Reply With Quote
Good thing we closed Gitmo down.............
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...-docs-torture/
Harmless college pranks! Besides, they're obviously terrorists, otherwise they wouldn't be there, so any treatment is justified. Only American civilians have rights.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.”
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 -stain on dubya and head, 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?
That would be a long explanation, and we have been over this before.
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
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.
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?
What woudl you accept as evidence? Would you need a do ent 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?
If this report is true, wouldn't you say the US committed torture under the above definition?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.
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.
Torture tends to do that to 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?
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?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.
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.
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?"
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.(2) In order to cons ute 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.
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?
Bone fractures aren't severe physical pain? Mock executions aren't a form of severe mental pain?severe beatings resulting in bone fractures, sexual assault and/or the threat of rape, mock execution, mock disappearance, and near asphyxiation from water.
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?
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?
The lawyers for those nine. Would it make it right if these were the only nine affected?
If there was fighting among the prisoners, wouldn't that be do ented 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
Why do you support authoritarians WC?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.
Or do you think the UN representative is biased as well?
Is that even a serious question?Or do you think the UN representative is biased as well?
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?
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.
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.
That, I don't recall. You sure?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
