Home | About | Donate

Pentagon Asks Psychologists to Reconsider Torture Ban, Argues 'You Never Know...'


#1


#2

The proper response of the APA should be no response. They (the pentagon) simply want a stamp of approval. Our military should be doing Nothing with prisoners but taking care of them until the conflict is resolved. The Geneva Convention applies and that is all the military needs to know.


#3

It would have also been fitting for the APA to specify to its membership that any member caught assisting in torture practices by the security state would be banished from membership in the APA.


#5

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#6

Banished from APA 'and' prosecuted for the crime of torture.


#7

Once it is OK to torture these prisoners how long will it be until it is OK for domestic transgressions? Things that are wrong do not become right because of expediency.


#8

predictable.
if you can't convince, coerce or manipulate others into carrying out oppression/cruelty, we might actually start to make some headway as a species. it has been proven that torture doesn't actually produce accurate or viable information. if you hurt someone enough, long enough, most people will say just about anything to make them stop. I probably would.


#9

I have to agree, put them on the receiving end for a few weeks, keep them from friends, family, loved ones, and let the "enhancements begin" , a few shocks here, a little water there, maybe some really bright lights and super loud music for days on end, lets not forget constant humiliation , degradation, and mind numbing constant fear.

I am sure the proponents of such barbarism would be shitting there pants before it even got underway, and crying and bubbling about how wrong they were and "please just make it stop"


#10

Yes; and a resounding yes! Whatever happened to the rule of law? I can only hope those responsible for allowing the torture of those people held in US hands, or at the request and tolerance of the US gov't are prosecuted to the full extent of the law during my lifetime; for I have suffered for these transgressions by my government during these past years and have standing as a citizen. The USA has murdered more people since the start of the Vietnam War than Hitler's Germany. This is the sad fact. At least Hitler had the decency to commit suicide!


#11

The Pentagon would have squealed like a stuck pig had those US Marines who invaded iranian territory been tortured and had the rationale on the part of the Iranians been "well you never know" and I suggest had those same Marines confessed to any given crime these same pathetic bastards in the Pentagon would have claimed that confessions obained by torture are meaningless.

The only reason they want to torture is because they want to be seen as the baddest kid on the block and nothing more.


#12

Agreed!


#13

Actually, some "psychologist" who specializes in veterans' issues went on NPR immediately after those Marines (or Navy sailors?) were "captured", saying that Iran had tortured them by "making them kneel in humiliating postures" and "keeping them uncertain as to how long they would be held". She asserted that these Marines would suffer PTSD from the "horrible mind-altering experience", that what Iran had done (making them kneel and taking photos of them kneeling to show the world) should be considered torture, and that Iran should be sanctioned and brought up on charges in the ICC.

She seemed unaware that the US is not a signatory member to the ICC and that her words were actually rather insulting to the sailors. Made them sound like a bunch of wussies who would suffer forever with nightmares because they had been made to kneel for a photo.

She assiduously and carefully: 1) avoided any mention that our armed forces had, inadvertently or not, been found invading Iran's territory and that protocols required that arrangements for their release had to follow certain steps between the two governments, 2) made no mention or comparison to Guantanamo Bay, Bagram, any US black-sites and/or prison sites, and 3) offered no suggestion that Iran had done anything beyond "making them kneel" to support her assertion of "torture".

Gee, we ARE special.


#14

More torture, enough to get the juices flowing in any depraved monster. In case any have forgotten how US troops under the Bush regime behaved in Abu Gharaib - honor forever lost. Where is Nuremberg when it is so needed?

http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=8560

The depraved indifference by the Bush&Co was also defended by the likes of the odious swine John Yoo, now astonishingly professor of law at Berkeley rather than in prison. The sick mind of Yoo argued it would be fine to crush the testicles of a child to pressure the father to talk.
http://www.thenation.com/article/prosecute-john-yoo-says-law-school-dean-erwin-chemerinsky/

Dick Cheney, another war criminal and oil conglomerate conspirator, "author" of the "Halliburton Loophole" that protects fracking from the Clean Water Act, also defended torture and should have been prosecuted if we had any leadership worthy of the name.....


Current Prez candidate Carly Fiorina also defended Bush regime torture,she thus qualifies as a great RepubliCon candidate for Prez.


#15

There is covert rage in a lot of people who join the military and some of that rage leaks out into practices of sadism. Don't forget that. It is a staple of the whole torture campaign and much of it has profoundly sexual implications. Think of the nudity element, the sodomy with objects, the use of fake menstrual blood to shame the Arab men, women soldiers putting them on leashes, and so forth.

There is a place where the sickness of pornography (so much of it designed to shame, malign, and degrade women) spills over into war porn. I think it's a good bet that the same people "enjoying one" make use of the other.

When degrading another human being becomes sexually titillating, there's no moral compass in place to guide ANY actions.


#16

American dummies really like the word "homeland" and use it whenever they have the chance. Here is from a "die Heimat" section in Wikipedia:

"The specific aspects of Heimat — love and attachment to homeland — left the idea vulnerable to easy assimilation into the fascist "blood and soil" literature of the National Socialists since it is relatively easy to add to the positive feelings for the Heimat a rejection of anything foreign, that however is not there necessarily. It was conceived by the Nazis that the volk community is deeply rooted in the land of their heimat through their practice of agriculture and their ancestral lineage going back hundreds and thousands of years. The Third Reich was regarded at the deepest level as the sacred heimat of the unified volk community—the national slogan was One Reich, One Volk, One Führer. Those who were taken to Nazi concentration camps were those who were officially declared by the SS to be 'enemies of the volk community' and thus a threat to the integrity and security of the heimat."

If one reads full entry for "die Heimat" at Wikipedia or any place else, one will find the expression sometime used without the Nazi connotation and in a positive way-- which the Bush era propagandists were no doubt counting on when they so assiduously brought it, viz, "the homeland," into our American English.

But George W. Bush and his cronies could not and cannot undo the context created by World War II. Language matters and so does history and intellect. An Eddie Carbone or Archie Bunker or Rush Limbaugh or Donald Trump or anyone else in that strain of "character" or actual turd-person can through angry etiquette speeches go after people they claim are "too politically correct" in projection of their own utterly conventional and thoughtless way of looking at things. Would it be too much to call them secret or not so secret Nazis? I don't think so.


#17

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#18

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#19

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#20

They want to torture to terrorise . They want to create fear and hesitation in everyone who might even consider resisting them. Above all . they want the means to produce 'evidence' for future show trials . "Confession is the mother of evidence" , as Vyshinsky , Stalin's chief prosecutor in the great show trials , averred . Convictions and executions were obtained by way of confessions tortured out of the defendants .


#21

Three Reichs and you're out !