Talk:Torture/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Perverted Individuals

"torture is practiced by perverted individuals who enjoyed the sadistic pleasure of causing and observing agony"

This seems a bit of a NPOV violation. A good encyclopedia presents facts, not labels.

it appears that the opening of the article defines torture in part by the uses or ends which are sougth by its use: "Torture is any act by which severe pain, whether physical or psychological, is intentionally inflicted on a person as a means of intimidation, a deterrent, revenge, a punishment, or as a method for the extraction of information or confessions ..." In light of that i think the previous writer has a point - torture may be a means to a form of pleasure as well as a merely utilitarian technique. The article should be edited to distinguish what torture is from the ends which it serves. it may very well be that it will be difficult to find people willing to perform the merely utilitarian work of extracting confessions,etc., unless they come to like their work! Richard Rosenberg

I think that's a good point. It reminds me that there have been some interesting reports from South American areas where torture was used by agencies in one or another central government. (I can't remember the details offhand. Amnesty International reported on it, I think.) If I recall correctly, people who had been drafted or coerced into the agencies that were performing torture learned to enjoy it. Adler thought that there was an innate drive in human beings to exert power over others, and did a great deal of work to untangle seemingly incomprehensible networks of human interactions. Rather than "follow the money," his mantra was "follow the power." Some people are probably more resilient to the seduction of power, and it may be because they have escaped being controlled in a negative way by other people, do not feel a need to pay somebody back, to make other people feel as bad as they have felt, etc.

If it is true that innate features of all humans and/or traumatic events in the personal histories of individuals making it attractive to inflict pain on other people or control them be the use of force or degradation, then it would follow that some people would be unlikely to become torturers on their own initiative but might easily be pushed in that direction by external forces.

The torture issue seems to be at the intersection of two larger topics: (1) pathologies (social and individual) and (2) things that people can do to others (for whatever reasons).

A root canal procedure is ordinarily a beneficial but painful operation. Sequential root canal procedures could be used to extract information or to be used to obviate the necessity of extracting teeth. What would it be if a person intent on torturing somebody actually benefitted that person by performing a needed root canal? What we are primarily interested in is preventing and correcting bad behavior. We would look differently at (1) a legitimate dental surgery performed by a qualified individual, (2) the same operation attempted by a quack -- however well intentioned, (3) a procedure performed with the intent of hurting somebody. The corrective action appropriate to a quack is different from the corrective action appropriate to a psychopath. P0M 04:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Nine Republicans Link

What on earth is this link? I removed it since it contains absolutely zero information besides "Nine Evil Republicans."

UN Convention

As a starting point for better defining torture, here is what the UN Convention Against Torture says: (taken from http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html )

For the purposes of this Convention, torture 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.

extradite

At the moment the article says:

The mere act of handing somebody to another organization or country where it is foreseeable that torture would occur is regarded as a violation of the Torture Convention.

But that is not what the "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" says. What it says is:

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

This means that if the person is handed over and it does not involve "expel", "return", or "extradite", then the treaty had not been broken, even if the "organization or country where it is foreseeable that torture would occur is regarded as a violation of the Torture Convention". This may not be in the sprit of the Treaty but it is within the wording.

For example if Country A has armed foreces with expertise which helps Country B to capture Mr X a citizen of country B, inside country B, if Mr X is then handed over to the tortures of country B, the treaty had not been broken because, the person had not been expel, return ("refouler") or extradite. Philip Baird Shearer

One would hope that apart from just obeying the spirit and letter of the law, our governments would choose to do what is right. Unfortunatly too many seem to think that the right thing to do is to have people tortured.Koonan the almost civilised 07:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Execution

I would suggest to take out the whole reference re Execution. While death is obviously one of the outcomes of torture there appears to me a major difference between "death in captivity" and a formal execution based on a court judgement.

I would also suggest to put in the complete UN convention definition. It is not really a major debating point what constitutes torture. The definition is clear enough and courts around the world have also drawn the lines quite clearly. The controversy - as far as it stands - is more concerned with whether there are instances when torture would be a legitimate.

I will try and continue to update this section

Refdoc

I think the section on Execution is pertinent to the subject of torture. Many listed forms of execution and capital punishment bear much similarity to forms of torture and differ only in their intentions. In a sense execution is torture to a different degree. Whereas one might use electrocution in order to extract information or cause psychological or physical harm, another uses it to execute someone.

Ross

I disagree with the proposal to remove execution from the scope of this article, although execution surely deserves its own article as well. The reason for my position is that in many legal jurisdictions (particularly Europe and much of the British Commonwealth, including Canada), execution has been ruled to be a form of torture or "cruel or unusual punishment". Furthermore, execution is also recognized as such in international law. It therefore deserves a place on this page. --Todeswalzer | Talk 02:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Geneva Conventions European -European Court of Human Rights

I'm not convinced about the definition being at all clear and uncontraversial - for instance, this news article referenced on Current events contains the following statement:

The Geneva Conventions outlaw the torture and execution of prisoners. But rulings by the European Court of Human Rights found that sleep or food deprivation, sustained noise, forced standing and sensory deprivation (called "hooding") are not considered torture.

Now, I don't know how accurate that statement is, but I don't think anyone from Amnesty International would have quite the same definition, do you? The Geneva definition suffers because it uses the word severe to qualify pain or suffering, which is actually a very vague term.

- IMSoP 05:07, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There are lots of qualifications on the Geneva Conventions. For a start it depends which treaty, and it depends on the person's status. I have altered the UK section to include details of the ECHR Ireland v. the UK ruling which is the one referred to.

I think that there needs to be a section on the Treaties which bind countries and a mention that many countries have included domestic law to prohabitions. Philip Baird Shearer 08:53, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Executions lethal injection

I'm writing about the inclusion of lethal injection as a "potentially painful method" here. I know there's a huge amount of debate on the issue, but I was unaware that people can feel pain when every nerve in their body has been depolarized. Pakaran. 02:26, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

yeah idon't see how killing someone isn't covered by these anti-torture laws, it's clearly the worst way of hurting a person. if they were going to kille me i would think that would be pretty "cruel" "unusual" "inhuman" and any other word they use to describe torture... anyway, just an opinion..--84.195.27.179 07:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Killing someone isn't necessarily torturous, it can be prolonged and meaningfully painful as a form of torture. Dieing isn't necessarily painful either.

What is it about topics related to torture and interrogation that villains described in detail are largely CIA and Israelies? Has there not been enough torture elsewhere? Or is this back to the pour dirt on the "hypocritical West" agenda while ignoring bigger crimes of the rest of the world? Watcher 10:37, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

well, the rest of the worlds isn't using a four hundred thousand million dollar defense budget to go claim their moral superiority accross the globe. greaty powers, great responsibility. that sort of stuff.--84.195.27.179 07:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Then you should write to balance the articles. See NPOV for our policy on such things. -- The Anome 10:51, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

US

I've removed the following link: *The Guardian, Friday May 7, 2004: Torture as pornography, The pictures of American soldiers humiliating Iraqi detainees are reminiscent of sadomasochistic porn, says military historian Joanna Bourke. And we should not be surprised While I think it's an article worth reading, I feel that it is more sort of an essayistic comment and too much centered around the particular Abu Ghraib incidents to be included here. regards, High on a tree 17:21, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They should have named the article Lynndie England meets Tom of Finland. -- Petri Krohn 13:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

---

This is not the place for an editorial on the "systematic use of torture by the united states". - Tεxτurε 16:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm curious to read the article that is in the correct place -- where would that be? Thanks. Howardsend 00:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

If anywhere, possibly Uses of torture in recent times Philip Baird Shearer 11:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Just the fact that 3 major newspapers in the United States have obtained information regarding the legal basis asserted by the United States for use of torture. Fred Bauder 16:20, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

I don't dispute that. I dispute that this is the correct article for the information. - Tεxτurε 16:29, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not US officially sanctioned torture

Officially sanctioned torture has occurred in the context of the U.S. led war on terrorism [1] where it is frequently held to be justified by necessity.

Tha article referenced in [1] above Washington Post: Torture Policy (cont'd) Monday, June 21, 2004; Page A18 does not say that in US "Officially sanctioned torture has occurred". What the Americans have done is use simlar criteria to the UK in the early 1970s and tried to use as much physical force as possible without resorting to torture. The only international court ruling on this, is the one by the ECHR when it ruled against UK for The five (sensory deprivation) techniques and found the UK in breach of Article 3 in that the methods amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment but they did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture as so understood.

