I read every post. I have friends that are police officers, whether on the street or taskforce. I also have a friend that is a prison officer..... so no, I'm not talking out of my ass.
Repeating the same opinion over and over again is not a discussion. Taking everything as a personal attack on the US and/or saying americans are the best/do it better is not conductive to any discussion.
Using the attack dogs amounts to torture and is a violation of basic human rights. Wherever these people are on our social ladder and whatever we may think about them, they are human.
I read every post. I have friends that are police officers, whether on the street or taskforce. I also have a friend that is a prison officer..... so no, I'm not talking out of my ass.
Repeating the same opinion over and over again is not a discussion. Taking everything as a personal attack on the US and/or saying americans are the best/do it better is not conductive to any discussion.
Using the attack dogs amounts to torture and is a violation of basic human rights. Wherever these people are on our social ladder and whatever we may think about them, they are human.
BTW... I'm not a 'Brit'
Ok so dogs=torture. What method do you believe should be used in situations where prisoners refuse to listen? They have to do something, so if it's not dogs what is it?
Ok so dogs=torture. What method do you believe should be used in situations where prisoners refuse to listen? They have to do something, so if it's not dogs what is it?
obviously positive reenforcement would work. these "criminals" have been disadvantaged their whole lives. they need a friend in times of need, not an enemy.
"Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
obviously positive reenforcement would work. these "criminals" have been disadvantaged their whole lives. they need a friend in times of need, not an enemy.
Ok so dogs=torture. What method do you believe should be used in situations where prisoners refuse to listen? They have to do something, so if it's not dogs what is it?
I'm not a psychologist or a psychiatrist. I cannot claim to figure out what could make these people listen. I leave that to those that can delve in their minds. Torture is not a solution. Leave them in their cells if they don't want to budge?
honest answer, I appreciate that. I don't see it as torture. What is torture is what the victims of these criminals went through, when they were raped, assualted, or killed. I really think using the dog is the best way. Keeps officer safe, and isn't likely to kill prisoner. Or a good bean bag to the chest.
honest answer, I appreciate that. I don't see it as torture. What is torture is what the victims of these criminals went through, when they were raped, assualted, or killed. I really think using the dog is the best way. Keeps officer safe, and isn't likely to kill prisoner. Or a good bean bag to the chest.
yes, right... what about tie them with a chain to the wall? In that way they won't assault the guards and would be weak enough to not assault them also later.
What about a mock execution? That would scare them enough to not misbehave again in the future.
What about a pyramid of naked bodies?
...where do you draw a line?
What about the people that said that Iraq is better now because, even if there's not WMD, still saddam is not free anymore to use torture? What's the difference between Saddam's torture and american torture?
"Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
obviously positive reenforcement would work. these "criminals" have been disadvantaged their whole lives. they need a friend in times of need, not an enemy.
Positive reinforcement? So, you think the officers should entice the prisoners out of their cells with cookies? I don't think you are really grasping the seriousness of the situation. The average violent criminal is not some lonely soul who just needs a good friend. These people will interpret any shred of friendship as a sign of weakness as use it against you for their own personal gain. Such is the pathological criminal mindset documented time and again by people who do know the difference between positive reinforcement vs. crime and punishment.
What about the people that said that Iraq is better now because, even if there's not WMD, still saddam is not free anymore to use torture? What's the difference between Saddam's torture and american torture?
Let's see here, if given the choice, which would you rather have?
Being strapped to a chair and beaten into unconciousness just for the sake of being beaten.
or
Having a guard dog bite your arm or your leg until you submit to instructions to exit your cell.
Under your rationale, there is no difference. So, with that in mind, you would really not prefer one or the other.
And that's what leads me to believe that you still don't understand the meaning of torture - only that one action is approved and the other isn't. You say that this could not be so because you work for an organization that oversees the human rights activities of governments. However, your organization is still the "authority". And as far as I can tell, the "authority" is still the only concept you understand.
Let's see here, if given the choice, which would you rather have?
Being strapped to a chair and beaten into unconciousness just for the sake of being beaten.
or
Having a guard dog bite your arm or your leg until you submit to instructions to exit your cell.
Under your rationale, there is no difference. So, with that in mind, you would really not prefer one or the other.
