Talk:Torture/Archive 1

Thanks very much.

I appreciate this; I'll offer some material when you get it flowing. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Crucifixion

A minor nit -- crucifixion relied on being tied to the beam; the hands aren't strong enough to support the body. Nails might have been applied after being lashed to it. The cause of death was usually asphyxiation, since the chest muscles of breathing had to lift the entire body weight for each breath -- and would give out. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I too have heard this theory -- but not for some time. And I have seen accounts that ignore this theory. Just yesterday there was a show on the Discovery Channel, that contained a large measure of nonsense, about the so-called "Shroud of Turin". But the segment on the wounds from cruxifixion interviewed a guy I thought they indentified as a Physical Anthropologist. He had a model of a hand being pierced by a spike. He said something like: "This is the strongest part of the hand, and a spike here can easily support a man's weight." George Swan 10:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I reworded this section.

What is the point to arguing this? Torture, certainly not in the modern world, and quite commonly in antiquity, was not meant as a means of inflicting death. Make up your mind if you are discussing capital punishment or torture. While one certainly can be tortured to death, the usual use of the term, certainly in medical ethics, covers acts not intended to kill.

Without too much difficulty, I can find contemporary accounts of death by asphyxiation in suspension bondage, in consensual situations that went bad. More sourcing would help. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The use of torture in modern times

I considered initially placing in a small section entitled something like:

The use of torture in modern times or The use of torture as an interrogation technique in modern times

But I decided to skip addressing the difficulties in how torture is used in modern times.

I know a couple of experts testified before congress a month or so ago. I'll try to look for references. As you might imagine, they testified torture doesn't work at finding the truth. George Swan 18:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC) George Swan 18:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unverifiable?

Larry, when I started to contribute here, almost a year ago, I promised that I wouldn't rock the boat. I accepted that the Citizendium had some different rules than I was used to, and I wasn't going to challenge them, in particular, I wasn't planning to challenge that as an author I am going to play a secondary role to the Citizendium's editors.

You are the big cheese, so I am not that comfortable challenging you, but I don't think your recent revision is supportable.

Do we know enough to state that the use of torture as punishment is less common than its use as an aid for getting information? Can we verify it? I don't think we can verify this. Personally, no offense, I doubt it is true.

Larry, I am not an expert on torture -- I am just some random joe who has read a lot about it. I am not one of the citizendium's editors in a field relation to torture. So, there is no way I should add anything to this article, or any related article, based on what I think I know to be true. I have to stick strictly to fair quotes, fair paraphrases, or fair summaries of what good references state.

Larry, you aren't an expert on torture either, are you?

I don't want to make too much of a deal over this, but I hope you can understand how since I do my best to keep my contributions free of interpretations I can't substantiate, I want everyone else who isn't an actual expert on a field to be careful too to keep their contributions within the same bounds.

Cheers! George Swan 20:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as torture for punishment rather than interrogation, I will point out that there is only one well-recognized modern military source that suggests the use of torture, Roger Trinquier. Soviet Spetsnaz have been reported to use a specific interrogation technique: killing, as painfully as possible in a short time, a companion of the person believed to have the information. They would then tell the person with the information that his only choice was the means of his death: what he had seen, or a bullet or injection.

The best open literature source I know on military/intelligence interrogation is Sedgwick Tourison, but I don't think he has anything online. It is a fairly common thread, however, in every interrogation manual I've ever seen, open and not, that physical torture is not considered a reliable means of getting information. While such may fit into the fantasies of some people with authority (see http://www.prisonexp.org/), I suggest it is far easier to find successful interrogation results from interrogators who indeed might use psychological pressure. To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, the significant thing the torturer did during the night was not getting significant data.

Reasons for the use of torture vary with the culture. Many Asian Communists had a strong desire to get "confessions" to be used in propaganda, rather than to get specific information. If one goes through POW records from Korea and Vietnam, there were very few attempts to get detailed technical information. This was also a thread in the Soviet Great Terror (see Robert Conquest): the show trial and confession was the goal.