This of course is no way binding on the US, but it is an indication of what lawers in international law thinks defines torture and from what the US administration seems to be saying is a similar legal bench mark which they use. This may not be what many people think of as ethical behaviour but it does mean that the US has not breached its treaty obligations and used torture. So as that source does not describe the US using torture "just" methods which verge on torture, I am going to alter it to point to the UK example. Philip Baird Shearer 18:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Technically there is no proof yet of US use of organized torture as of date of this redaction. Removed this from document. Probably it would be better to refer to a nation in which torture is used as part of official policy, or better yet, avoid political redaction all together. -Steve Jackson

Europe

Fred had added "the Soviet Union and" in front of "Europe" in the Torture and confession section, but I didn't feel it made sense there. First of all, it was refering to Europe in the medieval and early modern (whatever that means) times, and the USSR wasn't around then. Secondly, the USSR is considered part of Eastern Europe, so it's already included in Europe. I totally agree that there's plenty of evidence that the USSR used heaping portions of torture. But that belongs in the Use of torture by governments section. I think the little Torture and confession section needs an update anyway, it hardly touches the subject and then goes off on a tangent about Europe, when this should be about "torture" in general. - Eisnel 10:39, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Use of torture in Europe on a mass scale, except perhaps in Nazi germany and allied fascist regimes which I am not expert on, did not not occur in Europe during the 20th century. In the Soviet Union, which relied almost exclusively on confessions for evidence and on denunciations of others to bring new suspects into the system, torture was used extensively despite its formal prohibition. With some exceptions the millions who were liquidated or entered into the gulag system were formally convicted in proceedings which relied on a signed confession. Why enormous amounts of police time was wasted on this exercise is somewhat of a mystery, but nevertheless, with dogged determination, those who entered the system were placed in holding cells and vigorously interrogated until that piece of paper was produced. Only then could the prisoners move on to the labor camps. Smart prisoners simply signed and moved on. Although in a few rare instances someone sucessfully resisted and was actually released it would be only after months of extreme pressure at this preliminary stage. In many if not most cases the suspects were innocent of what they were accused of, and in almost all cases the confessions produced elaborated in sometimes fantastic ways upon the crimes committed. There is a definite link between acceptance of confession as sufficient evidence for conviction and use of torture to obtain them. The inquisition could not operate in England because in those cases where innocents had no involvement with witchcraft they could not be convicted no matter how lurid a confession was obtained. Fred Bauder 15:42, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

You're new update concerning the Soviet Union works much better, the whole "medieval" thing was the only reason I stuck my nose in last time. =o) So the text you typed above, is that your own? If so, you should put more of that in the article. - Eisnel 16:03, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, but probably it belongs in an article on confession or on the gulag or perhaps the Soviet legal system. Modern American practice now accepts confession and we are now seeing people freed on DNA evidence despite having confessed. Fred Bauder 17:09, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

reverted

I reverted changes by 208.178.23.220, I don't think boilerplate about people not condoning torture is an improvement over the previous version. BCoates 00:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Implications of para. 2 -- Intended?

The second paragraph seems to intentionally imply that torture is and will be practiced anyplace in the world as long as the authorities can arrange appearances to protect themselves from facing up to their crimes. I am not sure that the person who wrote that paragraph intended to make such a blanket condemnation of human nature (or at human nature as it is expressed in the halls of government). Nor am I yet sure that torture will inevitably be practiced in the U.S. providing only that the right face can be put upon the matter -- which seems to me to be the trust of this paragraph. If the writers and others who have worked on this article want to make such a strong claim, then I think it is incumbent upon them to contextualize their charges and also to provide substantiation in the form of scholarly citations, court records, etc. I hope that the U.S. has not fallen to this level of public immorality, but I fear that it has. The facts that I am aware of suggest that civil rights violations, including killing and torture, are visited upon U.S. citizens by governments, quasi-governmental organs (I'm thinking of militias), hate groups, etc. But they also indicate that higher authorities have successfully acted to redress injustices and terminate illegal practices when state and local governments have become corrupt, and that the activities of militias, hate groups, etc. are routinely fought against both by organs of government and by non-governmental organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law organization.

As it stands, the paragraphs mentioned have the quality of dark mutterings in the corner. As such, those who believe that governments are corrupt and evil will concur and those who trust government will selectively disattend to these charges. If there is anything provable to be said against any western governments (or other governments for that matter), then that should be said in the open so that it can by fairly challenged by anyone who does not accept the evidence or the reasoning behind the charges. P0M 07:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've had a go at fixing some aspects of the article.

1. Moved treaty etc to "legal status of torture", medical etc to "aspects of torture", cleaner division of topics.
2. Separated effects of torture from historic use into its own small section (its important enough and distinct enough to deserve it).
3. Fixed the intro by referring to breach of the spirit of such treaties, to fix POM's concern about "dark mutterings" in the introduction. (The "2/3 of countries" statistic and information on illicit use, is moved to "use in modern times")
4. Re-summarised the GC treaties which were a bit hard to follow, into clear sections, one paragraph for each category.
5. Distinguishing medical torture, from medical effects and treatment of torture.

Last, can someone check my summary of the Geneva Conventions to ensure it's factually correct, since when looked at in detail the original wording was ambiguous at some points. FT2 12:56, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz

In his book "Why Terrorism Work", Dershowitz puts forward his argument fro the issuing of torture warrants by judges. It goes something like this:

1. There is a conceivable situation, the ticking-bomb terrorist situation, where a terror suspect knows that there is a terrorist attack imminent/bomb already in place, which if allowed to be carried out/go off will kill large numbers of people

2. In this case, law enforcement agencies around the WILL torture that suspect to get the information, regardless of if they are ina democracy or not

3. Is it better to let this happen "under the radar", or to have at least some level of judicial review and control over it?

In Dershowitz's view, the latter is preferable. Is it worth putting this into the article?

Circa 1800?

The Spanish Inquisition around 1800? Was it still around? Also, Napoleon invaded Spain in the early 1800s, and he would not have accepted torture (judicial torture had been abolished by the French Revolution). David.Monniaux 15:49, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Section ordering

The legal definition should come early in the article not towards the end because one has to define what torture is before describing it. For example it is necessary to define torture as "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".

If this is not done then the explanations of things like "stress and duress" and "Torture by proxy" and "Secrecy / publicity" are not in context and are not clearly explained. Philip Baird Shearer 09:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The section on the Geneva Convention is long-winded and irrelevant (since no context is established), and unlikely to be what the reader is looking for. This material should be moved to Geneva Convention, and a brief summary of it placed at the end of the Torture article. Legal claptrap is not the target information for the literal term "Torture". Specific instances, statistics, and methods are more likely to be what is sought. Jeeves 00:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Without a clear definition of what torture is it is not possible to understand the current political opposition to torture based around violations of treaties. For example one can not understand why the US government uses the term "stress and duress" unless one has knowledge of the previous ICHR case brought by the Republic of Ireland against the UK and how that effected the drafting and interpretation of UNCAT. Just because you think it is long-winded and irrelevant does not mean that everyone does. It must come a quite a surprise to many people that under international law "stress and duress" techniques are not torture. Philip Baird Shearer 11:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also your (Jeeves) argument could be turned on its head if the information on torture is moved in to the Geneva conventions it could be argued that the commentary on torture it is not central to the GC so why not move it into the torture article. Further it covers four separate GC articles and splitting it over four articles is an inelegant solution --Philip Baird Shearer 11:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disinhibition

Is it possible to find "disinhibition" in the Oxford English Dictionary or another general dictionary, or does it only occure in specialised medical dictionaries: disinhibition? --Philip Baird Shearer 15:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. As far as I'm concerned, the word is well known and used in normal speech. It is in two of my 'ordinary' dictionaries, and at dictionary.com as well. -- FP 00:54, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

A quick seach with Google will show that it's definitely a word in common use, among some groups at the very least.

The Torture article may need to be changed in this regard because it may not react two different kinds of changes that may increase the frequency of a previously inhibited behavior. One way to increase the frequency of, e.g., skinny dipping, is to reduce the sensitivity of the swimmer to negative evaluations given by people who have the status of authority figures (people who count) in his/her society. Another way to increase the frequency of such activity is to change the context in which the behavior occurs (without doing anything to change the conditioned status of the individual). For instance, one might move the prospective skinny dippers to an area where they would be protected from observation by police, nosy neighbors, priests and pastors, etc.

The extreme behavior of Japanese troops during World War II was at variance with the fact that the same individuals would have normally been under very tight social control mitigating against anti-social acts. Japanese civil society was in general a very safe and stable environment for individuals. Japanese people did not behave toward each other as they behaved toward captured enemy soldiers in China, southeast Asia, etc. The Japanese soldiers were not subjected to any known conditioning to reduce their inhibitions against doing violence to others. Instead, the researchers who have studied the phenomenon concluded, the inhibiting factors were inherent in the social matrix in which they existed while in Japan. When that social matrix was replaced, when they were individuals operating in foreign countries and dealing with people who were not any part of a violence-inhibiting matrix, then there were virtually no controls inhibiting them from cruel acts. In other words, violent acts were never controlled by feelings of guilt or shame for the acts per se, but were only controled by social strictures against certain behaviors directed toward members of the social organizations of which one was a part.

