US officially condemned by UN rapporteur for torture

[TheHammer]

Incorrect. I did not make a positive claim. If you read the actual statement, you'll notice that it was made within the context of being "Manning's shoes" in prison. In that context I'd suspect that given the sheer volume of material I'd released that some people would come to harm from it. Being in the shoes of Manning who has no fucking idea what exactly he released, I'd be forced to speculate which is what I did.

Yeah yeah. How about you come up with any positive proof linking Manning to any harm done? Or will you admit that you were just caught without any backup to your argument whatsoever?

I have no "positive proof" that you will deem "beyond a reasonable doubt" because you are already convinced I'm wrong. As I noted, if you believe as many do that Manning's leaks sparked the Arab spring movements, among other things then he's got to accept the blame for the deaths as much as the credit for the "movement".

But I suspect the truth of his treatment is somewhere between the worst extremities that his lawyer is harping on, and the "treated as any other prisoner" as prison officials claim. And I'm absolutely sure what's being done is to "fuck with him" in some manner. But I also think that just about anyone who is incarcerated would tend to be "fucked with" in one way or another.

Ah yes, the mindless middle argument based on nothing but....your gut. Unless you can produce proof, your opinion is worth jack in contrast to several well documented reports about how he was treated. Or is the UN rapporteur suddenly lying?

Never said he was lying, just saying that the truth as it often does lies in the middle of two sides of the argument - namely Manning's Lawyer and The U.S military.

In the article you printed, the UN rapporteur specifically cited ONLY the solitary confinement in his report.

The point I was making dipshit is that when you say the word "torture" to your average person they are thinking of cutting, burning, pulling out finger nails, waterboarding etc. I think a distinction should be drawn between that and things such as sleep disruption and strip searches. The definition of torture as listed here states that torture is an intent to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.

Newsflash: manning's situation certainly applies here, given these same techniques were used by forces like the Stasi and were regarded by them as torture. Furthermore, sleep deprivation is a pretty common torture technique as well.

Sleep disruption and sleep deprivation aren't the same thing. He was allowed to sleep normal hours at night. Admittedly, he was awakened under certain circumstances:

At night, he is awakened to be asked again "Are you OK?" every time he turns his back to the cell door or covers his head with a blanket so that the guards cannot see his face.

source http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... an-assange

However, describing that as sleep deprivation is a bit of an exageration.

I personally don't find the word "severe" applicable in this case because as I noted prisoners in prisons all across the U.S. and Europe endure much worse on a regular basis and thus its not truly worthy of special attention.

Prisoners in Europe? Interesting. Source?

COUNCIL OF EUROPE AGAIN SLAMS FRENCH PRISON CONDITIONS
Treatment of female prisoners criticised

I can google more if you like. And those links don't include the really nasty stuff that prisoners do to each other...

[K. A. Pital]

Oh - we all know that First World governments prefer cleaner torture. The UK's "five techniques" were ruled not to be torture when, in fact, they were a system of clean torture specifically designed to evade the accusation of torture.

The idea that someone designes a system of cleaner torture which should be able to evade a legal accusation does not make it any less torture unless you subscribe to idiotic legalism. Intent matters, too. What is the intent behind subduing Manning to a softer US version of the "five techniques"? None whatsoever, as our defenders of the goverment would love us to believe.

But this is a self-defeating argument. If there is no logic and reason to this sort of treatment, we must conclude that the logic is simple denigration, in which case the idea of torture is easily seen rising in all its ugly glory.

[Serafina]

Fun Fact #2:

At night, he is awakened to be asked again "Are you OK?" every time he turns his back to the cell door or covers his head with a blanket so that the guards cannot see his face.

source http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... an-assange

However, describing that as sleep deprivation is a bit of an exageration.

Again, the Stasi did EXACTLY this.
No human being sleeps perfectly still (especially when under stress). Arbitrarily restricting sleeping positions (and this is arbitrary, since there is no reason why he'd not be allowed to sleep with his back to the door) is a perfectly good way of instituting sleep deprivation. It also has the added benefit of laying the blame solely on the prisoner - after all, he is the one not able to keep up with the rules! If only he could control his subconscious movements while lying on an uncomfortable prison bed, we would not have to wake him all the time!

[loomer]

How long have you ever gone without sleep, Hammer? Did your wife ever force you to stay awake for upwards of 72 hours at a time on a routine basis by violently waking you whenever you slept? No? Then you really can't judge if its torture.