Was it ever effective? Of course. While I won't conjure ticking bombs, the general rule for Allied underground members in Europe was to withstand whatever they did for around 48-72 bours, at which point a network would go into emergency dispersal. Torture can give information that is of tactical use, but even then, it's unreliable if there are alternatives.

I am somewhat concerned about the illustration chosen. While it has a "photo" credit, there are any number of unambiguous photographs of torture. I do not dispute there was torture, although not very exotic torture, in recent U.S. interrogation facilities. I do wonder, however, why the U.S. examples are used so often, and, if there is no point being pushed, why a crude and unsourced drawing is used as opposed, even, to photographs from Abu Ghraib. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding images for this article

Well, if you think there are better images, by all means, let's retire the existing images and use the better ones.

If anyone thinks this graphic, controversial topic should go unillustrated, let's discuss this.

Cheers! George Swan 02:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a CZ family-friendliness policy, under which strong illustrations of sex and violence are not encouraged. If, however, you want to illustrate, surely you can find a photograph, or someone whose drawing skills are beyond elementary school. There are an abundance from the Great Terror or the Third Reich, or, if you think that's biased, there are images taken of unquestionable torture before lynching in the American South.

I don't really know what you mean by "graphic, controversial" topic. Torture is not necessarily visually impressive, other than the faces of pain. This gives me the impression of a desire to shock, not inform.

I certainly see little need to have an oversize graphic of torture by anyone, anywhere, in the introduction to an article, unless there is a desire to shock. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Images taken by GIs and other employees of US Federal agencies, in performance of their duties, are in the public domain. Some people feel sure that the activities of the night shift, at the "hard site" at Abu Ghraib were obviously in performance of their duties, because they were on duty; and so the images were obviously in the Public Domain. However, I think other people would challenge this -- stating that while the GIs were on duty, they were goofing off, and not really caring out their duties properly. Cheers! George Swan 02:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

And what do you think of the Taguba Report, which I find much more detailed, and verifiable, than what "some people" think? Howard C. Berkowitz 03:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There was an investigation into the deaths of Dilawar and Habibullah, several years afterwards. And the GIs were made to draw these sketches. I suggest that sketches a GI is compelled to draw because a military investigator directed them to do so are unambiguously in the public domain, without the possible ambiguity that the Abu Ghraib images aren't because the GIs were goofing off. These deaths were much more serious than the events pictured

Cheers! George Swan 02:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

First, you have given no source for the drawing. What military investigator ordered this when? Second, they are not informative pictures due to sheer lack of artistic talent. Third, I'm more and more getting a focus on specific U.S. inappropriate acts you want to emphasize.

Second, what is a "more serious" death? Someone who dies under anesthetic, and slowly burned alive, are equally dead.

The article is about torture, not U.S. prisoner abuse. There is a long, long history of torture on this sorry planet. Frankly, I don't know what you are trying to convey with this article. If you don't like the UNGA definition, there are any number from medical and human rights organizations. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Added a couple of links to international law codes and can contribute a little bit of medieval/human rights history, but I'm not too sure where this article is headed either. As I understand it so far, the focus through the references and images surrounds the waterboarding issue. Is the intent to lead specifically to waterboarding as a specific current event regarding torture and human rights? Louise Valmoria 10:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed the two current images. I don't think this article should focus on waterboarding, or any particular technique. When I looked through the wikipedia common's torture category I thought the woodcut of waterboarding from 1556 was a good image simply because it rendered well, and it was a technique employed in the same manner 450 years ago as it is today.