The article certainly does not need to go into a discussion of these acts of torture and abuse that occured around 60 years ago, but it probably should take note of the possibility that it is one thing to recondition a prison worker so that s/he feels that it o.k. to torture any human being or at least any human being who becomes a prison inmate, and another thing to present a prison worker with an individual who is somehow defined in his/her mind (perhaps due to another kind of conditioning) as not being a human being and therefore not meriting the compassion ordinarily to be directed toward conspecifics. P0M 01:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are making a very good point here and I agree that "as not being [perceived] as human being" ought to be included as well as the reconditioning of prison workers. Although human being aspect is somewhat disproved by the argument put forward by Heinrich Himmler that gassing helped to reduce the stress of by the SS in killing so many Jews (IE gassing was introduced, not to make the death of Jews more humane for the victims but more humane for the perpetrators)[1] and his words in his notorious "Posen speech"[2] on October 4, 1943.

This would suggest that even when a person sees another person as "sub-human", that killing them or torturing them may still be an unpleasent task for many people. Just as many people find the killing large animals harder to reconcile than killing small ones. Many people consider that mistreating horses, dogs and cats to be worse than mistreating rats or insects, although they can not explain it in a moral context, they still have an empathy towards larger animals. Philip Baird Shearer 15:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Legalized torture

A recent change says that torture is legal in Israel. Such claims should be provided with citations to specific laws. P0M 14:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See the Uses_of_torture_in_recent_times#Israel article where it's covered better. // Liftarn

See this. http://62.90.71.124/files_eng/94/000/051/a09/94051000.a09.HTM . Israel has made torture - even moderate physical pressure - illegal.

Sine I doen't speak fluently legalese please point me to the relevant section. I find "Petitioners challenge the legality of these methods." and "Petition denied." that makes it sound like they have upheld the use of torture. Is a GSS investigator authorized to employ physical means in order to obtain this information? The state answers in the affirmative. The use of physical means should not constitute a criminal offence, and their use should be sanctioned, according to the state, by the “necessity” defense. // Liftarn

"Held: The Court held that the GSS did not have the authority employ certain methods challenged by the petitioners. The Court also held that the “necessity defense,” found in the Israeli Penal Law, could serve to ex ante allow GSS investigators to employ such interrogation practices. The Court's decision did not negate the possibility that the “necessity defense” would be available post factum to GSS investigators—either in the choice made by the Attorney-General in deciding whether to prosecute, or according to the discretion of the court if criminal charges are brought were brought against them." This is the court's own summary (it is very early on in the decision). It says (simplified) [note GSS is Israel Internal Security Service - like MI5 or the FBI]: The GSS cannot apply physical pressure to prisoners - let alone torture them - for whatever reason. The stuff about "necessary defense" is basically saying that Israeli law - technically - allows it; however this Court (the Supreme Court) thinks it is unconstitutional. Given, though, that a GSS operative tried for torture could claim it is not against the law, the Court says it cannot rule out the possibility s/he would get off in a criminal court. The Supreme COurt is effectively saying torture is wrong, physical pressure is wrong, and the law should be changed in order to stop anyone getting out of punishment on a legal loophole. --Batmanand 20:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Torture in recent times

I have moved the growing information on specific countries into the Uses of torture in recent times article which is in line with the original move of country information from this article into that sub-article. This keeps controversial POVs in the one sub-article and saves the spaghetti linking as was starting to happen with the section on Israel. The Soviet Union information should probably be moved from this article/section into TiRT as well.... --Philip Baird Shearer 17:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A question of legalising torture today

Ethical arguments regarding torture see section here in new article.

The problem with this section is that who is it supposed to address? If it is only for an internal US audience then it should be moved into a US section perhaps in Uses of torture in recent times. But given that the US has signed various treaties which outlaw torture how does Bagaric suggest that the US annul its treaty obligations? Philip Baird Shearer

Why give prominence to this paper when it does not effect the legal status of torture either inside the US or internationally? Philip Baird Shearer 13:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW. "Victorian" is not the best word to use given its common usage. -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I see your point about "victorian" easily fixed to "from Victoria, Australia." I feel there is a place on this article for the question of legalising torture today, and the example I gave was just one of many. It is quite frightening that there are people out there, probably in every country, who feel torture should be legalised. If it isn't addressed in this article, then it should at least have its own article that is linked under "see also". --Silversmith 13:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Who is is supposed to address? Well, I'd say it is fairly clear that it is an attempt to start to draft a section dealing with the rights and wrongs of torture. The current article deals mainly with technical, historical and legalistic aspects of torture. It doesn't deal with the thorny and very topical question of whether torture is good/bad/necessary etc. In fact, it comes out and says stuff like "Torture is an extreme violation of human rights", which is strictly speaking POV (I'm against torture, but I am capable of seeing that this is an opinion of mine, and not universally shared).

I'd actually rather not touch upon this disgusting subject, and just leave the article in a state that unquestioningly supports my POV. However, if we're going to do a good job of writing an encyclopaedia, I suppose we should cover this controversial area. Silversmith therefore is doing the right thing by trying to get the ball rolling. The only question is, should we make it a section of this article, or alternatively start a separate article called something like Rights and wrongs of torture, Ethical and legal arguments regarding torture, Legalisation of torture, etc.

Please note that the quality of Silversmith's first draft is not the issue when looking into the question of whether such a section/article should exist. Editing will obviously follow. — Chameleon 14:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I say move it into another article, because it is loaded with POVs. Don't use the word "legal" in the title as that is covered in this article. I would suggest Ethical arguments regarding torture. The reason for creating Uses of torture in recent times was for similar reasons and it seems to have worked out quite well. At first I thought about qualifying the title with "recent times", but it would probably grow to be an article about the Ethical arguments regarding torture in diffrent ages.

BTW it is not a POV to state that "Torture is an extreme violation of human rights" because as the human rights article points out "These norms are based on the legal and political traditions of United Nations member states and are incorporated into international human rights instruments". If you follow that link to ihri it states: "and conventions, which are legally binding instruments concluded under international law." As torture is covered by several legally binding instruments, (see the article) torture is an extreame violation of human rights. Philip Baird Shearer 11:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The human rights article might say that, but the article in question does not. It gives no indication that "human rights" is code for "human rights as defined by international treaties", which are not self-evidently the same thing (even if the agreements had never been signed, torture would still be a terrible crime in the opinion of humanitarians). — Chameleon 12:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

American torture

Alleged detention and interrogation practices The following are some of the detention or interrogation practices that are alleged to have been authorized or used by the USA during the "war on terror". Some appear to have been tailored to specific cultural or religious sensitivities of the detainees, thereby introducing a discriminatory element to the abuse. Techniques are often used in combination. Neither gender nor age has offered protection. Children, the elderly, women and men are reported to have been among the subjects of torture or ill-treatment. This list does not claim to be exhaustive.

         o Abduction
         o Barbed wire, forced to walk barefoot on
         o Blindfolding
         o "Burking" – hand over detainee’s mouth/nose to prevent breathing
         o Cell extraction, brutal/punitive use of
         o Chemical/pepper spray, misuse of
         o Cigarette burns
         o Claustrophia-inducing techniques, e.g. tied headfirst in sleeping bag, shut in lockers
         o Death threats
         o Dietary manipulation
         o Dogs used to threaten and intimidate
         o Dousing in cold water
         o Electric shocks, threats of electric shocks
         o Exposure to weather and temperature extremes, especially via air-conditioning
         o Flags, wrapped in Israeli or US flags during or prior to interrogation
         o Food and water deprivation
         o Forced shaving, ie of head, body or facial hair
         o Forcible injections, including with unidentified substances
         o Ground, forced to lie on bare ground while agents stand on back or back of legs
         o Hooding
         o Hostage-taking, i.e. individuals detained to force surrender of relatives
         o Humiliation, eg forced crawling, forced to make animal noises, being urinated upon.
         o Immersion in water to induce perception of drowning
         o Incommunicado detention
         o Induced perception of suffocation or asyphxiation
         o Light deprivation
         o Loud music, noise, yelling
         o Mock execution
         o Photography and videoing as humiliation
         o Physical assault, eg punching, kicking, beatings with hands, hose, batons, guns, etc
         o Physical exercise to the point of exhaustion, e.g. "ups and downs", carrying rocks
         o Piling, i.e. detainee is sat on or jumped on by one or more people ("dog/pig pile")
         o Prolonged interrogations, eg 20 hours
         o Racial and religious taunts, humiliation
         o Relatives, denial of access to, excessive censorship of communications with
         o Religious intolerance, eg disrespect for Koran, religious rituals
         o Secret detention
         o Secret transfer
         o Sensory deprivation
         o Sexual humiliation
         o Sexual assault
         o Shackles and handcuffs, excessive and cruel use of. Includes "short shackling"
         o Sleep adjustment
         o Sleep deprivation
         o Solitary confinement for prolonged periods, eg months or more than a year
         o Stress positions, eg prolonged forced kneeling and standing
         o Stripping, nudity, excessive or humiliating use of
         o Strip searches, excessive or humiliating use of
         o Strobe lighting
         o Suspension, with use of handcuffs/shackles
         o Threat of rape
         o Threats of reprisals against relatives
         o Threat of transfer to third country to inspire fear of torture or death
         o Threat of transfer to Guantánamo
         o Threats of torture or ill-treatment
         o Twenty-four hour bright lighting
         o Withdrawal of "comfort items", including religious items
         o Withholding of information, e.g. not telling detainee where he is
         o Withholding of medication
         o Withholding of toilet facilities, leading to defecation and urination in clothing

[3]

4.250.168.145 16:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Whose opinion is this?