(also, protip: It is. Trust the sadist on this one. Manning's treatment qualifies as torture, and its a psychologically risky form I wouldn't ever practice in my personal life.)

[Terralthra]

Does anyone else find it hilarious that TheHammer has made an argument consisting of "thousands of prisoners get this sort of treatment and there's no outcry at all," and provided supporting evidence in the form of...news reports decrying and condemning the treatment those prisoners receive?

Talk about self-defeating...

[Winston Blake]

The point I was making dipshit is that when you say the word "torture" to your average person they are thinking of cutting, burning, pulling out finger nails, waterboarding etc. I think a distinction should be drawn between that and things such as sleep disruption and strip searches. The definition of torture as listed here states that torture is an intent to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.

I think a distinction should be drawn between [...] cutting, burning, [...] and things such as sleep disruption [...] The definition of torture [...] is an intent to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.

physical or mental

I have an idea. We can call it 'mental torture' , rather than 'physical torture'. Does that satisfy your desire for a distinction?

I personally don't find the word "severe" applicable in this case because as I noted prisoners in prisons all across the U.S. and Europe endure much worse on a regular basis and thus its not truly worthy of special attention.

Your argument consists of an Appeal to Common Practice, a 'Is-Ought' type of fallacy, combined with an Appeal to Popularity ('many people think X, therefore X is true'). Your thinking is logically fallacious.

Examples of Appeal to Common Practice

Director Jones is in charge of running a state waste management program. When it is found that the program is rife with corruption, Jones says "This program has its problems, but nothing goes on in this program that doesn't go on in all state programs."

"Yeah, I know some people say that cheating on tests is wrong. But we all know that everyone does it, so it's okay."

"Sure, some people buy into that equality crap. However, we know that everyone pays women less then men. It's okay, too. Since everyone does it, it can't really be wrong."

"There is nothing wrong with requiring multicultural classes, even at the expense of core subjects. After all, all of the universities and colleges are pushing multiculturalism."

From here I would try to establish some kind of objective standard for what constitutes 'severe', based on historical cases, etc. But I frankly don't have time for tedious debating. If this thread was going to change TheHammer's mind, it would have happened by now.

[TheHammer]

The point I was making dipshit is that when you say the word "torture" to your average person they are thinking of cutting, burning, pulling out finger nails, waterboarding etc. I think a distinction should be drawn between that and things such as sleep disruption and strip searches. The definition of torture as listed here states that torture is an intent to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.

I think a distinction should be drawn between [...] cutting, burning, [...] and things such as sleep disruption [...] The definition of torture [...] is an intent to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.

physical or mental

I have an idea. We can call it 'mental torture' , rather than 'physical torture'. Does that satisfy your desire for a distinction?

No, as noted severe metal pain and suffering is covered under the traditional definition for torture. However, the key word there is severe and that is where the distinction should be drawn.

I personally don't find the word "severe" applicable in this case because as I noted prisoners in prisons all across the U.S. and Europe endure much worse on a regular basis and thus its not truly worthy of special attention.

Your argument consists of an Appeal to Common Practice, a 'Is-Ought' type of fallacy, combined with an Appeal to Popularity ('many people think X, therefore X is true'). Your thinking is logically fallacious.

Examples of Appeal to Common Practice

Director Jones is in charge of running a state waste management program. When it is found that the program is rife with corruption, Jones says "This program has its problems, but nothing goes on in this program that doesn't go on in all state programs."

"Yeah, I know some people say that cheating on tests is wrong. But we all know that everyone does it, so it's okay."

"Sure, some people buy into that equality crap. However, we know that everyone pays women less then men. It's okay, too. Since everyone does it, it can't really be wrong."

"There is nothing wrong with requiring multicultural classes, even at the expense of core subjects. After all, all of the universities and colleges are pushing multiculturalism."

From here I would try to establish some kind of objective standard for what constitutes 'severe', based on historical cases, etc. But I frankly don't have time for tedious debating. If this thread was going to change TheHammer's mind, it would have happened by now.

You are incorrectly applying that fallacy to this situation. In each of the examples you cited, the fallacy is used to justify the behavior or activity. I'm not justifying the treatment of Private Manning, rather I'm saying that because his treatment is fairly common for prisoners in many first world nations, that this case doesn't deserve the special attention it has recieved. It doesn't deserve any extra derision that is not already reserved for prison systems as a whole.

[K. A. Pital]

It does deserve special attention, given his role, though. Every case you can get someone's attention to deserves attention anyway.

