GW Bu$h's Torture Chambers and Rape rooms ...!

On Sun, 02 May 2004 19:08:39 GMT, "Morton Davis"
wrote:

"Fred the Red Shirt"

In News Conferences spokesmen for the DOD admitted that prisoners at
Guatanomo Bay were being subjected to sleep deprivation and forced
into 'uncompfortable positions' for long periods of time. In the
same statements the same spokemen denied they were being tortured.

Not by accepted definitions of torture.

Physical torture doesn't give reliable information anyway.
People will tell you anything to stop the pain.

However, psychological techniques do work very well, though
slower. First, cut people away from their support system and
deprive them of sleep. Always keep them off balance and insecure
about their status, where they are and evn about time.

In the case of "Shame-based" cultures, make people do
"forbidden things" to cut down their psychological defenses. Sound
familiar ? -- remember, Japanese soldiers in WW2 who were captured
even involuntarily tended to be very cooperative. Give captives an
aggressor to identify with. Maybe a little "good cop", bad cop"
thrown in. Eventually, they will be putty....

Before you throw up your hands in horror, what if you
reasonably believe that you can save many lives by this process,
which does no physical harm?

PHP

Peter H Proctor wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 02 May 2004 19:08:39 GMT, "Morton Davis"
wrote:

"Fred the Red Shirt"

In News Conferences spokesmen for the DOD admitted that prisoners at
Guatanomo Bay were being subjected to sleep deprivation and forced
into 'uncompfortable positions' for long periods of time. In the
same statements the same spokemen denied they were being tortured.

Not by accepted definitions of torture.

Physical torture doesn't give reliable information anyway.
People will tell you anything to stop the pain.

However, psychological techniques do work very well, though
slower.

You make a good argument. But can you show evidence to support it?

Before you throw up your hands in horror, what if you
reasonably believe that you can save many lives by this process,
which does no physical harm?


If so, you have a criminal attitude.

--

FF

On 3 May 2004 15:25:45 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Peter H Proctor

Physical torture doesn't give reliable information anyway.
People will tell you anything to stop the pain.

However, psychological techniques do work very well, though
slower.

You make a good argument. But can you show evidence to support it?

"General knowledge", admissible in court--- This is what is generally
taught in upper level psych classes.

Before you throw up your hands in horror, what if you
reasonably believe that you can save many lives by this process,
which does no physical harm?

If so, you have a criminal attitude.

What if, e.g., "psychological techniques" could have stopped
the 9/11 attack ? I know what I would have done.

While everybody likes to cite them, international accords
about the treatment of prisoners only cover belligerents in uniform.
With the exception of local militia forces rushing to the defense of
their country, any belligerent not in uniform is a "spy" and can be
legally executed in wartime. Psychological stress is sure a lot
less than this....

PHP

Peter H Proctor wrote in message . ..
On 3 May 2004 15:25:45 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

While everybody likes to cite them, international accords
about the treatment of prisoners only cover belligerents in uniform.

There are two relevent 'Geneva Conventions'. for the treatment of
prisoners. One is for captured beligerants, the other for captured
civiilans. The conventions require that all prisoners be accorded
the protections of one or the other unless a competent court or
tribubal makes a determination to the contrary.

With the exception of local militia forces rushing to the defense of
their country, any belligerent not in uniform is a "spy" and can be
legally executed in wartime. Psychological stress is sure a lot
less than this..


Certain actions, such as torture and summary execution are crimes
without regard to the choice of victim.

No decent person denies this.

Summry execution of suspected spies has been outlawed since at
least the 1907 Hague Conventions, which you can find online.

So much for your general knowledge.

--

FF

Rape Rooms, Torture Rooms are under new management.

"torresD" wrote in news:bSSlc.7143$V97.4572
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

Rape Rooms, Torture Rooms are under new management

Your management, no doubt--listening to Air AmeriKKKa would fall
under the torture category, certainly.

--
"It's obvious to me that this country is rapidly dividing itself into
two camps - the wimps and the warriors. The ones who want to argue
and assess and appease, and the ones who want to carry this fight to
our enemies and kill them before they kill us."
--The Hon. Zell Miller

"torresD" wrote in message
ink.net...
Rape Rooms, Torture Rooms are under new management.

Snail **** is more intelligent than you.

On 4 May 2004 12:54:45 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Peter H Proctor

With the exception of local militia forces rushing to the defense of
their country, any belligerent not in uniform is a "spy" and can be
legally executed in wartime. Psychological stress is sure a lot
less than this..

Certain actions, such as torture and summary execution are crimes
without regard to the choice of victim.

Arguable. But what if "psychological stress" can save innocent
lives ?

No decent person denies this.

Say (e.g) you could have prevented 9/11 by using "psychological
methods" . I know what I woudl have done....

Summry execution of suspected spies has been outlawed since at
least the 1907 Hague Conventions, which you can find online.

The US and the UK were executing "spies" in WW2. Don't recall any
recent cases, but as far as I know, the provision is still there.
BTW, early conventions only appled to "civilized combatants", i.e,
Europeans and maybe the Japanese. "Savage tribes" were free game.

PHP

Peter H Proctor wrote in message . ..
On 4 May 2004 12:54:45 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Peter H Proctor

With the exception of local militia forces rushing to the defense of
their country, any belligerent not in uniform is a "spy" and can be
legally executed in wartime. Psychological stress is sure a lot
less than this..

Certain actions, such as torture and summary execution are crimes
without regard to the choice of victim.

Arguable. But what if "psychological stress" can save innocent
lives ?

No decent person denies this.

Say (e.g) you could have prevented 9/11 by using "psychological
methods" . I know what I woudl have done....

Since it's a hypothetical, more on that later if I find the time.


Summary execution of suspected spies has been outlawed since at
^^^^^^^
least the 1907 Hague Conventions, which you can find online.

The US and the UK were executing "spies" in WW2. Don't recall any
recent cases, but as far as I know, the provision is still there.
BTW, early conventions only appled to "civilized combatants", i.e,
Europeans and maybe the Japanese. "Savage tribes" were free game.


Evidently you are unclear on the concept of summary execution.
'Summary execution' is execution without appropriate prior legal
process. Again, you can find the relevent prohibition in the
1907 Hague conventions online, why didn't you look?

Execution of spies, sabotuers, POWs and civilians are all allowed
under the Geneva conventions. But only after conviction by a
competent court or tribunal. That last is the part you were
neglected to consider. None of the detainees at Guantanamo
have been tried at all, therefore there is no basis within the
context of the 1949 Conventions to deny them POW status.

--

FF

On 5 May 2004 13:28:59 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:
Execution of spies, sabotuers, POWs and civilians are all allowed
under the Geneva conventions. But only after conviction by a
competent court or tribunal. That last is the part you were
neglected to consider. None of the detainees at Guantanamo
have been tried at all, therefore there is no basis within the
context of the 1949 Conventions to deny them POW status.

You know, if I could speak Korean, I bet they argued along the same
lines as the Bush administration to keep our men imprisoned there long
after the war was over.

Declaing war on something that can not be defeated (drugs or terror)
is a great way to get that legal ground needed to do all sorts of fun
things as a dictator.

BUSH 2004! --- SEIG HEIL!