If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
True. But!
Compared to putting them in a box and forgetting about them for a decade, it's much more likely to get some answers.
To Moonrat...Read what i actually said! i said Human Rights was a crock of shit, not people shouldnt have them! i think it was very clear and made perfect sense what i was saying! I was highlighting the situation in Africa, that goes unchecked with very little attention. Remember, the only time changes happen is when the whole world watches under media scrutiny. Thats why majority of non-nation specific organisations have taken to other parts of the world and ignored Africa! The developed world gorgeoues itself while famine occurs. Wars and Genocide go on every day all the time, yet despite international law about Genocide and so forth, no one give it asecond look. The same goes for everywhere! People are so fickle, that the first chance they have to forget about somewhere, like Tibet for example and the Sudan and the Conga they will do. As soon as the media forgets about Iraq to focus on Iran no one will care what happens in Iraq.
It's a little known thing about those tests, but they rely on reading physiological changes to the questions asked. in other words, they measure emotional responses like guilt.
Tests on loons in asylums show that if there is no emotional reaction - i.e. no guilt then theres no response either. Would you trust to the responses of a madman?
Regardless, there are better methods as you quite rightly point out. This does not mean that torture won't work, only that there are better methods available. You can dig a hole with your hands or a JCB.
In the sense you can get anyone to confess to anything through it.
A true believer would most likely never give into any form of torture except chemical torture which doesnt work anyway, hence why anyone will confess to any thing!
It's funny you say all the the above because you yourself have been making statements to the contrary, that no high rank officers were to blame. Do you have any proof to that effect, or are you just speculating as much as I am?
And since we're both speculating, but since every indication based on past record and modus operandi would lead us to believe that those soldiers were under orders from well above, I'd say I'm FAR better positioned to say the soldiers were authorised all the way from Washington than you to claim they were acting on their on accord.
Try taking your blinkers off yourself.
Oh yes it does. It serves the argument of proving the US and British governments are bunch of liars who could not be trusted to tell the time of day.
That's just your opinion. Nothing else. Got any proof?
You can't have it both ways you know... :rolleyes:
What chance there is of ever having any discussion with you when you refuse to admit the clearest and most obvious of facts?
Look at the picture I posted earlier. Was that prisoner being transported anywhere at the time the picture was taken? Yes/no?
No, the use of dogs to terrorise prisoners while they're incapacitated, defenceless and pose no threat is not legal.
If you really believe it is, try doing a little research.
No you haven't. And if you had, you should have reported them because sure as fuck they were breaking the law.
Wrong again. Try to do a little research.
Sorry but you're still not making sense. I did read what you said, I'm studying a course in Human Rights and what you've written holds very little validity.
What you are referring to is a concept that human beings have natural rights, although there are different perspectives (for example Universal and Cultural Relativists) that you need to consider. In general from a Western secular perspective we like to think that human rights are completely universal.
There are human rights NGO's working all over the world, but the issues are profound, it's much more difficult than saying "I like this country so I'll help them", there are differences in for example trying to stop Burma's military regime from putting political dissidents in dog cages from trying to get women in to education in say a Muslim country.
Africa is a difficult one but it's not "human rights" as a concept are bad, I don't quite understand what you mean... Are you saying that it takes awareness in the West for an issue to be resolved?
It seems like you're criticising international human rights laws and not the concept of human rights itself (because technically what you originally wrote made no sense, at least to me)? The United nations? Ironic there because the IMF is a part of the UN, yet they also work to tackle poverty... Riiight. :yeees:
Changes are not only made when things are covered in the media, these are only the changes you now about. The G8 didn't make a lot of changes did it? The fact is that we could get information on what is going on in African countries, but we choose not to. The media produces stories that will make money, stories that we can relate to... You know, like "look at the poor white middle class kid who got abducted" or "despite the fact that America is a rich naton, donate £££ to help the victims of hurricane Catrina!" I'm not saying these people are worth any less than anybody else, nor that the don't deserve love and sympathy, but that the effort for the Pakistan earthquake, where the country is not as wealthy and where people were in danger of freezng to death was nowhere as big. Don't blame human rights organisations for this, we are conditioned in to selective compassion.
Thats not an example, thats a generalised anecdote. Can I have a specific example please. Thanks.
Nah. We are conditioned to compasion. That it's selective is no real surprise because it has to fight with your own common sense and innate wish to just look after yourself first and foremost. People's morality tends to be geographic as well, with the closer it is to home the more they care.
If you put the needs of others above your own, your probably going to be pretty miserable, if not mentally ill. Even the god botherers only say that you should love your neightbour AS yourself.
Well can you tell me what indictaors have their been that all of that was ordered by the top brass?? Any? My proof that it wasn't is there is no proof to sya that it was for a start. There has been no leak mems, no orders signed, no statements, no whitle blowers. Nothing. With the enemies this administration has, if anyone knoew something they wouldnt keep quiet about it, espeically the soliders involved. I mea I know americans are patrooitci but I doubt those soliders would take over 10 year sin jail and be labled a scum of the world just for a president thats gonna be out of office in a few years!