"so if the government of a state authorises its personnel to use sensory deprivation on a detainee in territory not under its jurisdiction then it has not broken its treaty obligations.

Whose opinion is this? Is there a reference for it? It would seem to me that if any government is able to "authorise" (give authority for) anything in a certain territory, then it has de-facto jurisdiction.

Pmurray bigpond.com 05:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. Let us suppose there is a country (A) which has not signed the UN torture treaty, (about half the countries in the world have not), or have not passed laws to enforce it. If another country (B) which has signed the torture treaty, and has domestic law which enforce it, and B's government has its own government operatives in country A it can authorise its employees to use "inhuman or degrading treatment" without breaking its treaty obligations because the territory is not under its jurisdiction. Because Article 2 says "Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction." Article 3 says " No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." Article 16 says "Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I". So if country B has a person they wish to interrogate they can extradite a person to a country which allows "inhuman or degrading treatment" but not torture without breaking its treaty obligation, and once there its operatives can use "inhuman or degrading treatment" eg sensory deprivation without it breaking Article 2, 3, or 16. Brutal and not within the spirit of the treaty, but legally within treaty obligations. Philip Baird Shearer 08:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grammar

I have removed many of the "they"s which are ungrammatical.

For other future editors/writers, please note that "they" should have a plural antecedent. Thus, something like "a person exercises their democratic right by voting" is ungrammatical.

Rintrah

• It is customary to put new talk sections at the bottom of a talk page. So I have moved it here.

"A person exercise its democratic right by voting" my be grammatically correct but is not normally used. I think it is acceptable to use their in this context as it removes gender from the sentence, is not convoluted, and is in common usage.

Specifically your changes imply that for war crimes to be committed there must be more than one person involved. EG:

• Before you change:Once a person in an international armed conflict, has been found guilty of war crimes...
• After:Once persons in an international armed conflict have been found guilty of war crimes...

If you wish to replace they with "he, or she," then although it is clumsy and stilted, I will not object. EG:

Once a person in an international armed conflict, has been found guilty of war crimes, or they are not protected by GCIV because of some other exemption, they no longer have the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

with

Once a person in an international armed conflict, has been found guilty of war crimes, or she, or he, is not protected by GCIV because of some other exemption, he, or she, no longer has the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

-- Philip Baird Shearer 10:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I never use "it" to describe a human being. The sentence is improved in the form "people exercise their democratic right by voting". The whole issue of gender is side-stepped by pluralising the subject of the sentence.

Would you object to this amendment: "A person who is found guilty of war crimes, or is not protected by GCIV becuase of some other expemption, is not protected by GCIV because the Geneva Convention no longer protects that individual"?

I prefer convoluted sentences to syntatically ugly ones (i.e. using "they" to describe one person). Rintrah 13:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about:

A person, who is found guilty of war crimes in an international armed conflict, or is not protected by GCIV because of some other expemption, is no longer protected by the Geneva Conventions.

--Philip Baird Shearer 13:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That satisfies me. :) Rintrah 01:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Joking?

see the entry of user 131.111.8.98 -->(Please provide cite for claim that torture violates human rights)

Deletion of the phrase is trolling (reverted), but the request is very reasonable IMO. mikka (t) 16:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See above #A question of legalising torture today last two paragraphs. Philip Baird Shearer 11:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Valid remarks. Still, I am speaking about the improvement of the text of the article. mikka (t) 17:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although "improvement of the text" can alwasy be made :-) please see meta:Wiki is not paper#Style and functionality which points out that:

For example, CMS (The Chicago Manual of Style) tells us to briefly gloss the first use of an abbreviation (as just demonstrated with "CMS"). Jargon terms can be treated similarly. This makes a lot of sense on paper: if you mention another subject, the reader may need to know more about that subject, and giving a full name will make it easier to look it up. But Wikipedia has something even better: a direct link to an article on the subject. This is even better for glossing jargon, because many terms are not explained sufficiently by a quick gloss

-- Philip Baird Shearer 10:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reorganising?

It strikes me that this article is in the wrong order. It ought to start, after the introduction, with the history of torture and the modern status ought to be way down the end somewhere. Does anyone have strong feelings about this, and if not, would they mind if I tried to make a more sensible and logical reordering of the sections? Lao Wai 08:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes I think that a definition of what torture is should come before the other sections. Philip Baird Shearer 08:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

iron maiden photo caption

The caption for the iron maiden photo in this article states: "The Iron Maiden of Nuremberg was a famous, but probably mythical, torture device"

This is a caption for an actual photograph of the device. How can it possibly be "probably mythical"? This also makes no sense when one reads the actual article about the iron maiden.

I'm editing the caption. Sdr 11:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

It is still disputed if the Iron Maiden was ever used in reality. The one in Nuremberg is claimed to be a fake from the 19th century.

Geneva Conventions

Would special forces such as Navy SEALs or Marine Force Recon be considered unlawful combatants as they, especially marine force recon, are often called upon to conduct illegal operations?

If they are, it migt be a good idea to state that special forces are sometimes considered unlawful combatants.

Strappado

I noticed someone had changed one of the terms for strappado from "Palestinian hanging" to "American hanging". I've gone ahead and change it back, for now. I am not familar with the term "American hanging", although strappado has been used by American forces at Abu Ghraib. The term "Palestinian hanging" is a loaded phrase, I'll admit, but is used several times in court documents like Aksoy v. Turkey and was used in news reports in the death of Manadel al-Jamadi at Abu Ghraib. Is there a source for the "American hanging" term? --YoungFreud 03:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Torture Illustration Caption

The caption refers to a homosexual being tortured. I'm familiar with this woodblock and all of interpretations I've seen refer to a heritic being tortured, not a homosexual. Heretics were tortured prior to death to give them an 'opportunity' to recant their heresy and thereby avoid hell. Homosexuals generally weren't given that option as they weren't heretics, just run-of-the-mill sinners. I suspect someone's POV at work. I'm modifying the caption to refer to a Heretic being tortured, not a homosexual. --Lepeu1999 12:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Death by Rugging

Should have some sources before it is merged here. I am removed the merge request, as there are not sources on the article. When there are some then maybe it can be merged in Philip Baird Shearer 22:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Does Torture Work?

I can find nothing in the article that discusses the question of whether torture is ever an effective means of extracting information. Is it more effective than other means for getting useful information from prisoners?

Everything I've ever heard about torture, and execution for that matter, has proven that it is ineffective. Usually, it does not give effective information, as one would say anything to make the pain stop. There is a debate on both of these points, however. If anyone can find any credible sources, please add them. --Limetom 00:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I could argue that it would be affective to gain information if you are a professional interrogator, because you could tell if the person you are torturing is bluffing/lying to get out of the situation. But I don't have any statistics or anything alone those lines. I'd also argue that if it isn't affective, then why do official governments around the world, who have probably had experience with the results of information gained from torture, still use it?

"Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"

Enhanced Interrogation Techniques redirects to Torture, but there is no mention of it in the article. —Pengo 09:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Henchmen?

I took out the following sentence:

"The use of torture is even endorsed by vice-president Dick Cheney (and president Bush as well) to help the CIA and its henchmen enforce their economical and political pressure on defenseless individuals and countries."

First, I need to see some references to this, to be sure that it is true. And I can hardly believe it is a good idea to call CIA "henchmen". Put the sentence back if you wish, but please put SOURCES to it, and put the "henchmen" a bit midly, because it is almost unacceptable.

--Msoos 14:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

PS: Henchmen were the SS soldiers exterminating Jews, for example. And even there it might be an exeggeration.