Cheers! George Swan 15:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You wrote, "I suggest that sketches a GI is compelled to draw". If that is your suggestion, please find support for that supposition in the Uniform Code of Military Justice or a manual for interrogations. As I discuss below, that would likely be inadmissible in any civilian court. Further, I am unaware of any investigative authority that can compel a witness, much less the accused, to do anything. It is not a crime, in the U.S., to remain silent to an FBI investigator, but it is a specific felony to lie to one. The only legal process by which I could see such a drawing being compelled would be a court order to do so, which made it clear that noncompliance would be grounds of being an accessory. I have been an expert witness in U.S. courts, and it was entirely acceptable to say "I cannot testify to that and not be concerned I was violating my oath."

Again, I am confused about the goal of this article. Even defining modern torture may be quite a bit for one article; putting in the full history may be too much for a single article.Howard C. Berkowitz 17:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Conventions on responding to talk page comments

A meta-comment first. Howard, you interspersed your comments in mine. I am not going to follow your example, as a courtesy to future readers.

In my experience interspersed comments can be very confusing, for a variety of reasons.

I'll break my response to your separate comments into sections each with a subheading. I'll sign each of those sections. Could you confine your comments to after the signatures I place?

Thanks! George Swan 14:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not tied to these images

Let me repeat, I am not tied to these images.

I went through the wikipedia commons torture category, and similar categories. There were many images there. And a lot of them were no good for us to use here.

• quite a few images were no longer at the site where the wikipedian uploader had found them -- I didn't want to use those, only images where I could verify the original site myself.
• some of them don't render well on my monitor -- appearing dark, and with insufficient contrast.
• there were a lot of woodcuts that -- that had too many lines, and were too cluttered for a good thumbnail.
• That is one of the reasons I thought Sergeant Curtis's sketch of Dilawar was a good pick -- it was sparse enough to render well as a thumbnail.

Howard, I would like to think what you meant to write was: "For crying out loud George, didn't it occur to you by picking a recent image of US torture you might trigger the impression you were pushing a POV?"

If that was what you had written I would have assured you it didn't occur to me. I am not tied to these images. If you think there are better images, by all means, let's use other images. George Swan 14:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

First, I am not yet convinced, given the sensitivity of the subject and the family-friendliness policy, that it is necessary to have illustrations of torture. While anecdote is not the singular of data, when I was 7 or 8 years old, I saw an artist sketch, on a police "wanted" poster, of a boy, about my own age, who had been beaten to death and was unidentified. Literally, I had nightmares about that for years.

Second, that The Other Place chooses to have images of a given type does not guide Citizendium. Were I to pick a fairly common modern torture used in the field, it would involve attaching electrodes to genitals, putting the victim in water, and hand-cranking a generator or attaching a battery. While that would be accurate, and I assure you I have seen such drawings, as well as pathology reports on the damage, I doubt such an illustration would be appropriate.

In other words, I seriously question if any illustration at all adds to the value of the article, were it a woodcut from the Inquisition or a recent evidence photograph of a picture of child abuse. Second, yes, I find your choices of images and examples to give the impression of pushing a POV. I have no particular interest in doing so, but I can find abundant, well-documented sources of torture in many places and many times. Often, the method picture does not meet the U.N. definition of torture, as it was a judicially ordered means of execution; the UNGA excepted lawful sanctions. Personally, were I to be judicially executed, I would far prefer hanging or electrocution to lethal injection, but I would prefer lethal execution to the Iron Maiden of Nuremberg. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Source of Sergeant Curtis's sketch?

Maybe it doesn't matter that much, since I have agreed several times for the image to be replaced -- but I don't understand why you say I gave no source for it. I listed the URL of the New York Times article on the image page. And the article has a caption under the picture that I thought provided sufficient info about the images source:

"A sketch by Thomas V. Curtis, a Reserve M.P. sergeant, showing how Dilawar was chained to the ceiling of his cell."

You stated a concern that I didn't report which investigator required Sergeant Curtis to make the sketch. I don't understand this concern -- unless you have doubts about the New York Times honesty, or the quality of their research. Are you genuinely concerned that the New York Times may have published a forgery? George Swan 14:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

First, the source was not on the article page. While I agree that for a routine topic, there is no need to be sure that the source appears on the article page, I certainly do make a point of making a general reference (e.g., "U.S. Army photograph") if there is any controversy.