[Thanas]

Then where does Hammer draw the line? I think if the stasi classified it as torture it should qualify.

[Terralthra]

TheHammer has at this point ignored 3 or 4 posts of mine rebutting his arguments with reputable sources and evidence. Why is anyone bothering with this bullshitter? HoS him, maybe give him a VI title, and stop pretending he uses this forum in anything but "write-only" mode.

[Themightytom]

No, as noted severe metal pain and suffering is covered under the traditional definition for torture. However, the key word there is severe and that is where the distinction should be drawn.

What are you the Bush administration??

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/04/in-a-2005-memo/

[loomer]

No, as noted severe metal pain and suffering is covered under the traditional definition for torture. However, the key word there is severe and that is where the distinction should be drawn.

And just what qualifies as severe, and with what qualifications do you make the judgement? Are you a medical doctor? A psychiatrist? Even an anthropologist?

I'll say it again: Manning's treatment is severe and psychologically dangerous enough that I'd actually send anyone who wanted me to do it to them to see a psychologist instead, because it violates the principle of safety.

[Eulogy]

UPDATE: David Hambling here. Sleep deprivation has been shown to have extreme effects in lab testing. One 1983 study on rats to find out the consequences of continued sleep deprivation pushed this to the limit: "stimulus presentations were timed to reduce sleep severely in experimental rats but not in controls. Experimental rats suffered severe pathology and death; control rats did not."

So in other words, Bradley's Manning's torture is really a very drawn out and sadistic execution. Keep in mind that Bradley has not even went to trial yet. This alone disproves TheHammer's bullshit.

[Edi]

TheHammer has at this point ignored 3 or 4 posts of mine rebutting his arguments with reputable sources and evidence. Why is anyone bothering with this bullshitter? HoS him, maybe give him a VI title, and stop pretending he uses this forum in anything but "write-only" mode.

I noticed this too. He adheres to the standard right wing war mongering staple, ignoring all evidence inconvenient to his argument, taking his opponents out of context and when all else fails, flat out lying and then puffing up in indignation when called on that bullshit.

[loomer]

UPDATE: David Hambling here. Sleep deprivation has been shown to have extreme effects in lab testing. One 1983 study on rats to find out the consequences of continued sleep deprivation pushed this to the limit: "stimulus presentations were timed to reduce sleep severely in experimental rats but not in controls. Experimental rats suffered severe pathology and death; control rats did not."

So in other words, Bradley's Manning's torture is really a very drawn out and sadistic execution. Keep in mind that Bradley has not even went to trial yet. This alone disproves TheHammer's bullshit.

It's unlikely to be at levels that will actually kill him physically, but more likely is going to cause long-term psychological damage and heart problems. Of course, he may just kill himself as a result if they ever drop the suicide protocols now, precisely because of the psychological damage caused by long-term sleep deprivation.

[TheHammer]

TheHammer has at this point ignored 3 or 4 posts of mine rebutting his arguments with reputable sources and evidence. Why is anyone bothering with this bullshitter? HoS him, maybe give him a VI title, and stop pretending he uses this forum in anything but "write-only" mode.

Fuck off. I'm answering multiple posters in this thread. If I didn't answer you directly its because I already answered the same or similar question somewhere else.

Then where does Hammer draw the line? I think if the stasi classified it as torture it should qualify.

Did they classify it as torture? I'm seeing a lot of "The Stasi did this, Stasi did that" with no citation, and I'd appreciate someone linking some proof of comparable treatment to what Manning recieved so I can make an apples to apples comparison.

It does deserve special attention, given his role, though. Every case you can get someone's attention to deserves attention anyway.

The problem I have with that is that it makes it appear as though he is being singled out when his treatment is still within the norm for prison systems across numerous first world nations. Because the treatment is common place, if that treatment is unacceptable then the focus should be on reform of the system, not in shedding special tears for Pvt Manning.

How long have you ever gone without sleep, Hammer? Did your wife ever force you to stay awake for upwards of 72 hours at a time on a routine basis by violently waking you whenever you slept? No? Then you really can't judge if its torture.

(also, protip: It is. Trust the sadist on this one. Manning's treatment qualifies as torture, and its a psychologically risky form I wouldn't ever practice in my personal life.)

Is that something that actually happened? I haven't seen that in any of the complaints I've read from his lawyer. And remember, the UN condemnation was specifically related to isolation:

U.N. torture rapporteur, speaking at a U.N. Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva, condemned Manning’s treatment as “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment,” specifically citing “the excessive and prolonged isolation he was put in during the eight months he was in Quantico.”