The United States of America is an infamous example of so-called democratic country, which use torture systematically within its borders and in foreign representations, such a Guantanamo Bay and certain eastern european countries and nothern african countries.

Sorry a little pedantry ahead..... HENCHMAN comes from the Old English Hengest (horse) + man. That is he was the person who held a knight's horse during battle (Interestingly the US Cav had Henchmen even down to the Battle of the Greasy Grass River.) it has little to do with Nazis or Republicans Jim Jacobs 14:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Infamous?

I deleted this sentence from a section on "Torture by Proxy" for three reasons:

"The United States of America is an infamous example of so-called democratic country, which use torture systematically within its borders and in foreign representations, such a Guantanamo Bay and certain eastern european countries and nothern african countries."

1) I've never edited a Wikipedia article but I've used it several times before and I know for a FACT that by including terms like "infamous" and "so-called" are not neutral point-of-view, at least in the context you use them. If you want to call the U.S. an "infamous example of a so-called democracy", then it is your responsibility to present the FACTS and let the reader decide for himself or herself. For example, talk about what the U.S. did that was infamous, and justify what exact elements or actions make it not really a democracy (if that is you have a factual basis for your claim). There are plenty of places elsewhere on the Internet to make unsubstantiated allegations or criticisms about the actions of the U.S./the U.S. government. Don't do it here where some people (i.e. myself) actually come searching for useful information.

2) The sentence seemed out of context in the place where it was located within the article. The rest of the section "Torture by proxy" talked about an incident with the British government and Uzbekistan, after which this sentence seemed to come out of nowhere.

3) The sentence had poor spelling, poor structure, and did not follow basic grammatical rules like capitalization of proper nouns, rules that should really be followed so that Wikipedia has a polished and professional look. I may be wrong (i.e. this is only my opinion) but I believe the lack of adherence to grammatical rules serves as yet another piece of evidence indicating very strongly that the author of this sentence simply wished to get a quick jab in at the United States rather than honestly contribute to the article.

Please feel free to comment if you feel the deletion was inappropriate. Thank you everybody.

08:49, 11 December 2005

1. I think the same guy added that comment, that added the *same* comment to my stuff. The guy should be warned. He is putting POV. (I would guess that he added the sentence that I removed, as well. See sentence I removed, above) 20:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC) Msoos

1. I totally support your action. I also deleted a sentence about a Canadian-Tunisian being handed over to Syria by the US specifically to be tortured for one year. The author had no citations, no proof, and obviously can't say for sure why he was handed over, if he was handed over, to whom he was handed over, and for what duration without sources.

Sentence Structure

The current text, with most recent edit, has:

The amendment would ensure an end to the U.S. use of alleged torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, and extraordinary rendition, which have become common practice since September 11, 2001.

The way it stands the claim is that the U.S. uses methods of compulsion that allegedly constitute torture, that the U.S. uses inhuman and degrading treatment, etc. The term "allegation" usually refers to propositions claimed by some to be matters of fact and says of those propositions that they have not been verified. The term is not usually used to speak of situations where the facts are not in question but the appropriate term to apply to the facts is uncertain or disputed. P0M 17:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Pedophilia

Should this really be in the list of torture techniques?

Seems to me it would depend on whether behavior is being forced on someone. Thre may be older people who enjoy interacting with much younger people as a way to make the younger person suffer. It may be that there are people who force parents to watch forced interactions involving the offspring... Isn't it largely a matter of intent? If X runs over Y with a motorcycle it may be an accident or it may be because the motorcycle driver (or somebody who gives him orders) wants to see the victim be hurt. P0M 00:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Pedophilia is torture because the victim is much to young to consent with full knowledge of the long term consequences. See incest article for more. It is a gross abuse ot the adult perp's power and the young victims innocence even when it SEEMS consensual. This is why we have Statutory Rape laws for adolescents. Sexual use/abuse of young children is the most loathsome form of sexual predation because children are too young to know better and because the long term trauma is often unconscious, chronic and severe. Hope that helps. Please comment. Anacapa 01:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Then you could argue that Y heavily beats X in a mugging, very violent and emotionally scaring, but it isn't torture, its just an "evil" act of one human upon another. I dont think paedophilia is torture, it might seem like it, but technically it isnt as much as rape of an adult is, it could be used as a torture technique, same as beating someone, but when not it isn't.

Tort law?

Why is there a sidebar on tort law? If one commits a "tort" one commits a civil offense. Civil offenses are not crimes. You get sued, not imprisoned. Torture comes from a similar derivation, linguistically speaking, but it is considered a felony, no? If there is some reason for having the sidebar there its relevance should be clearly established. P0M 05:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy of torture?

There has been much argument in the United States recently about torturing terrorists to gain intelligence to protect innocent victims against terrorist attacks. These are OLD arguments from many past anti-terrorist campaigns such as the unsuccessful French campaign to subdue Algerian freedom fighters through interrogation and torture. I want to see us include a section here to show these arguments because we seem to regurgitate the same old arguments over and over again as if they were new. Peters in Torture (1985) does a fine job of showing how old these arguments are. Can we show this above the Law section in this article since our goverments use these arguments to justify what some people belief are extralegal or extra-treaty applications of torture? Anacapa 01:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "this above LAW". Do you mean that people who advocate torture hold themselves above the law?

Sorry about that mistake of mine. Please see corrections above.

Anacapa 02:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In general, your plan seems good, but I am not sure that your proposed title is appropriate. For instance, the "philosophy of science" is the title of a book on the philosophical issues that pertain to doing good science, i.e., the philosophical clarifications that can enable us to do a better job as scientists. Would a title like "Philosophical issues pertaining to torture" work?

Sure or maybe "Philosophical arguments for and against torture". I agree with your concern here and am willing to welcome any reasonable section title. We might even shorten this to just "Arguments for and against torture" Please comment. Anacapa 02:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes people make the easy assumption that the more "muscle" one applies to a human situation the more successful will be the results. If a little punishment is somewhat successful in modifying the behavior of your children, then heavy punishment will be even more successful in making their behavior as you would like it.

yes indeed. I also suspect that normal human reaction of revenge has something to do with torture as in how the US handles GITMO and ABU GRAHD sp? torture. Anacapa 02:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The Daoist philosophers, especially Lao Zi, were intensely interested in the actual results of using power in different ways. So the Dao De Jing would be one source for ideas of how the use of torture might be analysed.

Sure. I see us including all possible sources here from all POVs. The Chinese have taught us much about many similar subjects. However, given that I am not familiar with this I hope you or someone else can add the appropriate Daoist or other material here once we have an outline for the section. Anacapa 02:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The Chinese communists did something interesting with the use of what was regarded as terrible when they were doing it to their own citizens, to U.S. citizens imprisoned in China in the late 40s and early 50s, and to U.N. soldiers they captured and imprisoned during World War II. They would extract confessions by methods that were generally physically no more damaging than sleep deprivation, poor diet, standing at attention for prolonged periods of interrogation, etc. If the confessions were of immediate propaganda value they might be taped and released to the mass media. But in many cases the confessions were written down and then the communist interrogators checked on the factual validity of the confessions. Of course they already realized that the people had probably confessed to whatever it was believed the interrogators wanted to hear. The interrogators would demonstrate that they knew that the confessions were false, and then require that their prisoner make a correct confession. Eventually they would get a confession that generally amounted to little more than having a negative attitude toward the central government and toward their ideology. The CCP used this long process primarily as a way of changing their prisoners' attitudes toward things that they had originally done in good conscience. For instance, getting a good deal on a shipment of goods and selling it at normal or higher prices came to be regarded as anti-social behavior instead of smart business dealing.

I am glad you brought this up. It seems to be a form of psychological torture that is missing in the main article. Caldiani in Influence has a chapter on this. Could someone write this up in the main article so we all know what it is and how it works? Anacapa 02:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

One question that the philosophical/methodological study of torture would have to answer would be: What is the desired outcome of torture? The answer that those who advocate torture would give is that it provides useful information. The evaluation of that answer would require one kind of objective information. But other outcomes of torture that may be desired by some people are: 1) gratification of their desire for power over another person, 2) sexual satisfaction, 3) financial gain (by being paid for this service by the central government or one of its subdivisions)...

