Count me in!

How the hell you think the term abuse mutes public outcry more than torture (which indicates a constructive, if misguided, social end) is ridiculous.

This article is not about the U.S. justifying “enhanced interrogations;” it’s about looking the other way when Iraqi custodians beat their prisoners. That is a red herring.

We speak a common language, and that means we’ll from time to time disagree on definitions and epistemology.

I’m not impressed with Antinous accusing rnoyfb of trolling. Trolling is pretty much by definition done deliberately.

I dunno, look at his other recent edits on the site

What, 55 comments so far, and no one decrying foul libertarians! Whenever I see a Reason.TV video in my Google Reader feed, I come for the flaming, and Boing Boing has let me down….

looks like self-aware, goal-oriented trolling to me.

This one is particularly grimly relevant.

The Hastings Center page you linked to, while it said that the C.I.A. had done over 200 studies (without sourcing them), was not based on the efficacy of torture itself, but to determine whether torture, once adopted in a given society, is apt to become more widespread.

Furthermore, if the C.I.A. had done research more broadly in torture, why would it have limited that statement to a counterintelligence manual and not to, more broadly, an interrogation manual?

The closest thing I can find is MKULTRA, which was an 11-year project experimenting with drugs, radiation exposure, and hypnosis to extract information, but they seem, by the records, to have focused on determining safety, but in any case, most records were destroyed and most people involved said afterwards they “did what worked.” The project was (rightly) terminated by the political establishment and not on the basis of empirical research.

I suppose I’ll stipulate that for the sake of argument but what about “wanton”?

As it’s an adjective in your definition, your source gives two choices: “motiveless” or “promiscuous”. Presumably you mean the latter since the former would equate abuse and torture?

(I wouldn’t skate much further as the ice is getting pretty thin)

Leisurely Interview Deaths

CAT Art 1 definition:

“…any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purpose 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.”

All of the things this euphemism generator is describing fall under this definition (and have often been prosecuted by the US as such in the past when used against our soldiers). There is no requirement of a specific purpose to elicit information (it could be for info OR punishment OR intimidation OR any reason…). The only real sticky point in the language is what constitutes “severe pain or suffering”; the only way the Bush Office of Legal Counsel could say the techniques it authorized weren’t “torture” was by avoiding all the actual treaties/laws on torture for definitions of severe pain or suffering and using an insane standard from an insurance statute to argue the only things that qualified were those causing pain equal to that from organ failure or death.

I actually think it’s very similar to the homosexuality debate — stop trying to defend homosexuality based on genetics (i.e., “they’re born that way”). Just accept that it is and respect all people equally. Why does it matter if gays and lesbians were born that way or “turned” that way? They’re people and deserve the same respect and compassion that everyone else deserves.

I don’t think he was, at first, trying to say that, but your point is fine.

This was just abuse. And more detailed. If you read an article about murder, it’s likely not to use the word murder, either. (So-and-so murdered so-and-so makes for a boring article.)

For example, compare this one from the Convention Against Torture:
“[T]orture means 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.”

…with this one, from the U.S. Code (18 USC 2340):
“‘[T]orture’ means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control”

Although I have not made a thorough study, under a cursory examination it appears that most international sources require a purpose, as the definition given by rynofb does.

Another difference in some definitions of torture is whether or not torture needs to be instigated or acquiesced to by a public official. This has come up in cases relating to torture at the Yugoslavia Tribunal, as explained in the Red Cross study of customary international humanitarian law (see http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule90).

Thus, as worrisome as it is when torture is redefined, the fact remains that there is no one single definition out there.

[very nice generator, Rob.]

“Other empirical studies examine the inefficacy of torture from the Gestapo to current events. The most authoritative literature review is the Defense Intelligence University’s 2007 report. Paraphrased, it says, “Research in North America and in China has shown that using coercive influence strategies … creates a competitive dynamic that facilitates rejection of the other party’s position where persuasion creates a cooperative dynamic that facilitates greater openness to the other party’s position and productive conflict resolution. Research shows that rational persuasion— and avoidance of ‘pressure’—increases the likelihood of target commitment in influence interactions… Belief change and compliance was more likely when physical abuse was minimal or absent.””

Next time, when doing research looking for empirical studies, try harder. There is this great search engine called google…

http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/BriefingBook/Detail.aspx?id=2208

Why build on sand? Seek rather to build on a firmer foundation, like the song says:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdsKu21hV4I

…but enough of this torture, I’m going for a daiquiri. And a hammock.