And that's what leads me to believe that you still don't understand the meaning of torture - only that one action is approved and the other isn't. You say that this could not be so because you work for an organization that oversees the human rights activities of governments. However, your organization is still the "authority". And as far as I can tell, the "authority" is still the only concept you understand.
How about neither.
I'm sure you understand the concept of differing degrees. You can be tortured by having your fingernails pulled off and you could also be blowtorched. Just because one is quite worse than the other doesn't make one acceptable. Being against all forms of inhumane treatment does not equate to 'only understanding authority'.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I'm sure you understand the concept of differing degrees. You can be tortured by having your fingernails pulled off and you could also be blowtorched. Just because one is quite worse than the other doesn't make one acceptable. Being against all forms of inhumane treatment does not equate to 'only understanding authority'.
What you're referring to is the concept of the excessive use of force. While a blow-torch is considerably worse than finger-nail pulling, each easily qualify as unnecessary and excessive.
However, it is not so easy to classify the controlled use of a dog as being excessive and unnecessary. I'm sure we can both agree that some measure of force is necessary when a prisoner is refusing to comply. Let's look at the alternatives:
nightstick = head injury, broken bones and possible brain damage
taser = possible cardiac arrythmias and head injury secondary to the fall
bean bag gun= internal bleeding and possible cardiac arrythmias secondary to chest wall hit
pepper spray= only minimally effective with non- compliant prisoners ( ie: still a danger to the officer)
I don't see puck on here complaining about the human rights that are being violated by the use of those tacts. That's why it really is a matter of what is or isn't sanctioned by a "recognized authority".
What you're referring to is the concept of the excessive use of force. While a blow-torch is considerably worse than finger-nail pulling, each easily qualify as unnecessary and excessive.
However, it is not so easy to classify the controlled use of a dog as being excessive and unnecessary. I'm sure we can both agree that some measure of force is necessary when a prisoner is refusing to comply. Let's look at the alternatives:
nightstick = head injury, broken bones and possible brain damage
taser = possible cardiac arrythmias and head injury secondary to the fall
bean bag gun= internal bleeding and possible cardiac arrythmias secondary to chest wall hit
pepper spray= only minimally effective with non- compliant prisoners ( ie: still a danger to the officer)
I don't see puck on here complaining about the human rights that are being violated by the use of those tacts. That's why it really is a matter of what is or isn't sanctioned by a "recognized authority".
Pepper spray, I would think, would be at least enough to disorient the prisoner
to get a handle the situation. What would be the effect of tranquilizers? Having a dog come at you ready to attack is terrifying and dehumanizing. It seems like people would say 'What the fuck! Get the dog off that guy! Someone help!' not just accept this as a way of controling people. It just seems sick and twisted to me. Maybe people wouldn't be so hardened and unable to rejoin society if they weren't treated like animals. People make bad mistakes but it doesn't take away their humanity.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Pepper spray, I would think, would be at least enough to disorient the prisoner
to get a handle the situation. What would be the effect of tranquilizers? Having a dog come at you ready to attack is terrifying and dehumanizing. It seems like people would say 'What the fuck! Get the dog off that guy! Someone help!' not just accept this as a way of controling people. It just seems sick and twisted to me. Maybe people wouldn't be so hardened and unable to rejoin society if they weren't treated like animals. People make bad mistakes but it doesn't take away their humanity.
You haven't been watching the prison documentaries on A&E. These guys get hit with everything from pepper spray to tear gas, yet still find the means to put up a fight. The prison guards have to get fully suited up in riot gear and enter the cell as a team in order to subdue a single prisoner.
I am not an anesthesiologist, but tranquilizers do possess their inherent dangers as different people do have different responses to them. You'd need to know exactly what level of dosage would be suitable for a person of a certain size in order to ensure that overdosage or underdosage wouldn't occur.
Additionally, that's another means that would most likely have to be administered within a close distance, thus proving a danger to the administering staff. If administered through a gun, then we'd be talking about a very sharp object flying through the air, which may or may not end up landing in an area of the body that the object was intended for. For example, you could be aiming for the person's torso, but it might end up in his eye or in his grown - or even his heart.