Second, yes, I am concerned that it may have been inappropriate publication by the Times. This article is in the Law newsgroup, so legal considerations are not irrelevant. For any type of physical evidence to be admissible in a U.S. court, there must be an unbroken chain of custody between the first acquisition of the information or object, and its presentation. The provenance of the material must be given, not "some U.S. Army investigator". Further, even for a photograph, especially with the ease with which a photograph is manipulated, a court may require that the photographer testify that it has not been modified.

Another concern is whether the classic "reasonable man" would consider it an accurate representation. While I am no longer an active member of the Society for Photographic Science and Engineering, I am familiar with the general requirements for a photograph to be considered a fair representation. Things that are not mechanical reproductions are held to a higher standard. A reasonable court, for example, might very well want to know who drew it, and whether they should be considered expert in representing matters by drawing. I believe the expert witness criteria would apply here. Even though I took an art minor in high school and have had drawings in some juried shows — it's an interest I'm picking up again — I would be marginal to be considered expert. I assure you, however, that I could draw such a scene, had I witnessed it, more accurately. I am aware, as the creator of the drawing apparenly was not, that the human arm is not perfectly straight and has an elbow.

The general U.S. practice in forensic art is to have a professional artist draw, constantly checking with the witness for accuracy. While an Army investigator may have demanded it, and had questionable authority to do so, this would not meet such a criterion. Any defense attorney or judge would require Sergeant Curtis to testify to its authenticity. The Sergeant could have simply told the investigator, "I don't draw very well, and to give you a sketch that requires me to affirm it under oath, I don't know how. "Howard C. Berkowitz 16:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Older images?

So, just to be clear, are you suggesting that if this article uses images it should only use older images? If so, how much older? World War 2 too recent? Battle of Algiers? Vietnam? I have no problem with this. George Swan 14:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced that any image adds to the article. Medical articles on pain management, for example, rarely illustrate the patient unless it is to explain a particular source of pain, or perhaps some means of relieving pain with padding or some other support.

Now, given that I am unconvinced that graphics add to the presentation, it's not strictly a matter of age. It is a question of "what information does the picture add that the words cannot convey," often with more context and and content. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Taguba report, and "some people's" concerns

What do I think of the Taguba Report? It has been years since I read it. I also read the Fay/Jones Report years ago. But you are totally misunderstanding what I meant by "some people". Of course, in article space, we should cite verifiable, authoritative sources, like the Taguba Report and the Fay/Jones Report. But to the best of my knowledge, none of the official inquiries has addressed the copyright status of any images -- whether they were in the public domain.

This discussion is not in article space. The opinions of other people here, who are concerned about the copyright status of images we use is important. Those who are concerned about copyright issues can raise objection that the Abu Ghraib images aren't really in the public domain, because they don't accept that the images fulfill the "in performance of their duties" clause. But no one can raise that objection to the drawings the GIs were forced to draw for military investigators. George Swan 14:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Family friendly?

Regarding the "family friendly" policy -- I'd welcome some guidance on this. George Swan 14:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Family friendly and the inherent weaknesses of making things "safe"

There are devices that are inherently unsafe. The canonical example being an agricultural tractor. Tractors have to have an unsafe very high center of gravity, to ride over the crops. Tractors have to have a very tight turning circle, so they can turn from one row to another. And tractors have to proceed across rough terrain, sometimes on considerable slopes. Tractors represent a terrible threat to their drivers of tipping over on them. And except for adding roll bars, no one has been able to think of a technical fix to make tractors safer. Alter any of the risky aspects of tractors and you might have a safer vehicle, but it wouldn't be a tractor -- it couldn't perform a tractor's job.

I suggest, in terms of safety, articles on controversial topics like torture are like tractors. Torture is a topic that is inherently emotionally charged. Just as there is no way to build a "safe" tractor, and still have it perform a tractor's job, I suggest that there is no way to write a satisfactory article about torture that isn't likely to trigger emotions in some readers.