It seems there are an immense number of possible motivations here especially when we begin to go from state torture to say torture inside families. I want to find way to capture these 'desired outcomes' in the arguments themselves so that this section remains reasonable succinct. Could you comment/suggest how here? Anacapa 02:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess there are three things involved here that may need separate articles. There are many motivations for torturing people from the perspective of "Mr. Big" who pays some tortureres. There are many motivations from the perspective of the individual who actually does the torture. (I remember reading accounts by conscriptees in Brazil and/or Argentina who were getting nothing out of it but a salary -- at least in the beginning.) And then there are the objectives in terms of information or whatever that might be achieved. P0M 19:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You might want to draft a section on these philosophical/methodological issues. One place to start would be an outline that would have one of its major points be "Desired outcome," and its sub-points would include power, sex, financial gain, etc. I'll leave the rest to you for the time being. P0M 07:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest for simplicity's sake, that we simply list the known arguments for and against torture and include specific statements in each argument about the associated intended goals? For example, those who argue against torture might see human rights/dignity as an intended goal. I am trying to see how to meet your concerns above in an introductory section on this. Please comment. Anacapa 02:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

While reading this stuff I've been listening to a short story on NPR about a mother who gets her living son's heart "donated" to her. Somehow that sets the right mood. So, let's see, in outline it might look something like this:

• Arguments for torture

• • It is an efficient method for gaining needed information.
  • It satisfies the needs of the group in control for vengeance.
  • It provides gratification to the drive for power.
  • It provides gratification to the drive for sex.
  • It provides numerous other gratifications specific to sub-sets of the group in control.

• Arguments against torture

• • It is an inefficient method for gaining needed information.
  • It is not cost efficient as a method for gratifying desires.
  • It carries some risk of retaliation should the tables ever be turned.
  • It carries some risk of backlash against the people in control
  • It may provide false information leading to costly bungled countermeasures.
  • It is viewed as inimical to their interests by those receiving these ministrations.

Of course that analysis leaves out the intangible and unquantifiable factors such as the alleged "immorality" of the procedure.

Once this article has been prepared, it would provide a model for a parallel article on the goals of organ harvesting for the benefit of those who have a holier need for the organs than the original possessors. Of course it is rumored that the prison system of at least one major nation has already made this kind of analysis. Perhaps we could just summarize their economic model, costs/benefits analysis, etc.

I am not a philosopher and my research on this is coming from texts I find on torture so I welcome those who know more than I here to take this and run with it. I will add sources and fill in the section as I discover specific arguments for or against torture. This will take some time. However given how often these arguments have been debated with little background knowledge I see this as an essential section to include front and center here. Anacapa 03:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In the current climate that kind of analysis favors those who can say you must with the greatest conviction, it may be fruitless to say anything about ethics, morality, karma, etc. It may be pointless to try to say anything to people with flamethrowers to whom everything except themselves is flammable. Nevertheless, Immanuel Kant had an analysis that reflects an almost Newtonian view of the universe but in terms of axiological choice. If you are going to establish any policy you should anticipate the consequences of that policy being applied to you and equally to any other human.

To shorten the road a little, let me put it this way:

If I even simply appear to have information that would be valuable to those who have power over me, I should not object to that information being wrested from me by any degree of force.

I should anticipate and accept the consequence that those who have greater power than I can use me for the satisfaction of their material needs, the gratification of their sexual and other desires.

I should be grateful if those who have power over me restrict their use of torture by some standard of proportionality, e.g., if I have knowledge about a minor matter they would use only sufficient force to compel the release of that information. and if I have knowledge of a major nature they would use a proportionately greater force in order to compel the release of the more valuable information.

Perhaps it seems that I am being sarcastic. I think I am. But what causes me trepidation is the realization that I am also being more realistic and rational than people in government -- people who would think it acceptable to use torture on others but would reject its being used on them.

I have my own standard for what is acceptable to do in situations where one person offends against another. It does not involve "morality," but it does involve both a degree of trust in the goodness of human nature and a cold analysis of the use of power by one human against another: If person A attacks person B with fist and boot, person B will most likely retaliate with fist and boot--but may retaliate with club or knife. The tendency is generally for the attacked person to escalate. Bottom line: Do not draw a handgun on a law officer.

If person A says, "I have a bomb timed to go off at 8 p.m. in such-and-such a place," person A can expect that somebody will twist his arm, drug him with sodium pentothal, stick wires into the pleasure and pain centers in his brain... Whether the methods are effective, humane, or merely gory bloodletting, the person who offends is only rational to the extend that he knows that any of his pleas for fair play and mercy are his attempts at manipulation. One should understand that the ordinary result of attacking another is to receive a strong counterattack.

You say that you are "not a philosopher." The problem faced here, however, is exactly in the field of practical philosophy. Deciding that we will look only at practical issues such as whether torture really gets results, i.e., looking at the benefit/cost ratio, is already a decision that can only be made on the level of axiology, on the level of one's own values and how one is to apply them. You cannot talk about justifications of torture without considering first what it is that determines that something is a valid justification. You can, of course, choose to talk only to those people who have already decided that torture is o.k. But then one effectively gives up thinking about a world in which torture might not be a regular component of the instruments of state power.

As a "non-philosopher," is it acceptable to you that if the tax man decides you probably owe more taxes than you have offered to pay then s/he may do a little exploratory thumb-screwing? I wouldn't want that world for myself, nor would I want it for you. But it would, perhaps, be one way to extract more funds for government expenses -- a program that would surely at least pay for itself.

We could look at value systems that reject torture, but those systems also typically reject war, environmental destruction, social and economic oppression etc., etc. The problem is that when real-world stakes get high enough these systems become largely ignored. We could have a section on what the ancient Chinese philosopher Mo Zi has to say about such matters. He may have been entirely right. But nobody in power who is interested in war and domination has ever him the slightest heed. He is an irrelevancy in modern life. We could provide a whole book full of ethical teachers who would not agree to war and torture, but their view are largely irrelevant to the practice of torture in our world today. P0M 20:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Patrick, I got involved in some torturous issues on other articles and was unable to get back to you here while the thread was still alive here. However, I do thank you for engaging and giving me some good food for thought. After looking at your arguments it occurred to me that maybe, (just maybe!) I am going too high (eg philosophy) in a bestial world. What if we just wrote up the POLITICAL arguments for and against torture...and left it go at that? Surely, we wouldn't have much trouble finding them much less stating them and they might the crux of the matter in the real world anyway. If you do get back here please weigh in again. Anacapa 05:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Log of the interrogation of Mohammed al-Qahtani

An 83 page, detailed log of the torture of Mohammed al-Qahtani. More information on the torture here here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noosphere (talk • contribs) 04:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

UNCAT states "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, " The best international interpretation of this is the European Court of Human Rights ruling of 1978 that the five techniques of "sensory deprivation" were not torture but were "inhuman or degrading treatment".

167. ... Although the five techniques, as applied in combination, undoubtedly amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, although their object was the extraction of confessions, the naming of others and/or information and although they were used systematically, they did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture as so understood. ...

--Philip Baird Shearer 11:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you've brought this up, as sensory deprivation wasn't even used on al-Qahtani. noosphere 15:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sleep deprevation, loud music, etc are some of the "sensory deprivation" techniques described in the log and were defined as "inhuman or degrading treatment" not torture by the ECHR. You wrote above "detailed log of torture", on which page of the log is there a report of "Any act by which severe pain or suffering whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted" instead of "inhuman or degrading treatment" as defined by the ECHR? --Philip Baird Shearer 00:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not bring this log to the attention of Wikipedia in order to argue semantics. However, though the 1978 ECHR ruling did call techniques such as sleep deprivation and subjection to noise as "'disorientation' or 'sensory deprivation' techniques" it seems pretty clear that these techniques do not deprive the senses of sensory input (unlike hooding, for example). So of the two names "disorientation" seems to be more appropriate. Calling subjection to noise "sensory overload" seems like another appropriate name.

Now, whatever these techniques are called, the question is whether they properly constitute "torture" or not. The 1978 ECHR is one but by no means the only source for an opinion on this. In fact, in previously hearing the same case the ECHR itself "considered the combined use of the five methods to amount to torture, on the grounds that (1) the intensity of the stress caused by techniques creating sensory deprivation "directly affects the personality physically and mentally"; and (2) "the systematic application of the techniques for the purpose of inducing a person to give information shows a clear resemblance to those methods of systematic torture which have been known over the ages..a modern system of torture falling into the same category as those systems.applied in previous times as a means of obtaining information and confessions."[5]

