like people are saying, “well, he is pro life, so therefore he is incapable of error.”

Please don’t fall into the trap of liberal or dissenting Catholics by picking and choosing. To be a faithful Catholic is to embrace the ENTIRE faith. Yes, the dissenters are wrong, but so are people like Weigel and Neuhaus.

 

[mlchance]

I would suggest you read the Geneva Conventions in their entirety as well as the Cathecism.

genevaconventions.org/

Here’s an interesting section that people who love to talk about the Geneva Conventions (but have no idea what they actually say) can’t seem to stop ignoring (emphases added):

International Rules About Soldiers

The Geneva Conventions and supplementary protocols make a distinction between combatants and civilians. The two groups must be treated differently by the warring sides and, therefore, combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians. Although this obligation benefits civilians by making it easier for the warring sides to avoid targeting non-combatants, soldiers also benefit because they become immune from prosecution for acts of war.

For example, a civilian who shoots a soldier may be liable for murder while a soldier who shoots an enemy soldier and is captured may not be punished.

In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.

The exceptions are medical and religious personnel, who are considered non-combatants even though they may wear uniforms. Medical personnel may also carry small arms to use in self-defense if illegally attacked.

The other exception are mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from protections. Mercenaries are defined as soldiers who are not nationals of any of the parties to the conflict and are paid more than the local soldiers.

Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Torture is:

Nothing the U.S. government is doing qualifies as torture. One can argue certain techniques run afoul of international laws against “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,” but such treatment does not meet the legal definition of torture (and also opens up the can of worms about whether international law trumps a sovereign nation’s national laws).

– Mark L. Chance.

Thank you Mark

In some post on this forum it was stated that “waterboarding” involves wrapping a person’s face in plastic and submerging them in water. It was said that simulated drowning with great accuracy. Now you say the U.S. was not involved in any form of torture. Can these different postings be rectified? This is a very sincere question, and of great significances, so please answers without emotion. - thank you

 

[Scottgun]

I would suggest you read the Geneva Conventions in their entirety as well as the Cathecism. It is intersting that orthodox Catholics accuse (and rightly so) dissenting Catholics of “cafteria Cathoicism” and using spurious arguments to support their position. This cuts both ways, and we are seeing it right now.

This slavish devotion to the GOP and President Bush is really pathetic. It is almost like people are saying, “well, he is pro life, so therefore he is incapable of error.”

Please don’t fall into the trap of liberal or dissenting Catholics by picking and choosing. To be a faithful Catholic is to embrace the ENTIRE faith. Yes, the dissenters are wrong, but so are people like Weigel and Neuhaus.

Not me man. I’m staunchly conservative and think there is absolutely no justification for depriving people of sleep, food, warmth, stress positioning, “softening up”, or any of these cute euphamisms for treating a human being as less than human. Not doing these things is the price for being one of the good guys.

 

[psteichen]

This slavish devotion to the GOP and President Bush is really pathetic. It is almost like people are saying, “well, he is pro life, so therefore he is incapable of error.”

Bad Catholic:

I wouldn’t describe my devotion to the GOP or President Bush as slavish, or even devotion. But now that you have ridiculed our president and the GOP perhaps you would like to know why I and many others do support the Republican Party with our votes. It is precisely because of the pro-life stance you make light of. Oh trust me they are not nearly pro-life enough. And they make tons of mistakes. But compare collectively the politicians that represent themselves as Republican to the politicians that represent themselves as Democrats and an obvious difference is evident.

The average Democrat is wrong on these questions:
Is abortion a choice, or a moral outrage?
Is unabashed homosexuality a life-style issue, or a moral outrage?
Was separation of Church and State intended to keep religion out of government business, or to keep the government out of religion?

And I could go on and on. But just the first one is enough for me. Abortion is such an abomination. Torturing a couple of guys who (crazy or not) probably deserve what they are getting doesn’t bother me in the least compared to this. Heck, if Sept 11 happened every day for the rest of the history of this country because of something the Republicans do, yet at the same time they manage to end abortion, I will jump up and cheer! We would be in far better shape than we are now. (And far less innocent people would die) If we support the Democratic party in November, God help this county, because we will deserve whatever is coming to us.

The Republicans won’t do anything about abortion either you say? Perhaps. In fact I’d say chances are they wont. But with enough pressure and enough grace from God perhaps they will finally stand up to the “mushy middle” in this country and take a stand for life. You can bet your soul the Democrats won’t do it. And if I have to trade a couple of brainwashed extremists getting tortured for a one in a thousand shot at ending abortion, I’d do it in a heartbeat.

