Is This Torture

[jeffpugh]

Oh noes, we has a necromancer on our hands... a bad thread risen from the dead!

[Didacus]

I once stayed up for 86 hours trying to finish a report so I could graduate, slept for 2 hours then went for another 24 hours.

Gong 48 hours without sleep = torture? Maybe in nursery rhymes, but in adult life come on?!?!? I could do 48 hours on one leg and both arms behind my back and I still wouldn't deny Jesus nor the pope.

[Paddington]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1703272' date='Nov 17 2008, 02:20 PM']Gong 48 hours without sleep = torture? Maybe in nursery rhymes, but in adult life come on?!?!?[/quote]

But, we all have different bodies. I've never gone 32 hours, as far as I can remember. My epilepsy meds could be part of that.

[CSLF]

I find it strange that sleep deprivation seems to be more accepted than other forms of torture (as far as I can tell from this board). There's a major difference between choosing to stay awake/drinking 12 cups of coffee to finish a paper and being kept awake by other people who are probably slapping you awake (if not worse). Also, people lose their grip on reality when they are kept awake, so even the torture for information scenario is illogical. One example is the story of the Guildford Four, who were indicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for crimes they confessed to under torture (and the effects of withdrawal). The reality is that because they 'confessed' the perpetrators remained free to commit other crimes, which should be a more important factor than it usually is in 'time is running out' scenarios.

[Hassan]

[quote name='CSLF' post='1722871' date='Dec 8 2008, 11:10 PM']I find it strange that sleep deprivation seems to be more accepted than other forms of torture (as far as I can tell from this board). There's a major difference between choosing to stay awake/drinking 12 cups of coffee to finish a paper and being kept awake by other people who are probably slapping you awake (if not worse). Also, people lose their grip on reality when they are kept awake, so even the torture for information scenario is illogical. One example is the story of the Guildford Four, who were indicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for crimes they confessed to under torture (and the effects of withdrawal). The reality is that because they 'confessed' the perpetrators remained free to commit other crimes, which should be a more important factor than it usually is in 'time is running out' scenarios.[/quote]

Not to mention these "frequent flier" programs can last a month or more. I just pulled an all nighter not to long ago and can do so without much difficulty. Could I go a few days without sleep, get a few hours only to be rooughly awoken, interogated again, replaced in a foreign, confusing situation, given a few hours woken up again, throughly bewildered, kept up a few days, threatened, slapped around, denied access to any temporal reference (how long did I sleep? a half hour, two hours? How long was I awake?) and degraded, forced to commit "tricks" like a dog, forced to deficate on myself like a dog, told my family was killed, told I would never leave. Could I endure this for a month or more? I doubt it.

To compare what goes on in Gitmo to a Uni student pulling an all nighter or more is just silly and not even close to a valid comparison. This very sort of treatment broke down 36 airmen during the Korean war and made them confess to useing "biological weapons" against North Koreans. I doubt a process that broke the will to resist in 36 UNMC Airmen (many of whom fought in WWII) is analgous to a Uni student typing a paper for a couple days.

[Tinkerlina]

I don't believe that any of these things are ethical. Anything intended to produce an outcome of terror or that dehumanizes a person is, imo, wrong. No matter what someone has done, we are to treat every human being with respect. That doesn't mean people shouldn't be punished if they have done something wrong, but I do not think torture is excusable, nor do I think it is necessarily effective. -Katie

[Hassan]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1726750' date='Dec 12 2008, 08:18 PM']I don't believe that any of these things are ethical. Anything intended to produce an outcome of terror or that dehumanizes a person is, imo, wrong. No matter what someone has done, we are to treat every human being with respect. That doesn't mean people shouldn't be punished if they have done something wrong, but I do not think torture is excusable, nor do I think it is necessarily effective. -Katie[/quote]

Shabbir Akhtar decried the Christian reformation as ending in a capitulation of Christianity to Secularism (primairly with respect to Protestantism) and he then described Christendom as "rhetorically religious but operationally secular". I disagree with him on some counts. I think that Roman Catholicism has not been so complicit in this capitulation and I believe much of the "soul" of the Church is still both rhetorically Christian and operationally so (here I refer to some religious orders, the current Pope and his predicesor, and some subsets of the larger Church clerg and laity). Yet I believe the fact that we are seeing a serious debate on a Catholic forum as to wether an avowedly secular state can engadge in torture previous to due process or any sort of genuine, exernal check does demonstrate that this "rhetorically religious but operationally secular" criticism is legitimate for much of the larger Christian populace.

That was not directed towards you, it was just a general thought that came to my mind for whatever reason.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1726753' date='Dec 12 2008, 08:26 PM']Shabbir Akhtar decried the Christian reformation as ending in a capitulation of Christianity to Secularism (primairly with respect to Protestantism) and he then described Christendom as "rhetorically religious but operationally secular". I disagree with him on some counts. I think that Roman Catholicism has not been so complicit in this capitulation and I believe much of the "soul" of the Church is still both rhetorically Christian and operationally so (here I refer to some religious orders, the current Pope and his predicesor, and some subsets of the larger Church clerg and laity). Yet I believe the fact that we are seeing a serious debate on a Catholic forum as to wether an avowedly secular state can engadge in torture previous to due process or any sort of genuine, exernal check does demonstrate that this "rhetorically religious but operationally secular" criticism is legitimate for much of the larger Christian populace.

That was not directed towards you, it was just a general thought that came to my mind for whatever reason.[/quote]

I understand what you're saying, it's an issue where religion and state and their correlation comes up. -Katie

[Hassan]

As the oral arguments were on the 9th, I wonder how the pro torture crowed feels about Maher Arar?