Gitmo Doctors Hid Evidence of Torture

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...-docs-torture/

Quote:

---

In some cases, medical treatment appeared to be conditionally administered. “Several detainees indicated that access to medical care was linked to cooperation with the interrogators,” Iacopino and Xenakis write. In one case, medical personnel certified a detainee as fit to continue being interrogated “after several periods of unconsciousness.”

---

Harmless college pranks! Besides, they're obviously terrorists, otherwise they wouldn't be there, so any treatment is justified. Only American civilians have rights.

Good thing we closed Gitmo down.............

They were reluctant to say any of this was proof. The strongest phrase used was "compelling evidence." We know that some of the prisoners would fight among themselves, and they only looked at nine. Who picked the nine?

I won't say actual torture didn't occur, but I doubt it did. When liberals will start using the correct terminology, I may start to be concerned when someone says torture. Right now, they are the little boy who cried wold in my eyes.

More material for those interested, at least read the first one. I also suggest considering the wording and conjecture carefully because of the limited facts presented:

Evidence of medical complicity in torture at Guantanamo Bay

Medical Complicity in Torture at Guantánamo Bay: Evidence Is the First Step Toward Justice

Neglect of Medical Evidence of Torture in Guantánamo Bay: A Case Series

BREAK THEM DOWN
Systematic Use of Psychological Torture by US Forces

Gitmo just another criminal shit-stain on dubya and dickhead, doing America proud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Gitmo just another criminal shit-stain on dubya and dickhead, doing America proud.

---

Then why is the current administration keeping it?

What would you define as torture WC? And what do you think the international standards for torture are?

Even if it wasn't your idea of "torture", would you say the doctors were living up to the Hippocratic Oath?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

What would you define as torture WC? And what do you think the international standards for torture are?

---

That would be a long explanation, and we have been over this before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Even if it wasn't your idea of "torture", would you say the doctors were living up to the Hippocratic Oath?

---

Did the doctors do harm?

The point of my response it I don't trust the reports of the article. I read a few items, these guys were looking for evidence. They had an agenda, and they still cannot prove squat.

I have no desire to rehash this topic unless some actual evidence can be found that is compelling to all. Not just those with a biased opinion and agenda to begin with.

its fkn bs how these clowns and illegals who get into custody gets free access to our legal system

while some of our own ppl cant or get denied access to these services

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Did the doctors do harm?

---

NOt reporting injuries is a form of doing harm, assuredly. "Do no harm" doesn't just mean to not actively injure the patient. It means do everything to prevent the patient from harm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The point of my response it I don't trust the reports of the article. I read a few items, these guys were looking for evidence. They had an agenda, and they still cannot prove squat.

---

Can you prove they had an agenda? Wouldn't your open mind compel you to also think that maybe they were telling the truth?

What about the testimonials of people who were in GTMO? Don't their testimonials corroborate the findings of this team?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I have no desire to rehash this topic unless some actual evidence can be found that is compelling to all. Not just those with a biased opinion and agenda to begin with.

---

What woudl you accept as evidence? Would you need a document that outright said, "We are falsifying evidence"?

Do you think that allowing interrogation of a suspect after multiple blackouts is following the Hiipocratic Oath?

WC, would you say we are bound to obey the UN Convention Against Torture, since we've signed and ratified? And are bound to use their definition of torture?

Quote:

---

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, 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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

---

If this report is true, wouldn't you say the US committed torture under the above definition?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Can you prove they had an agenda?

---

Wow...

Hot topic for you huh? Sorry I'm not so interested in rehashing this stuff, but if you read the material I linked, they state they were hunting for evidence. We often find what we look for, at least in our perception.

Like I said. You find some evidence compelling to us that can be clearly shown, and I'll listen. Until then, this is a waste of time for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Hot topic for you huh?

---

Torture tends to do that to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Like I said. You find some evidence compelling to us that can be clearly shown, and I'll listen. Until then, this is a waste of time for me.

---

Define what evidence you think would be compelling. I'm not going to go "hunting for evidence" that everyone but you would find compelling only for you to dismiss it.

What would be compelling enough?

How about this?

Quote:

---

Examples of torture the detainees endured included severe beatings resulting in bone fractures, sexual assault and/or the
threat of rape, mock execution, mock disappearance, and near asphyxiation from water.

---

Do you think that all of the above can be explained away? Do you deny the above happened, or do you think there were valid explanations for all of these events?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

If this report is true...

---

So then you agree that if this report is true, the US committed torture as defined by a treaty that we are signatories to.