Why would there be no mention of sleep deprivation or other mistreatment if it occured in any significance? Seems to me if there was anything to it he certainly would have at least said something about it. Isn't it quite possible then that these other stories are thusly exagerrated and or unproven?

[Serafina]

Well, i mostly have german sources for it, so forgive me if my english sources are a bit poor. For a collection of german links, go here.

I also have an extensive scientific article, but unfortunately i am unable to find it in english.

Just for confirmation that the Stasi did indeed use psychological torture, i have two blog posts. I'll try to come up with a more detailed english source.

[K. A. Pital]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_techniques

If this isn't a torture system, you're seriously being one of the "if it's clean, it aint torture" people.

This is almost exactly the Manning system minus a few things. Also, the ECHR is full of shit, but that's another case.

[The Yosemite Bear]

simular treatment got Ulrike Mienhoff to kill herself before being formally charged with anything. Yes possible terrorist, and certainly far left extremist friendly REPORTER was never actually charged...

[TheHammer]

Well, i mostly have german sources for it, so forgive me if my english sources are a bit poor. For a collection of german links, go here.

I also have an extensive scientific article, but unfortunately i am unable to find it in english.

Just for confirmation that the Stasi did indeed use psychological torture, i have two blog posts. I'll try to come up with a more detailed english source.

Thank you for the information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_techniques

If this isn't a torture system, you're seriously being one of the "if it's clean, it aint torture" people.

This is almost exactly the Manning system minus a few things. Also, the ECHR is full of shit, but that's another case.

I've been re-thinking a few things... I suppose that yes some of the treatment Manning has received, particularly the solitary confinement noted by the UN rapporteur, meets a definition of torture. However, I wonder what the response would be if he were allowed out in to the general population and ended up being severely hurt by his fellow prisoners. All that aside, given that the treatment as cited is relatively common in prisons in many first world nations, I still find the special designation from the UN to be laughable. The focus is placed on Manning, when in fact the focus should be on the prison system as a whole.

[Serafina]

All that aside, given that the treatment as cited is relatively common in prisons in many first world nations, I still find the special designation from the UN to be laughable. The focus is placed on Manning, when in fact the focus should be on the prison system as a whole.

You still haven't shown this to be true. While there are certainly many instances where prison conditions are bad, nothing you have shown is comparable to Mannings deliberate treatment.

The first source shows problems related to overcrowding. That's certainly a severe problem, but it is NOT the same. In fact it's pretty much the opposite problem (lack of space and dedicated facilities) that Manning faces - and Mannings mistreatment torture is clearly deliberately imposed, while the French one is a result of (still potentially malicious) underfunding.

The second source is at least related to Mannings problems: Degradation and humiliation. However, it refers to a single instance per prisoner (strip searches when entering the prison) rather than a daily, permanent procedure.


That's why the focus is so much on Mannings torture: It's deliberate, government-imposed and continuous, rather than being a result of system-errors and inconstant.

It's the difference between having a few corrupt cops and the government deliberately instigating corruption.

[TheHammer]

All that aside, given that the treatment as cited is relatively common in prisons in many first world nations, I still find the special designation from the UN to be laughable. The focus is placed on Manning, when in fact the focus should be on the prison system as a whole.

You still haven't shown this to be true. While there are certainly many instances where prison conditions are bad, nothing you have shown is comparable to Mannings deliberate treatment.

The first source shows problems related to overcrowding. That's certainly a severe problem, but it is NOT the same. In fact it's pretty much the opposite problem (lack of space and dedicated facilities) that Manning faces - and Mannings mistreatment torture is clearly deliberately imposed, while the French one is a result of (still potentially malicious) underfunding.

The second source is at least related to Mannings problems: Degradation and humiliation. However, it refers to a single instance per prisoner (strip searches when entering the prison) rather than a daily, permanent procedure.


That's why the focus is so much on Mannings torture: It's deliberate, government-imposed and continuous, rather than being a result of system-errors and inconstant.

It's the difference between having a few corrupt cops and the government deliberately instigating corruption.

Those were just a couple of examples that I quickly googled. They are not isolated incidents, and there are plenty more where those came from. Tell me how many examples you will need in order to be satisified and I'm sure I can find them for you.

Further, I'll remind you that specifically the UN rapporteur only cited the solitary confinement. That would lend credence to the notion that the other mistreatment was exaggerated or misreported.