Your sources says the European Commission of Human Rights (which is not the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights), they can give their opinions, but if a state as party to the opinion disagrees with the commission, it is the court which decides on breaches of the treaty: See articles 32, 32, 44, 47 and 48 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Curiously, the wikipedia article on "sensory deprivation" does not mention this. Nor did it mention that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture has listed "sensory deprivation" among the techniques constituting torture[6]. Of course, respected as they are, the UN and ECHR do not have the final word on what constitutes torture. The Boston Center for Refugee Health and Human Rights, for example, lists "sensory deprivation" as a type of "mental torture"[7]. Many other sources for similar classifactions of "sensory deprivation" as torture can be found through a simple google search. I shall update the Wikipedia entry on sensory deprivation accordingly. -- noosphere 03:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The ECHR called them the five techniques, which side steps the issue of if they are sensory deprivation of sensory overload. The source you have given on the the Inter-America commission on Human rights points out that it relies heavily on the ECHR ruling for guidance in this area. The five techniques were developed jointly by the US and UK back in the 60's partly to comply with treaty obligations on torture. Much to the surprise of the UK at the time of the ruling, the ECHR backed this interpretation (all the indicators were that it would rule along the lines of the Commission's thinking). The American Administration still relies on this interpretation of the torture treaties (Like most "civilised" states, the US Government does not break its treaty obligations, the Executive just bends them), which is why the Executive allows interrogationb of prisoners using the techniques it does, which allows it to remain within the letter of the law if not the spirit. However the five techniques to remain within the law, as the ECHR made clear, depend on severity. For example depriving a person of drink for an hour is not the same as allowing them to die of dehydration if they will not talk to their interrogator. In this case one has to look at the techniques used and consider if they are "just" inhuman and degrading treatment or sever enough to constitute torture. As the Executive guidelines are broadly in line with the early 1970s UK methods, of technique, time and severity, providing that the interrogators remain within the guidelines they are probably using inhuman and degrading treatment, but not torture. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"Torture is also useful …"

That is a statement. I would not have thought that wikipedia endorses torture. Markus Schmaus 18:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it was a stated fact and not an endorsement.

Scope of definition???

I notice this article seems to be focussed on state torture and that some texts also limit the definition of torture to state torture. However, when a child is tortured for many long years by a parent or a pscyhiatric patient is tortured many long years in an institution is that considered torture too? I am asking an open question to try to firm up the scope of torture here.

It seems that people are beginning to make distinctions between different levels of pain vi a vi torture in the article which is good. However, I have concerns about letting bureaucratic classifications be the sole source of this definition. I know that terrible torture can also be committed in families, day care centers, and non-political psychiatric institutions beyond state control just by reading the papers.

I would like to see us study and show some other criteria for what is torture and what isn't torture as some editors above did with different levels of pain so that we know right up front what the scope of this definition is. As I read I notice that it is handled differently author to author but suspect there is some common ground somewhere. Can anyone state the scope or consensus limits on the definition of torture relative to 'who', 'what', 'where', 'why', 'how', when etc.? so we all can edit inside a common, distinct and limited definition? Anacapa 06:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I was pondering a similar line of thought today. There is nothing in the article which says that, like killing, torture is one of the first actions that a society reserves for its government. By this I mean state (and often religious) sanctioned executions and torture tend to continue long after there are laws in place to stop the general population from murdering and torturing other citizens (but often not slaves). Not sure how to put this into the article thought, as I do not know of a reliable source which says such a thing.

The point you make about torture by citizens on citizens is more complicated though, because it is unusual to find a person tried and found guilty of torture. Instead they are found guilty of crimes described under English law as: assault and battery (ABH), indecent assault, rape, grievous bodily harm (GBH), murder, manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility etc, (with other legal systems having similar type of crimes). Even clear cut cases like the moors murders were not found guilty of torture, although I do not know if the judge used the words in his summing up.

You may be able to find some references from the social sciences (and government social service departmental guidelines) on the issue of what is and is not considered to be domestic torture, and the press uses the term for cases like that of the London 'witch' child cruelty case "Three people have been convicted over the torture of an eight-year-old girl they thought was a witch."

--Philip Baird Shearer 12:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Britons tortured many communists to death in 1946

Big scandal and cover-up described in recent Guardian news article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1745489,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs)

I added some material in Bad Nenndorf. Someone had already added the links. The agency involved was called Combined Services Detailed Interrogation Centre (CSDIC). Petri Krohn 12:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers for Hostel

The section about torture in ficiton gives away the premise for the film Hostel. A spoiler warning should be added.

U.S. prepares to face U.N. on torture

"U.S. compliance with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment will be the topic of May 5 and 8 U.N. hearings in Geneva."[8] -- noosphere 19:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch implicates 600+ in war prisoner abuse

"A human rights project, The Detainee Abuse and Accountability Project (DAA), released a report in Washington saying that allegations of detainee abuse, torture and killings have now implicated at least 600 U.S. military and civilian personnel deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the prison for terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."[9] -- noosphere 22:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the section on "effectiveness"

Is is this too contentious? Skinnyweed 16:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Genitorture

In the section "Other meanings of the word" there was a link to "Genitorture" which I have removed since Genitorture is a redirect straight back to here. There are a few other pages that link to Genitorture, which I have left alone. However, it seems there is some need to include at least a definition, expandible by anyone who feels so inclined, under the Genitorture heading, because this article scarcely touches upon the subject.--King Hildebrand 10:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the "WHY" important?

I noticed the first line contains "as a means of intimidation, deterrence, revenge, punishment, or information gathering." Torture is torture, no matter what the reason for the intentional infliction is. If torture is inflicted because to provide the inflictor a sense of control, it is nonetheless torture. If a nutcase tortures someone because he believes it will "drive Satan out," it is nonetheless torture. If torture is inflicted for no reason at all, it is still torture. Why reduce the meaning of torture to an arbitrary list of "reasons for its infliction?"--JohnCPope 16:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Because this would be useful in understanding the fundamentals to someone reading this article, its not justification, its just stating facts, like wikipedia should.

Pear Of Anguish Proof

There has been so much talk on it saying it is a fake. One user has posted that one book, The Medieval Underworld, shows woodcuts of it in use. This I feel can be used as proof that it did exist. There are no pictures to confirm this. I would like someone to show this proof on the article.

Would you please sign your comments with four tildas (~) so that anyone can follow this thread? I have looked up the Medieval Underworld that allegedly contained such pictures and I could not find them. The device is not mentioned in the index and it looks totally bogus to me. I have to admit I had little motivation and I might have missed them, so if someone else wants to look I am all for that. But it looks like an urban legend to me. Lao Wai 09:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to think the same, Lao. 65.255.130.104 00:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)VonV

Please add a link to mobbing.ca

Mobbing is a form of psychological torture or terror which takes place in the workplace. You can find more information at http://mobbing.ca. The "Health Issues" page on mobbing.ca (http://members.shaw.ca/mobbing/mobbingCA/health-1.htm) describes the many mental, emotional and physical effects of psychological torture experienced by mobbing targets in the workplace.

For your convenience here is the link you can add to "External links" in the "Psychological Torture" subsection:

• mobbing.ca (Mobbing is a form of psychological torture occurring in the workplace)

Radyx 22:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the links you mentioned and so far as I can tell, all it describes is "workplace bullying." Such things are probably very unpleasant for the people who experience them -- but calling it psychological torture? I think that's rather a stretch.

This material might have a place somewhere on Wikipedia, but I really don't think it belongs on the torture page. --Todeswalzer | Talk 17:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is Wrong. Pure and simple.

"Unlawful combatants"
The term "unlawful combatants" appears nowhere in the Geneva Conventions and, furthermore, is not even a term in broader international law as a whole. The term was invented by the current Bush Administration for the purposes of circumventing the Conventions while maintaining an appearance of legality and due process. Although international law is not legislated like national law, it also cannot simply be invented at the whim of individual countries and much less by single administrations: quite the contrary, international law is whatever is considered, by consensus, to be the norm. Thus, the claim made by this article that,

"There is a third group whose existence is implied in legal discourse, but whose existence and treatment are not covered in treaties."

is entirely false. There is no implication in legal discourse of such a third category. One is either a combatant or not. If the former, they are entitled to prisoner-of-war status. If the latter, there is no legal basis for their detention by military forces and it is therefore unlawful detention. Further references to the term in this article as though it were an actual legal term in international law are therefore either the result of an incorrect or misinformed understanding, or, worse, an attempt to justify someone else's political agenda. I will assume that they are the result of the former. I will also remove such references from this article.

"Competent Tribunal"
There are further problems with the representation of international law in this article. For example, how do we determine who is, and who is not, a combatant? By means of a competent tribunal. On this point the article also states,

We don't have to we only have to mention that it is a reqirement of Article 5. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Note that the term competent tribunal is not defined and no requirement for neutrality is imposed."

This is as false as the nonsense about "unlawful combatants". If the tribunal is not impartial (i.e. "neutral"), then it is not, and cannot be called, a competent tribunal.

I agree. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

More serious problems?
I will immediately fix the problem of references to "unlawful combatants," but it seems to me there is probably a much larger issue with this article's references to, and understanding of, international law. I'll review as much of this as I can over the next few days. --Todeswalzer | Talk 02:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree with you on this topic. I study european and international law in Lausanne/Switzerland and would be glad to give further assistance if necessary. Terms like "unlawful combatants" - invented by politicians and subsequently repeated by the media - really are an annoyance. 84.56.22.190 16:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No the term unlawful combatant was not invented by the Bush administraton. It was first used in US Domestic law in ex parte Quirin (1942).