Sorry, I know I roamed well outside of the scope of this thread, but even the implication that the modern Democrats will somehow be better for this country than what we have now is so ridiculous it makes me loose my focus.

 

[Scottgun]

Torturing a couple of guys who (crazy or not) probably deserve what they are getting doesn’t bother me in the least compared to this.

I don’t think either abortion or toture necessarily has to bother even people against it. But both torture and abortion are objectively wrong. Now to be fair I have not heard a Republican as of yet say that torture (leaving aside definitions for the moment) is acceptable in some circumstances. If one did, he would be as invalid a candidate who supported abortion for a good Catholic.

 

[mlchance]

In some post on this forum it was stated that “waterboarding” involves wrapping a person’s face in plastic and submerging them in water.

Lots of people make lots of accusations and claims around here. Very seldom do we see anything approaching legitimate documentation for them. Heck, there’ve been folks around who’ve claimed that it might be possible the Bush Administration orchestrated 9/11.

Folks asked for the legal definition of torture. I provided it. I’ve seen no credible evidence that the Bush Administration has authorized anything that qualifies as torture per this definition. This is not to say, however, that some things the Bush Administration may have authorized might violate international law regarding cruel treatment less severe than actual torture. Some instances of interrogation may well fall short of the legal definition of torture and yet still be illegal (at least according to international law) or, at least, morally questionable.

Now go back and look at the OP and subsequent posts by “bad catholic.” Do you see anything that looks like reasoned discourse or examination of evidence? I don’t. Instead I see nothing but name-calling, accusations, and self-righteous demagoguery.

But I’m sure that’s because I’m nothing more than a pathetic cafeteria Catholic slavishly devoted to President Bush.



– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mosher]

Further the accusation of water-boarding is only an accusation and not a proved fact. Until that inquiry is concluded we are still able to claim that the United States has not used torture in its interrogation methods.

An above post notes that terrorists (non-uniformed combatants) do not enjoy the favor of the protection given under the Conventions. However, we must uphold the moral law no matter the case. Thus far, as an ethicist, I have yet to see anything that can be considered torture used by the United States.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Lots of people make lots of accusations and claims around here. Very seldom do we see anything approaching legitimate documentation for them. Heck, there’ve been folks around who’ve claimed that it might be possible the Bush Administration orchestrated 9/11.

Folks asked for the legal definition of torture. I provided it. I’ve seen **no credible evidence **that the Bush Administration has authorized anything that qualifies as torture per this definition. This is not to say, however, that some things the Bush Administration may have authorized might violate international law regarding cruel treatment less severe than actual torture. Some instances of interrogation may well fall short of the legal definition of torture and yet still be illegal (at least according to international law) or, at least, morally questionable.

Now go back and look at the OP and subsequent posts by “bad catholic.” Do you see anything that looks like reasoned discourse or examination of evidence? I don’t. Instead I see nothing but name-calling, accusations, and self-righteous demagoguery.

But I’m sure that’s because I’m nothing more than a pathetic cafeteria Catholic slavishly devoted to President Bush.



– Mark L. Chance.

Further the accusation of water-boarding is only an accusation and not a proved fact. Until that inquiry is concluded we are still able to claim that the United States has not used torture in its interrogation methods.

An above post notes that terrorists (non-uniformed combatants) do not enjoy the favor of the protection given under the Conventions. However, we must uphold the moral law no matter the case. Thus far, as an ethicist, I have yet to see anything that can be considered torture used by the United States.

Two soldiers were sentenced to 10 year prison sentence, by military courts why?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

Convictions and courts-martial
The report by Antonio M. Taguba lists six suspects: Staff Sergeant Ivan (Chip) Frederick II, Specialist Charles A. Graner, Sergeant Javal Davis, Specialist Megan Ambuhl, Specialist Sabrina Harman, and Jeremy Sivits (now demoted to Private). A seventh suspect is Private Lynndie England, who became pregnant and was reassigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The six faced charges that include conspiracy, dereliction of duty, cruelty toward prisoners, maltreatment, assault, and indecent acts.