The dog has a psychological effect. No one is denying that. But, is it a psychological effect that really amounts to torture? Considering the environment that these violent criminals are accustomed to living in, I have serious doubts as to whether that the trauma that they are experiencing from an attack by a guard dog is really that measurable and debilitating.
The problem is that you think dogs can be scary, and that's all there is to it. You aren't taking into consideration how scary your average violent criminal is. These aren't a bunch of hard-luck cases who need a good friend and a warm environment. These are people who respond only to what they fear. Yes, they are products of their environment. But, as a result, they became that environment. The more you feel sorry for them, the greater the danger you put prison guards at risk of being in.
Positive reinforcement? So, you think the officers should entice the prisoners out of their cells with cookies? I don't think you are really grasping the seriousness of the situation. The average violent criminal is not some lonely soul who just needs a good friend. These people will interpret any shred of friendship as a sign of weakness as use it against you for their own personal gain. Such is the pathological criminal mindset documented time and again by people who do know the difference between positive reinforcement vs. crime and punishment.
dude, check out my post on pg 4. the positive reenforcement comment involved more tongue than my cheek could handle.
"Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
Pepper spray, I would think, would be at least enough to disorient the prisoner
to get a handle the situation. What would be the effect of tranquilizers? Having a dog come at you ready to attack is terrifying and dehumanizing. It seems like people would say 'What the fuck! Get the dog off that guy! Someone help!' not just accept this as a way of controling people. It just seems sick and twisted to me. Maybe people wouldn't be so hardened and unable to rejoin society if they weren't treated like animals. People make bad mistakes but it doesn't take away their humanity.
I dont think any weapon that "fires" can be used in the cell block area of a prison- it becomes to easy for an inmate to take away and use.
And that's what leads me to believe that you still don't understand the meaning of torture - only that one action is approved and the other isn't. You say that this could not be so because you work for an organization that oversees the human rights activities of governments. However, your organization is still the "authority". And as far as I can tell, the "authority" is still the only concept you understand.
blah blah blah... let me add also: *yawn*. Tell me when you've finished to make speculations about "where do my ideas come from"...
Let's see here, if given the choice, which would you rather have?
Being strapped to a chair and beaten into unconciousness just for the sake of being beaten.
or
Having a guard dog bite your arm or your leg until you submit to instructions to exit your cell.
none of the two, thank you. It seems to me that you're the one that is not able to see that the effects of torture are in both cases the same. You don't neither consider that under Saddam people tortured were considered criminals. Same under Bush. And in both the cases we see that some people tortured were innocents, others were guilty, but still even if guilty they could have faced different treatment (I suppose you don't know the laws against ill-treatment, if you don't distinguish what a guard can or can't do, eh?)
You don't neither consider that under Saddam people tortured were considered criminals. Same under Bush. And in both the cases we see that some people tortured were innocents, others were guilty, but still even if guilty they could have faced different treatment (I suppose you don't know the laws against ill-treatment, if you don't distinguish what a guard can or can't do, eh?)
Again, you define torture as what falls under the "laws against ill-treatment." You're not actually defining what torture actually is. It sounds like you need to re-read the milgrim experiment link I provided earlier in the thread.
Also, this isn't about innocent people vs. guilty people. This is about torture. You keep throwing words like Saddam and Bush out there, but dropping names doesn't explain what torture is.
Again, I'm going to break it down for you nice and simple so you can't talk your way around it.
Saddam's torture: Senseless, unprovoked beatings
vs.
A dog being used to subdue a non-compliant prisoner.
Again, what you're trying to say is that they are the same, when they, in fact, are not.
You see, all you know is that Saddam = torture and Bush = torture because that's what you've been taught to believe by the media and human rights groups and so forth and so on.
And it's true. Under those regimes, torture was committed.
But, now you've read an article that says controlled use of dogs = torture.
You don't really know why, but your brain is saying, "If this article is calling controlled use of dogs torture, then Saddam = Bush = controlled use of dogs."
You lack the capacity to understand what makes them fundamentally different. And this has been proven by how you really haven't been able to explain exactly why the controlled use of dogs = torture. You just keep saying:
Use of dogs = torture because saddam = torture and bush = torture
You've been brainwashed. And again, the proof is that you don't know what defines torture. That is, you haven't been able to explain what makes the controlled use of dogs inhumane. I've read all your posts in this thread and you haven't done it once. All you know is who commits it. And you know this because it's what the media tells you.