Is the goal is to prepare a project that won't ever trigger deep questions in any younger readers who come across articles on torture or some other controversial topic? George Swan 14:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Just having noticed that -- simple answer, if our primary audience is college students, yes, it would be my goal, consistent with my understanding of the family-friendliness policy. If I may, let me share some personal experience. When I was around 7 or 8, I was in a post office with my mother. I don't know if Canada Post does this, but there is, in most offices, a bulletin board of people wanted by the police. Usually, they are criminals. There was, however, an artist's reconstruction of a boy beaten to death, and help was asked in identifying him. I had nightmares for months, even years.

Cut forward to when I was 11 or so, and in an accelerated Boy Scout first aid program, eventually selected for work with the local emergency services. It was entirely necessary, if we were even going to serve as messengers in disaster, that we could adapt to horrible sights. Later on, in a Medical Explorer Unit, we were assisting in emergency rooms, with lots of training -- emergency medical technicians weren't well defined.

There is an enormous difference among what terrified me at 8, but that let me actually do important interventions at 11, and assist in treating badly injured people at 14-15. I was carefully brought up to that later standards, with close observation. Even so, there were times that I had a near-panic reaction to some especially gory things, and I was supported through it to a point where I could be usefu.

In all those cases, thoughtful people prepared me to be of help to injured people. Now, with my mother being an Army Medical Service Officer, by the time I was 16 or so, I had seen the results of torture, and learned my own reactions and how to be supportive. I suggest that none of that kind of preparation is present in an online encyclopedia.

So no, I don't want to write articles that make children ask questions they can't affect. AA Serenity Prayer and all that. By the time I was 17 or 18, yes, I was getting training in martial arts both inside and outside the dojo, and I was full aware some of the techniques, used with discretion, could kill. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"More serious deaths"

Howard, you asked:

"Second, what is a 'more serious' death? Someone who dies under anesthetic, and slowly burned alive, are equally dead."

Howard, contributors are more relaxed on talk pages than they are in article space: more relaxed about proof reading, grammar, punctuation, spelling and providing sources.

Howard, when I read a passage that, at first, seems bizarre, or alarming, I read it a second time. On the second reading I look for clues that the passage is missing punctuation, or a key word or phrase. And, often, on reading a troubling passage a second time, I realize I mis-read it, or I realize that there is some word or phrase that is missing. Sometimes, that missing word of phrase was referred to in earlier sentences, and the writer didn't spell out they were still referring to it.

If I am still not sure which interpretation the writer meant, I ask them for clarification.

I try to respond to what the writer meant, rather than what they actually wrote.

Howard, is there any way you could see your way clear to follow my example, and extend the same courtesy to me?

In this particular example you respond as if I had written that the deaths in Bagram were more serious than deaths in Abu Ghraib. This is not what I wrote, and it is not what I meant. I wrote:

"These deaths were much more serious than the events pictured."

That is the deaths were more serious than the abuse recorded in the Abu Ghraib pictures.

Frederick, Graner, and their crew did not kill anyone. They let dogs bite their prisoners; They humiliated them; They imposed those "stress positions"; Graner at least is recorded beating them up. But they didn't kill anyone. So, yes, I don't think there is any serious question that the deaths in Bagram were more serious than the abuse recorded in the Abu Ghraib pictures.

No offense, but I suggest your confusion may have arisen because you inserted your comment into the middle of mine, separating my earlier sentences where it was clear I was talking about the Abu Ghraib pictures from the passage that triggered your misunderstanding.

Cheers! George Swan 14:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was that there were deaths in Abu Ghraib. I remember pictures of some guards posing with corpses.

Are you saying that if there were deaths at Abu Ghraib, they are equally serious? See http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/abughraib-timeline.htm for an Associated Press report of at least one at Abu Ghraib, and one at an undisclosed location in Iraq.Howard C. Berkowitz 02:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)