Red Cross: Torture at Gitmo

[laurentius]

And hows that not torture?

[Kuciwalker]

Because saying, for instance, "The guards will shoot you if you're escaping" would then be torture.

[laurentius]

Yeah, because it IS torture.

[Kuciwalker]

Then what the hell are you supposed to do to escaping prisoners if you can't get them back alive?

[Arrian]

Using a bluff to scare someone is torture?

That seems like a stretch to me.

It would also seem, however, that much worse than that is going on down in Gitmo.

-Arrian

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Because saying, for instance, "The guards will shoot you if you're escaping" would then be torture.

That isn't a threat of imminent death. Being shot while escaping is a consqeuence of action.

Now, if they where told "You will be shot if you're escaping" and then forced to attempt an escape, that would be torture.


Can you see the different between saying "The guards will shoot you if you're escaping" and "The guards will shoot you if you don't do this"? (Of course, what "this" is can also be a varying factor in it being torture or not)

[Kuciwalker]

That isn't a threat of imminent death.

It is as much as any threat of death to obtain compliance is.

[Gibsie]

If action A can cause severe mental harm in prisoners, then purposefully exposing them to action A is torture, whether it's attavhing electrodes to their testicles or telling them they're going to get a bullet in the brain. Not a legal definition, maybe, but a logical one. Find me a psychiatrist that has ever said that prisoners can suffer severe mental anguish from the specific knowledge that they may die if they attempt to escape (In of itself, that is), and then I'll accept that that definition of torture is stupid.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

That isn't a threat of imminent death.

It is as much as any threat of death to obtain compliance is.

No it's not.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Gibsie
If action A can cause severe mental harm in prisoners, then purposefully exposing them to action A is torture, whether it's attavhing electrodes to their testicles or telling them they're going to get a bullet in the brain. Not a legal definition, maybe, but a logical one. Find me a psychiatrist that has ever said that prisoners can suffer severe mental anguish from the specific knowledge that they may die if they attempt to escape (In of itself, that is), and then I'll accept that that definition of torture is stupid.

Sure. If they feel they have some moral duty to escape and fight for their country (just like they would have some moral duty not to give us info), then threatening to kill them if they were escaping would be pretty equivalent to threatening to kill them if they didn't tell us stuff.

[laurentius]

You cant shoot escaping POWs or intimidate them with it before they do so.

[Kuciwalker]

What the heck are you supposed to do to them?

(And where does it say it's specifically in relation to POW's?)

[laurentius]

Try them or release them FFS!

What is wrong with you? Thats how justice system works

[Kuciwalker]

Uh, you're specifically allowed to keep POW's until the conflict ends. And there's no international law saying you can't hold your own citizens indefinately. And foreign nationals without diplomatic immunity are probably open game, pretty much (though it could be a casus belli).

However, I really can't tell the context of the quote, because Ramo's link doesn't seem to work.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Sure. If they feel they have some moral duty to escape and fight for their country (just like they would have some moral duty not to give us info), then threatening to kill them if they were escaping would be pretty equivalent to threatening to kill them if they didn't tell us stuff.

Which orifice are you pulling this from again? Any prisoner anywhere might want to escape, but the threat of killing someone if they attempt to escape does not constitute mental anguish. You might as well go back to trying to convince us animals don't feel pain.