Th epoint is, you never said it was pseculation. You stated it as fact and its damaging claim. In your posts you are guilty of libal and slander. Your not FAR better postition at all and once again no proof that this is there morenadius operandi at all. Stop going around in circles.
Least I havent done that.
No the WMD debate serves no purpose here. Your only swallowing th emidea picture anyway and the left wing crap over the whole thing. The WMD debate is flawed and it is not the case that th eentire governments of americ and the uk are liars etc etc. But it is easier to belive they are for htose that don't want to challange the group mentality.
I am not spelling ou the bias of Al Jezraa for you. If you want to be a hypocrite then fine.
I didnt say that particular use of dogs was. You have 1 pciture in the situation you descrive. Other pictures show th esituation I described where it is legal.
Yes I have and it snot illegal for crying out loud. Dogs are used to cparure and incapcitate criminals as wella s intimidate them fact.
No I am not wrong at all. Just becaus eyou have read some biased reserach doesn't make you an expert.
Long term torture may not be right and torture for the sake of it is wrong. Torture for crictising a regime is wrong.
Torture to obtain vital information to save lives is right. Torture in the short term is acceptable if it saves lives.
And sensory deprevation along with other NON HARMFUL techniques are not wrong.
scarlett- I have read Kant, in both religious studies and strategic studies. I find him wack and head in the cluds, not really a realist.
Have you heard of a US army outpost called Guantanamo Bay?
Are you aware of what goes on there?
And are you also aware that what goes on there is fully sanctioned by those at the very top of the US government and armed forces?
Once you've made yourself familiar with those facts you should look at testimonies from the soldiers and/or their families in which it was repeatedly stated they were simply following orders.
And last but most certainly not least, is the existence of a Pentagon memo in which Rumsfeld himself authorises the use of psychological torture.
What more do you need for fuck's sake?
The soldiers probably didn't expect to be caught and then made the fall guys did they?
What "left wing" crap?
You really don't have a clue what you're talking about do you?
Oh look, Mr "Prove it" cannot prove much of anything himself.
Don't try to avoid the issue. That picture shows an illegal and wrong use of dogs for terrorising purposes. Yes or no? That is proof. Yes or no?
No it isn't. Stop making things up.
Biased eh? Anything that dares to raise questions about the dealings of your heroes must hopelessly biased, or left wing crap, or filled with anti-Western hatred.
Change the record.
No it isn't, and it does not save lives. Never has.
I don't think you fully understand the effects of prolonged sensory depravation. It is very unpleasant, and most certainly harmful.
Let's hope not, but if you yourself were to be wrongly accused of being a "terrorist" (as many if not most people inside Guantanamo have been, incidentally) and be subjected to sensory and sleep depravation or be hooded and have a vicious dog trying to bite your face off, you would very fucking quickly change your mind about whether such things are right or wrong.
Yes, i should have said specifically the implementation of Human Rights, rather then the general idea of Human Rights. I was refering to the UN and its inhability despite it charter to deal with a given situation in the world, due in part to its structural flaws but due also to its dependence on money, support and in many cases troops commited by member states rather then having a resurce of its own.
In the case of Somalia for example, a country that collapsed inwards on itself to form a non-state, if the term is accurate, was in all out war with itself. America unilaterally decided (President Bush Snr) to commit troops in the thousands to relief efforts to protect aid workers as the UN was incapable of doing so, then later UN relief became involved, though the whole thing feel apart after an American with drawal.
I suppose when i say human rights, i am refering to the right to live, be fed and not have to suffer needlessly. Rwanda is another example of Human Rights breaches that could have been prevented. Though i do see where you are coming from when you speak of Women in education is strict Muslim nations, etc.
By the way as a side note, who is your Human Rights Tutor? Mine was an absolute twat who didnt like me because i didnt toe his line about how evil the Serbians were during the Balkans war!
To Blag, Specific example. BBC2, 2001, SAS In Action (possiblyt he DVD as well, but do not hold me to that), titled Middle East, it was a series of the history of the organisation and its actions. Specific case was their operations in Afghanistan aiding the native repels fighting the Soviet incursion, one specific example given was the use of kidnapping and fear tactics (torture) to find out Sovie patrol movements around a base camp. The SAS officer was unidentified and his face was blacked out.
That hardly constitutes a checkable reference. Its not a good example either as you only have the word of the SAS men. Its not something thats undergone a judicial process is it? It would still be thought that beating confessions out of the Birmingham 6 worked if it wasn't for judicial appeals.
Got any decent examples?
Quantnomo is nothing to do with this!! Stop changing tacts and stick to the issue that you raised!
Yes I know what goes on there and yes I know of the reports abou tthat place.