Specialist Charles Graner was found guilty on January 14, 2005 of all charges, including conspiracy to maltreat detainees, failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment, as well as charges of assault, indecency, adultery, and obstruction of justice. On January 15, 2005, he was sentenced to ten years in federal prison.[2]

Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick pled guilty on October 20, 2004 to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault and committing an indecent act in exchange for other charges being dropped. His abuses included making three prisoners masturbate. He also punched one prisoner so hard in the chest that he needed resuscitation. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, forfeiture of pay, a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank to private. [3]

Jeremy Sivits was sentenced on May 19, 2004 by a special court-martial (less severe than “general”; confinement sentence limited to one year) to the maximum one-year sentence, in addition to being discharged for bad conduct and demoted, upon his plea of guilty.[4]

Specialist Armin Cruz of the 325th Military Intelligence Battalion was sentenced on September 11, 2004 to eight months confinement, reduction in rank to private and a bad conduct discharge in exchange for his testimony against other soldiers.[39]

Sabrina Harman was sentenced on May 17, 2005 to six months in prison and a bad conduct discharge after being convicted on six of the seven counts. She had faced a maximum sentence of 5 years.[5]

Megan Ambuhl was convicted on October 30, 2004, of dereliction of duty and sentenced to reduction in rank to private and loss of a half-month’s pay.[6]

Lynndie England was convicted on September 26, 2005, of one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act. She was acquitted on a second conspiracy count. England had faced a maximum sentence of ten years, but was sentenced on September 27, 2005, to just 3 years. She received a dishonorable discharge.[7]

Specialist Roman Krol was sentenced to reduction in rank to private (E-1), a bad conduct discharge and confinement for 10 months. [8]

Specialist Israel Rivera, who was present during abuse on October 25, is under investigation but has not been charged and has testified against other soldiers.

 

[detrockcity3]

In all those cases it appears justice has been done, or is being done. So I guess we have even less to worry about, right? That wasn’t your point, was it?

 

[mosher]

Two soldiers were sentenced to 10 year prison sentence, by military courts why?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

Convictions and courts-martial
The report by Antonio M. Taguba lists six suspects: Staff Sergeant Ivan (Chip) Frederick II, Specialist Charles A. Graner, Sergeant Javal Davis, Specialist Megan Ambuhl, Specialist Sabrina Harman, and Jeremy Sivits (now demoted to Private). A seventh suspect is Private Lynndie England, who became pregnant and was reassigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The six faced charges that include conspiracy, dereliction of duty, cruelty toward prisoners, maltreatment, assault, and indecent acts.

Specialist Charles Graner was found guilty on January 14, 2005 of all charges, including conspiracy to maltreat detainees, failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment, as well as charges of assault, indecency, adultery, and obstruction of justice. On January 15, 2005, he was sentenced to ten years in federal prison.[2]

Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick pled guilty on October 20, 2004 to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault and committing an indecent act in exchange for other charges being dropped. His abuses included making three prisoners masturbate. He also punched one prisoner so hard in the chest that he needed resuscitation. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, forfeiture of pay, a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank to private. [3]

Jeremy Sivits was sentenced on May 19, 2004 by a special court-martial (less severe than “general”; confinement sentence limited to one year) to the maximum one-year sentence, in addition to being discharged for bad conduct and demoted, upon his plea of guilty.[4]

Specialist Armin Cruz of the 325th Military Intelligence Battalion was sentenced on September 11, 2004 to eight months confinement, reduction in rank to private and a bad conduct discharge in exchange for his testimony against other soldiers.[39]

Sabrina Harman was sentenced on May 17, 2005 to six months in prison and a bad conduct discharge after being convicted on six of the seven counts. She had faced a maximum sentence of 5 years.[5]

Megan Ambuhl was convicted on October 30, 2004, of dereliction of duty and sentenced to reduction in rank to private and loss of a half-month’s pay.[6]

Lynndie England was convicted on September 26, 2005, of one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act. She was acquitted on a second conspiracy count. England had faced a maximum sentence of ten years, but was sentenced on September 27, 2005, to just 3 years. She received a dishonorable discharge.[7]

Specialist Roman Krol was sentenced to reduction in rank to private (E-1), a bad conduct discharge and confinement for 10 months. [8]

Specialist Israel Rivera, who was present during abuse on October 25, is under investigation but has not been charged and has testified against other soldiers.

Yes, I have seen a read some of the reports on the issue and I still do not believe that among what could actually be proved was torture. As I have asserted in the past and will continue to assert I have seen more debasing things at frat houses. I do believe however that this criminal action suit against these soldiers was more to quell the PR storm than it was about anything else. When true torture hits the reports I will be the first to cry foul.

 

[mlchance]

Two soldiers were sentenced to 10 year prison sentence, by military courts why?

For breaking the law.

– Mark L. Chance.