Again, I don't see why you can't keep an open mind on this issue, and why you think assume that the doctors who reviewed the work are liars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

So then you agree that if this report is true, the US committed torture as defined by a treaty that we are signatories to.

---

Not necessarily. I would have to give it more thought.

The term "severe physical pain" is subjective. With the Pussification of America, which you seem to accept, how long will it be before a hangnail is considered "severe physical pain?"

Quote:

---

(2) In order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from:

(i) The intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(ii) The administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(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 or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Again, I don't see why you can't keep an open mind on this issue, and why you think assume that the doctors who reviewed the work are liars.

---

I do have an open mind. There wasn't enough detail for me to accept the findings of nine records, where I am reading the authors (probable bias) on the topic.

Again, who selected those particular nine, and why?

We know there was fighting among the prisoners. Can you rule out the medical records didn't have treatments from actions other than interrogation techniques?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Not necessarily. I would have to give it more thought.

The term "severe physical pain" is subjective. With the Pussification of America, which you seem to accept, how long will it be before a hangnail is considered "severe physical pain?"

---

Quote:

---

severe beatings resulting in bone fractures, sexual assault and/or the threat of rape, mock execution, mock disappearance, and near asphyxiation from water.

---

Bone fractures aren't severe physical pain? Mock executions aren't a form of severe mental pain?

I'm willing to acecpt the definition of severe mental and physical pain as defined by experts in their fields. Whose definition would you like to use?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I do have an open mind. There wasn't enough detail for me to accept the findings of nine records, where I am reading the authors (probable bias) on the topic.

---

I love how you assign bias. Aren't you the one asking to always look at the facts? If so, what do the facts say about what occurred in those prisons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Again, who selected those particular nine, and why?

---

The lawyers for those nine. Would it make it right if these were the only nine affected?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

We know there was fighting among the prisoners. Can you rule out the medical records didn't have treatments from actions other than interrogation techniques?

---

If there was fighting among the prisoners, wouldn't that be documented in the medical reports? Frankly, there's no evidence to support your view, that I know of. Would you like to point out the independent sources that would confirm this?

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2...ts_from_us.php

Quote:

---

A senior United Nations representative on torture, Juan Mendez, issued a rare reprimand to the US government on Monday for failing to allow him to meet in private Bradley Manning, the American soldier accused of being the WikiLeaks source and held in a military prison. It is the kind of censure the UN normally reserves for authoritarian regimes around the world.

---

Why do you support authoritarians WC?

Or do you think the UN representative is biased as well?

Quote:

---

Or do you think the UN representative is biased as well?

---

Is that even a serious question?

The point isn't the credibility of the UN rep. It's the unwillingness to be bound by the very same rules we demand others observe.

LnGrrrR, the items you listed are not known as factually happening as assumed. There was medical evidence to show they happened, but not how they were caused.

Can you prove the the medical record show what was done by interrogation rather than from some other cause?

I didn't think so. Give it a break. neither of us were there.

I am appalled that you assume the worse, siding with the chorus of those who hate this nation. I'm not willing to do so without better evidence.

What ever happened to innocent till proven guilty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I didn't think so. Give it a break. neither of us were there.

---

Face it: if you demand criminal levels of proof, there's no conversation to be had here.

Nor is there ever likely to be one, unless there is a criminal verdict. Why you continue to expect others to present direct evidence or remain silent, continues to puzzle and mystify.

You do know this is essentially an opinion forum, no?

Besides, you lost the argument about whether there was torture when you pretended to blame it on the doctors.

FWIW, for those looking for a good read (or listen) on the subject, I recommend Jane Mayer's The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals
Just finished the audiobook, chilling stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Face it: if you demand criminal levels of proof, there's no conversation to be had here.

Nor is there ever likely to be one, unless there is a criminal verdict. Why you continue to expect others to present direct evidence or remain silent, continues to puzzle and mystify.

You do know this is essentially an opinion forum, no?

---

So why keep asking my opinion when I have stated it several times in the past?

Some people say the definition of insanity is doing (asking) the same thing (question) and expecting a different result.

I said it already. I do not wish to rehash this topic without more to go on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Besides, you lost the argument about whether there was torture when you pretended to blame it on the doctors.

---

That, I don't recall. You sure?

You coyly asked if the doctors did harm. It's on this page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

You coyly asked if the doctors did harm. It's on this page.

---

I wasn't blaming the doctors now, was I? I was asked about there oath, I asked if they did harm.