When trying to explain what makes the use of dogs torture, yours answers have been the following:
Now, instead of repeating what the media has fed you, try coming up with an explanation on your own as to what exactly makes the controlled use of dogs to subdue a non-compliant prisoner "torture".
Imagine having to give a presentation to a human rights organization. The presentation is going to convince the organization why the controlled use of dogs to subdue non-compliant prisoners is inhumane.
So far, your presentation consists of "Saddam committed torture" and "Bush committed torture" and "It's the same thing as the torture that Bush and Saddam committed." That is literally all you've been able to say. I just don't see how your presentation would've convinced anybody of anything.
Torture (as most people would understand the word):
It's a deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical or psychological pain as an expression of cruelty, a means of intimidation or deterrent. It is also a tool in an attempt to force another person to confess, to yield, or just to keep this person 'in his/her place'.
If you have a phobia of spiders, someone knowingly locking you up in a room with a dozen or so spiders to scare you/to get something out of you, is commiting an act of torture as this would inflict great psychological distress.
A menancing attack dog would have the same effect.
Obviously, one may perceive there are varying 'levels' of torture, but whatever level depending on what is done and who it is inflicted upon, the result is the same... pain and fear for the person at the receiving end and cruelty from the person on the 'giving' end.
We all know what torture means.. Torture is a harsh word. I find it difficult to come to terms with, because of the implication it has in our 'civilised' world. It rears it's ugly head in everyday life when we would rather keep it for situations such a war, etc.
I dont particularly enjoy disagreeing with people, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on that, redrock.
First off, you compared the use of dogs to the use of spiders on someone who has a phobia of spiders. By using that comparison, you assume that these prisoners have a phobia of dogs. A spider is useful pretty much when people have a phobia of spiders. A dog is useful regardless of phobias. So, the comparison isn't one that is linear and applicable. sorry.
Secondly, you bring up the definition of torture:
It's a deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical or psychological pain as an expression of cruelty, a means of intimidation or deterrent. It is also a tool in an attempt to force another person to confess, to yield, or just to keep this person 'in his/her place'.
The same definition could just as easily apply to just about every other submission tactic used by law enforcement. Could it not? Let's replace the word dog with the word nightstick. They are interchangeable. The only difference is that one is less dangerous to the officer.
A menacing dog is scary. But so is being threatened with a nightstick. If someone acts like he's ready to crack a person's skull with a nightstick, that person is going to be terrified. This is called the "menacing" use of a nightstick.
You've been brainwashed. And again, the proof is that you don't know what defines torture.
Redrock gave you a definition of torture, but i guess you don't like definitions, you call them things for brainwashers. So, I'll try in a different way.
I worked with people tortured in Chile. Notice that people were not "innocent": under the eyes of the authorities they were dangerous people. let's not discuss here if it was true or if that's propaganda from the government of pinochet. Let's just say that pinochet wanted information and used what i call "torture".
I worked also with people tortured in israeli jails. Also here they might have been innocent or not, we don't know.
Most of these people were forced to drink their own pee, to have information estracted. Others were binded to their chairs, on their knees for more than 48 hours, so that they were unable to move when freed.
Others were left blindfolded for days. They could hear gilrs screaming and the guards were telling them that they were raping their wives.
They had mock executions.
I can go on very long. You can find out about other methods in many human rights sites in internet.
Most of the people that i met had still psycological problems for that after many years (consider that people were tortured in chile and argentina more than 20 years ago..). Still, after all those years, they tried suicide, had nightmares and fears for which they were unable to have a normal life and a job, suffered of permanent injuries.
This is what i mean for torture. I didn't use definitions.
You might argue that the situation in us jails is differnt, because dogs are used "for a reason". well, if you talk to the torturers they will always have good reason for what they do ("security", blah blah).
Now, stop telling me that i was brainwashed, because i suspect that i have more direct experience than you.
First off, you compared the use of dogs to the use of spiders on someone who has a phobia of spiders. By using that comparison, you assume that these prisoners have a phobia of dogs. A spider is useful pretty much when people have a phobia of spiders. A dog is useful regardless of phobias. So, the comparison isn't one that is linear and applicable. sorry.
it depends what you want to obtain: in abu grahib and guantanamo they used both dogs and phobias.