See also: The legal situation of unlawful/unprivileged combatants (IRRC March 2003 Vol.85 No 849) Whereas the terms "combatant" "prisoner of war" and "civilian" are generally used and defined in the treaties of international humanitarian law, the terms "unlawful combatant", "unprivileged combatants/belligerents" do not appear in them. They have, however, been frequently used at least since the beginning of the last century in legal literature, military manuals and case law. The connotations given to these terms and their consequences for the applicable protection regime are not always very clear.

See also: Under Article 47 of Protocol I ( Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts) it is stated in the first sentence "A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war." So what is a mercenary if not an unlawful combatant? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We're not talking of american law, but of public international law. That's why the appearance of the term "unlawful combatant" in the decision of one nation's court doesn't constitute that concept in public international law - like Todeswalzer said, international law develops by unanimity, sometimes by distinct majority. too. But there's no way one nation could invent a valid concept of law on that domain on it's own. So there are still only the two, combatants and non-combatants (=criminals). 84.56.39.115 09:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed two speculations about lawful/unlawful combatants, because WP is not a publisher of original thought. In the Geneva Protocols there are persons with combatant-status, and persons without. 84.56.47.82 17:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A mercenaries are criminals, because they are defined as such in Protocol I Article 47, but they are a specific type of criminal who may not have broken any civil law, but if they "in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities", they are a mercenary. So a state can hold them for being in breach of Protocol I, but they may not have breached a civil law, and they "shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war". In which case what are they if not unlawful combatants?

What are child soldiers if not unlawful combatant? The are not necessarily criminals, but if they take part in hostilites the state is in breach of Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 38, ergo they are unlawful combatants, although persumably it is the person who had conscripted them into a position where they take part in hostilites who is the criminal. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see your point. The persons meeting the definition "combatant" of the protocols are combatants. The rest doesn't fall in that category, so you can call them non-combatants, they're no combatants in the technical sense.

So i can't see the necessity to redefine them - against the terminology of the protocols - as "unlawful combatants". Just as unnecessary as that would be to come up with the term "bad combatant" or "evil combatant" or something. The only explanation for the existence of terms like that i can think of would be to imply that persons without combatant status wouldn't have any rights, what is not the case.

Concerning what you say about mercenaries and child soldiers: In my opinion a person fighting in an armed conflict without combatant status would automatically be a criminal in most countries, because he or she would infringe at least a dozen of local laws. That's the purpose of the combatant status after all, to separate the privileged combatants from the rest, falling under normal criminal law.84.56.10.25 16:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see your point...

Which protocols are you referring to when you say "of the protocols"?

• Protocol I, Art 47.1) "A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
• But Protocol Art 47.2b "does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;"

If they are taking a direct part in hostilities they are a combatant, but according to article 1 they do not have the right to be combatants, so they are combatants without the right to be combatants which makes them unprivileged combatants and because they are in breach of article 2 they are breaking an international convention so they are unlawful combatants.

So i can't see the necessity...

Again which protocols are you talking about? Persons who are not lawful combatants but have been engaged in hostilities and who have been infront of a "competent tribunal" may no longer be protected persons under the Geneva Conventions, it depends on their nationality. They may still have rights under other treaties like the United Nations Convention Against Torture but that will depend on who the detaining power is. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Concerning what you say about mercenaries...

If you use the word priviledged combatant do you accept that there are also unpriviledged combatants? I have used the term unpriviledged for mercenaries (because of Protocol I 47.1 ) do you accept that they are? --Philip Baird Shearer 20:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I was careful not to use the word fighting. I used the words "take a direct part part in the hostilities" which is the term in Protocol I and it does not necessarily involve fighting. In which case they may not have infringed any local laws. In fact as they were probably on the enemy's side of the lines until captured, they would probably not have infringed any of the enemy's laws. If they are a mercenary, what they are guilty of is an infringement of Protocol I Article 47.2, and as a mercenary, they are an unlawful combatant because Protocol I Article 47.1 says that they are. Child soldiers may well not have broken any law particularly if they were conscripted, but if they have been engaged in hostilities they are unlawful combatants because they their presence on the battle field places enemy commanders in breach of an international treaty obligations. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

(As an aside, I think you should consider getting a Wikipedia account. You've made some valuable contributions to this discussion and I hope you'll continue to do so.) --Todeswalzer|Talk 17:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

@Todeswalzer: I already have two accounts for different languages, only you can't use them in the english WP. At the moment, i'm stuck between two term papers and shouldn't be here anyways ;-(

@Philip Baird Shearer: I took the liberty to recover my last posting to avoid confusion. I have to think through your comments, unfortunately i just don't have the time right now. Just one note: In my last comment i intended to say "...to separate the combatants (privileged to kill, bomb, burn...) from the rest (of the involved persons). See you in one or two days 84.56.59.118 13:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Another for the pot: In the Hostages Trial (1947) if was found that ""We are obliged to hold that such guerrillas were francs tireurs who, upon capture, could be subjected to the death penalty. Consequently, no criminal responsibility attaches to the defendant List because of the execution of captured partisans..." --Philip Baird Shearer 11:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Elton John

I took the liberty of removing Elton John, unless it isn't just a singer.Isaiah A. 06:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible revision of layout of the torture article

Would it make more sense for the torture article to have the subjects "Psychological torture methods", "Physical torture methods", "Torture devices", and "Methods of execution and capital punishment" be links leading to new pages of the same names rather than large incomplete lists included in the main page? Also by moving the listed items into new pages they could be identified by tags obviously stating that they are not complete lists of various torture devices/techniques. -- 71.208.33.220 03:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Methods

I meant to add the form of torturous execution carried about by pouring a molten metal down a persons throat. However, I vaguely recall a specific term, so I thought I'd mention the method and see if anyone else remembered.69.119.65.231 10:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.119.65.231 (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Edit Needed (not sure how)

Apparently the word 'niggers' has slipped into the mix, completely out of context, and my inability to understand enough about how Wikipedia works doesn't let me find out how or where it was inserted to be able to edit it out.

The following text has been observed in the 'controlling populace' section:

Although information gathered by torture is niggers often worthless, torture has been used to terrorize and subdue populations to enforce state control. cf: Gulag

Highlight mine. So would someone who knows better how to fix... uh... fix?

204.116.154.118 23:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Including of course Isreal"

this phrase appears at the bottom of the forth paragraph. In addition to using incorrect punctuation, the phrase makes, with the, "of course" clause, the assumption that the reader has some definitive knowledge that Israel uses torture before reading the article. this phrase is therefore unencyclopedic in tone. I am cleaning up the sentence, and placing Israel at the same level of expectation for torture usage as the other two nations mentioned. I am also removing the "perhaps more surprisingly" phrase, which lends itself subject to individual perspective. --Amanaplanacanalpanama 08:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Amnesty International and "including Israel, Great Britain, and the United States"

That information will continue to be rv'ed as POV and uncited, unless something is done to change its phrasing and its citation. The current citation goes to an interview that does not even MENTION the United States and Great Britain in connection with Amnesty International, and furthermore nowhere says explicitly what the cited statement says, i.e. "Israel does not abide by the spirit of its treaties." As such it is speculative and OR.

oh wait, in fact I've deleted the entire statement, since it is mentioned or supported nowhere in the interview. Ford MF 14:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Tags

I have added a disputed tag to psychological torture and physical torture methods, as not all methods are universally or even by a plurality of the population to be torture. I have added a dispute and OR tag to the execution/capital punishment section, as it has effectively declared all methods of capital punishment to be torture, along with some general crimes against humanity thrown in that do not constitute torture. Doing so invalidates the very real problem of torture, by misdirecting attention and confusing topics of concern. - MSTCrow 17:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted text

A large part of this article seems to have been deleted by this IP address 86.130.208.0 (see Revision as of 23:24, 10 November 2006 -- Revision as of 19:52, 13 November 2006) with no explanation in the history as to why it was deleted and that IP address only ever made those two edits (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.130.208.0) Therefore I think this was a case of vandalism and I am restoring those parts which have not already been restored. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Torture in history

I've also read that in medieval times torture was a fairly common way to earn a living: bandits would drive around and string up villagers by both feet, then smash one leg with a hammer and 'ransom' them for the other leg. Is it worth going into more detail about different torture-purposes in the middle ages? christians weren't the only people to hurt people. Brentstrahan 13:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

POV

It seems to me that this article is against torture, which in some ways is understandable but I would certainly love to see some arguements in favor of it included to make this article more complete. KenBest 18:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

See the section Ethical arguments regarding torture --Philip Baird Shearer 13:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)