Why did you ask?

Just for fun, the original, translated:

Quote:

---

I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:

To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Why did you ask?

---

Go back and read that exchange.

Already did. An innuendo is hiding behind the question mark. That innuendo relies on x. You were arguing not x. See the dissonance?

If you buff your coy insinuations and lame excuses to a high gloss, eventually your face becomes visible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

LnGrrrR, the items you listed are not known as factually happening as assumed. There was medical evidence to show they happened, but not how they were caused.

Can you prove the the medical record show what was done by interrogation rather than from some other cause?

---

What type of conditions were the prisoners held in, that prisoners would able to cause severe beatings without stopping anything?

What about the pictures from Abu Ghraib? You think that was only an isolated incident?

What about the former military who have come out and confirmed some of these instances?

What about the usage of advanced interrogation that has been admitted to by the US, which has been shown to cause psychological issues and confirmed by numerous experts?

Quote:

---

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

---

Determining if a person is coherent enough to be interrogated isn't quite prescribing regimens for the good of the patient.

Tell us WC, why should we believe you know anything about electronics? Have you ever provided a degree to us? Can you PROVE you know... well, anything?

Oh, and laughing about using the "Innocent before guilty" line in a thread about SUSPECTS being interrogated, beaten, etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Already did. An innuendo is hiding behind the question mark. That innuendo relies on x. You were arguing not x. See the dissonance?

---

Look. The primary accepted idea behind the oath is "do no harm." That's why I asked if harm was done. It's just that fucking simple.

Well, was harm done?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

What type of conditions were the prisoners held in, that prisoners would able to cause severe beatings without stopping anything?

What about the pictures from Abu Ghraib? You think that was only an isolated incident?

What about the former military who have come out and confirmed some of these instances?

What about the usage of advanced interrogation that has been admitted to by the US, which has been shown to cause psychological issues and confirmed by numerous experts?

---

I'm only saying there is no direct evidence since we have heard reports of these other things too.

Abu Ghraib? It probably was an isolated incident, and if not, it isn't accepted. Those individuals were prosecuted, were they not?

As for military individuals confirming? I forget what was discussed before about that. In forget the credibility of the situation. I forget what they were calling torture. Was it just a hang nail?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Well, was harm done?

---

I don't know. The insinuation was the oath was violated. That why I was asking if harm was done by the doctors.

You show me.

You're pissing me off asking what appears to be stupid questions regarding the intent of my words.

please link the hang nail info you keep referring to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I don't know. The insinuation was the oath was violated. That why I was asking if harm was done by the doctors.

---

To clear up uncertainty raised by the links you posted. I see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

please link the hang nail info you keep referring to.

---

Post 15 I was pointing out the subjective nature:

Quote:

---

The term "severe physical pain" is subjective. With the Pussification of America, which you seem to accept, how long will it be before a hangnail is considered "severe physical pain?"

---

I was asking a rhetorical question. Referring to that again.

Is it that hard to keep up?

its easy to keep up with you. one thread you claimed "photoshop", this one you claim "hangnail".

yes or no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

its easy to keep up with you. one thread you claimed "photoshop", this one you claim "hangnail".

yes or no?

---

Poising an idea for inducing thought and claiming such things as real, are not comparable.

No. You cannot keep up. You are prone to a biased perception.

well.....i don't want to be biased, so......i'll ride with you on your photoshop and hangnail claim. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

well.....i don't want to be biased, so......i'll ride with you on your photoshop and hangnail claim. lol

---

You are biased because I am not claiming to be true, what I post as a remark, to consider as a possibility.

well....you are the one who said he knew where all the nukes were. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

well....you are the one who said he knew where all the nukes were. lol

---

Again, and not surprising, a very inaccurate statement from you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I'm only saying there is no direct evidence since we have heard reports of these other things too.

---

And I'm saying that if we put these prisoners into a situation where they can suffer severely, then we are still at fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

As for military individuals confirming? I forget what was discussed before about that. In forget the credibility of the situation. I forget what they were calling torture. Was it just a hang nail?

---

You don't think former military members are credible? Interesting.

Why do you keep trying to insinuate that the charges are a "hang nail". As pointed out above, they involve broken bones, severe beatings, and psychological stressors.

The US has even admitted to the psychological stressors (and yet, has stated they are not "severe", a wishy-washy word that means nothing legally. Of course, they knew this, which is why they used it.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Look. The primary accepted idea behind the oath is "do no harm." That's why I asked if harm was done. It's just that fucking simple.