I know the bias reports of people who were prisioner there and I know the real reports of the FBI who has been there, who did critcise some pratices there.
So I do know exactly what goes on there and shock horror its not illegal! Though the reporst by the FBI do make interesting reading but since you don't have any sources that are as credible as that. Only your on wbiased opinion then your position is weak.
That pentagon memo was not authorising the abuses we saw in the pictures! Once again twisting things to suit your own agenda. We were talking about the abuses, not general treatment. Rumsfled's memo did not authorise that abuse.
The solidors had their chance ot out their supposed orders at trial, before trial, after trail an dhave they??????? Nope! Aww your argument just fell down.
God, you only have to watch an al jeezrra broadcats and is it just considence they get the inside story to every kidnapping and verey terror attack. They always hav ethe tape, they aleways have the hotsage tapes, they always have the tapes by terrorist leaders and they always broad cast them , then they always covere every suicdie bombing and attack and any abuse claim and guess where they cantre the blame? thats right, the west.
Your 1 picture does yes. But there are othe rpictures where they prisioners were out off cells and or being trnapsorte dinw hich case dogs are allowed ot be used for security.
I am not lying! Dogs are used to intimidate criminals! why do you think they use them??
Yes it has.
Ugh, YOu chnage the record. Sensory deprevation, stress postions, interrupted patterns, interrogation techniques are all unpleasant and can drive you nuts but they are non physical forms of torture that are not in the same league as as real torture.
wake up to the real world.
Stress positions - the new name for torture.
Rebranding, it works for tinned dog food and household cleaner, and it has obviously worked on you as well. Stop looking at the goddamn labels and look at what's really going on, mate.
If you think that forcing metal tubes up someone's nostrils and into their gullet to force feed them isn't obscene your a fucking crackpot.
LOL. The pattern becomes even more clear. Whenever a report says something you don't like, it is "biased" and can't be trusted.
However the word of the US government is final and can be trusted with your life.
Life's great isn't it?
Do you really think any government, anywhere, would put such specific instructions to paper???
All Rumsfeld have to do is to pass the word down the military hiriecracy that "terrorists" are to be softened up in any way the soldiers feel appropriate, and that Washington will not mind what they do to them.
It's not going in a White House headed paper though.
Forgive me for saying so but you appear to be a little bit naive of the workings of the real world.
How could you possibly say that Al Jazeera are hopelessly biased for being sent and for showing terrorist tapes?
They also show press conferences from the White House and the West, for your information.
If anything, they're far more impartial than most Western stations, who simply are more than happy to show whichever bullshit the White House or Pentagon spokesman comes up with, but refuse to air any tapes from the other side.
So my picture proves dogs were used illegally, and that such tactics are not legally allowed in the West. Thank you for confirming it- even if you're still resisting to admit you were wrong.
Dogs are used to deter criminals, and to control inmates. Dogs are not used to terrorise defenceless prisoners for amusement.
So driving someone mentally insane is not too bad a thing, is it?
Depends what you mean by torture and by kidnapping do you mean the capture of enemy soldiers - which whether targetted at an individual or not is perfectly legal. Also assuming this was the late 80s things like sensory deprivation or threatening someone with death unless they talked weren't regarded as torture and was perfectly legal (though I believe that's since changed) unless you actually followed it up with shooting or torture.
Also to be honest some of the accounts of the SAS aren't always 100% accurate. Years ago I was talking to an ex-SAS officer about the Falklands and he said that most of the stuff published on it was made up by soldiers who were trying to test how guilible journalists were (and given my experience most journalists are pretty guilibe).
Considering you will only except examples that have been put through multi-levels of judicary and oversight, i dont think there is any examples other then ones of police forces in the West and the recent Iraq prison stories. If you will only accept examples like that and ignore personal accounts of people there, you will not hear about much examples of torture one way or the other apart from anecdotes.
You have no examples then?
Even though if you had an ounce of common sense you would either cease posting on this issue or post only to admit the error of your ways, I get the feeling you are due to post yet another long tirade denying the obvious so let me preempt you and save you the trouble:
Hard evidence: US general personally authorised use of torture
You also asked 'where are the whistle-blowers' and 'why didn't the soldiers say they received orders from above:
Well, here is one...
This report suggests cases of abuse and torture are widespread amongst US forces:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/04/27/usint10545.htm
Finally, there is more information and facts about US torture on prisoners and the involvement officers and members of the US government had in it than you could ever hope to find:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/un/prisonindex.htm
I hope the above puts an end to any doubts you might have had.
Evidence?
Evidence re Guantanamo detainees?
Apart from the current use against Islamic extremists at Guantanamo and Abu Graib (in which the US claims to have had success during their "interogations" please give me a Military example of Torute in history in which nothing came of it, when intelligence was needed. You know, to prove your point fully.
Sure smells similar. :chin:
Try reading some of the links I've posted just above.
See above.
Yes. Whats your point? That just cos they use torture then we should too?