From: Jake Sapiens (every1hz@earthlink.net)
Date: Sun May 23 2004 - 15:35:23 MDT
I remember having this conversation in regular chat with Lucifer some time
back where we were debating the ethics of using torture. I was left with
the impression that well trained interrogators using drugs/truth serum that
subjects were more likely to spill the beans and probably feel real nice
while doing so, possibly even conveniently forgetting the conversation
later. Is my understanding of this wrong, or is it really necessary to
torture/abuse people to get what we want out of them? I was under the
impression that information obtained under duress was actually not terribly
reliable. Somebody please disabuse me of this if I am wrong.
-Jake
> [Original Message]
> From: rhinoceros <rhinoceros@freemail.gr>
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Date: 05/23/2004 10:28:03 AM
> Subject: RE: virus: The Rumsfeld wriggle.
>
>
> [Mermaid] dont worry! Rumsfield has saved the day!
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1114150.htm
>
> Rumsfeld bans camera phones in Iraq: report
> Mobile phones fitted with digital cameras have been banned in United
States Army installations in Iraq on orders from Defence Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld, The Business newspaper reported on Sunday.
>
>
> [rhinoceros] Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil...
>
> http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/attachments/noseehearspeak.jpg
>
> By the way, I found this piece (it first appeared in the Washington Post).
>
>
> Time to Stop 'Stress and Duress'
> http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/13/usint8578.htm
>
> <begin quote>
> The Defense Department has adopted a 72-point "matrix" of types of stress
to which detainees can be subjected. These include stripping detainees
naked, depriving them of sleep, subjecting them to bright lights or blaring
noise, hooding them, exposing them to heat and cold, and binding them in
uncomfortable positions. The more stressful techniques must be approved by
senior commanders, but all are permitted. And nearly all are being used,
according to testimony taken by Human Rights Watch from post-Sept. 11
detainees released from U.S. custody.
>
> None of these techniques is legal. Treaties ratified by the United
States, including the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against
Torture, prohibit not only torture but also "cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment." In ratifying the Convention Against Torture, the
U.S. government interpreted this provision to prohibit the same practices
as those proscribed by the U.S. Constitution. The Bush administration
reiterated that understanding last June.
>
> <snip>
>
> But can't torture at least be used on someone who might know of an
imminent terrorist act? Not without opening the door to pervasive torture.
The problem with this "ticking bomb" scenario is that it is infinitely
elastic. Why stop with the terrorist suspect himself? Why not torture his
neighbor or friend who might know something about an attack? And why stop
with an imminent attack? Aren't the potential victims of possible future
attacks just as worthy of protection by torture? The slope is very slippery.
> <end quote>
>
>
> ----
> This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2004 board on Church
of Virus BBS.
>
<http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=61;action=display;threadid=302
71>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- Jake Sapiens
--- every1hz@earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 23 2004 - 13:33:36 MDT