---

It's not just "do no harm". It's also "prevent harm". Ya know, like if you know that a certain stress technique would cause a prisoner psychological torment but you don't mention it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

And I'm saying that if we put these prisoners into a situation where they can suffer severely, then we are still at fault.

---

What about the jails here in the USA where people bet beaten and raped by other prisoners?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

You don't think former military members are credible? Interesting.

---

I only know that some are and some are not. I do not automatically assume credibility of anyone I don't personally know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Why do you keep trying to insinuate that the charges are a "hang nail". As pointed out above, they involve broken bones, severe beatings, and psychological stressors.

---

I used that term in referring to the pain considered as torture, and again to remind the subjective nature of pain levels.

The author assumed the interrogations caused the broken bones. I pointed out that is not a certainty. We don't know how the injures occurred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

The US has even admitted to the psychological stressors (and yet, has stated they are not "severe", a wishy-washy word that means nothing legally. Of course, they knew this, which is why they used it.)

---

Again, subjective. Can you find a defining threshold that was violated?

mental injury is also torture.

isolated confinement is tortured.

sleep deprivation, forced nakedness with no heating, 24-hour intense lighting, no bed, water hosing, no toilet, are all torture.

Prison guards raping and permitting raping are torture.

still no hangnail evidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

What about the jails here in the USA where people bet beaten and raped by other prisoners?

---

Do you think that GTMO and other holding facilities house prisoners together, and provide them the ability to mingle daily?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I only know that some are and some are not. I do not automatically assume credibility of anyone I don't personally know.

---

You assume credibility all the time. You assume the credibility of the people writing the medical reports in the first place, for instance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I used that term in referring to the pain considered as torture, and again to remind the subjective nature of pain levels.

---

And your implication is that the people who are claiming they were tortured are just exaggerating it. Pretty obvious. And yet, dozens of experts have confirmed that these tactics cause severe mental and physical pain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The author assumed the interrogations caused the broken bones. I pointed out that is not a certainty. We don't know how the injures occurred.

---

Do you trust that the government/military would admit their own wrongdoing in a medical document?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Again, subjective. Can you find a defining threshold that was violated?

---

I already listed the definition of torture under the UN treaty we are signees to. If the US gov't is shown to have committed these injuries, then that threshold would be violated, agree?

LnGrrrR, you should give it a break until you can give the legal definition of the thresholds to what I am calling subjective.

look at this fucking clown telling people what to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

LnGrrrR, you should give it a break until you can give the legal definition of the thresholds to what I am calling subjective.

---

I already did.

Quote:

---

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, 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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

---

There's the legal definition of torture, as defined by the UN Convention Against Torture, of which United States is a signatory and has ratified.

From wiki:

Quote:

---

Bybee signed that legal memorandum which defined "enhanced interrogation techniques" in ways that are regarded as torture by the current Justice Department,[23] Amnesty International,[24] Human Rights Watch,[25] medical experts in the treatment of torture victims,[26][27] intelligence officials,[28] military judges,[29] and American allies.[30] This memo has been the source of controversy and calls for his impeachment. Bybee is currently the subject of a war crimes investigation in Spain,[31] as well as the subject of an investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility.[30]

---

So, everyone in the known world describes the advanced interrogation techniques as torture, except we didn't, from 2001-2009.

I guess that makes it ok and legal.

For someone who doesn't appreciate authoritarianism, don't you think that not regarding the opinions of multiple experts on what "severe" pain is, in order to get information, is rather draconian and authoritarian?

Quote:

---

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility reviewed the work of principal author John Yoo, now a law professor, and signatory Jay Bybee, now a federal judge, to determine whether the advice given "was consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys."[32] In its 261 page final report, the Office for Professional Responsibility concluded that the legal opinions that justified waterboarding and other interrogation tactics on Al Qaeda suspects in American custody amounted to professional misconduct, and that Professor Yoo in particular "knowingly failed to provide a thorough, objective, and candid interpretation of the law," recommending referral to the Bar for disciplinary action.[33] However, career Justice department lawyer David Margolis[34] in a Memorandum dated January 5, 2010 countermanded the recommended referral.[35] While Margolis was careful to avoid "an endorsement of the legal work" which he said was "flawed" and "contained errors more than minor," he concluded that Yoo had merely exercised "poor judgment" which did not rise to the level of "professional misconduct" sufficient to authorize OPR to refer its findings to the state bar disciplinary authorities.[36]

---

Definitely sounds like torture is kosher with everyone. :tu