A menacing dog is scary. But so is being threatened with a nightstick. If someone acts like he's ready to crack a person's skull with a nightstick, that person is going to be terrified. This is called the "menacing" use of a nightstick.
well, you know: a lot of countries don't use as much force as you paint is needed. Maybe alternatives are possible?
Redrock gave you a definition of torture, but i guess you don't like definitions, you call them things for brainwashers. So, I'll try in a different way.
I worked with people tortured in Chile. Notice that people were not "innocent": under the eyes of the authorities they were dangerous people. let's not discuss here if it was true or if that's propaganda from the government of pinochet. Let's just say that pinochet wanted information and used what i call "torture".
I worked also with people tortured in israeli jails. Also here they might have been innocent or not, we don't know.
Most of these people were forced to drink their own pee, to have information estracted. Others were binded to their chairs, on their knees for more than 48 hours, so that they were unable to move when freed.
Others were left blindfolded for days. They could hear gilrs screaming and the guards were telling them that they were raping their wives.
They had mock executions.
I can go on very long. You can find out about other methods in many human rights sites in internet.
Most of the people that i met had still psycological problems for that after many years (consider that people were tortured in chile and argentina more than 20 years ago..). Still, after all those years, they tried suicide, had nightmares and fears for which they were unable to have a normal life and a job, suffered of permanent injuries.
This is what i mean for torture. I didn't use definitions.
You might argue that the situation in us jails is differnt, because dogs are used "for a reason". well, if you talk to the torturers they will always have good reason for what they do ("security", blah blah).
Now, stop telling me that i was brainwashed, because i suspect that i have more direct experience than you.
Wow. all that and you still weren't able to explain why dogs amount to torture...amazing.
No, seriously, you didn't even try to explain it. All you did was bring up examples of torture and then say that dogs are the same thing.
And then instead of explaining why the use of dogs amounts to torture, you just said, "I have experience...."
That is what's what's known as an appeal to authority. It's a fallacy of reasoning. It's what's behind the milgrim experiements. Quite amazing, actually...you are a real life perfect example of what people are thinking when they blindly follow authority.
At least redrock had the sense to say that dogs amount to terror just as spiders amount to terror for people who have phobias. At least he was sort of in the right track in that he was really trying to explain the actual effects that dogs have. It was just too bad that he forgot that most prisoners probably don't have a phobia of dogs.
And also, in case you missed that part, I made a clear example of how the definition of torture easily applies to "legal" methods currently in usage. It's just a matter of understanding the context.
Now, again, without using the appeal to authority (ie the fact that you have "experience") try explaining exactly why the controlled use of dogs to subdue a non-compliant prisoner amounts to torture. Like I mentioned, you haven't even done that part yet.
Wow. all that and you still weren't able to explain why dogs amount to torture...amazing.
No, seriously, you didn't even try to explain it. All you did was bring up examples of torture and then say that dogs are the same thing.
And then instead of explaining why the use of dogs amounts to torture, you just said, "I have experience...."
That is what's what's known as an appeal to authority. It's a fallacy of reasoning. It's what's behind the milgrim experiements. Quite amazing, actually...you are a real life perfect example of what people are thinking when they blindly follow authority.
At least redrock had the sense to say that dogs amount to terror just as spiders amount to terror for people who have phobias. At least he was sort of in the right track in that he was really trying to explain the actual effects that dogs have. It was just too bad that he forgot that most prisoners probably don't have a phobia of dogs.
And also, in case you missed that part, I made a clear example of how the definition of torture easily applies to "legal" methods currently in usage. It's just a matter of understanding the context.
Now, again, without using the appeal to authority (ie the fact that you have "experience") try explaining exactly why the controlled use of dogs to subdue a non-compliant prisoner amounts to torture. Like I mentioned, you haven't even done that part yet.
That's what I thought. You really actually have nothing to say. You haven't been able to explain what you claim to be your own point of view.
In other words, you don't have a point of view. You just want me to understand that you have "experience" and that you work for an organization that oversees government activities.
That's what I thought. You really actually have nothing to say. You haven't been able to explain what you claim to be your own point of view.
In other words, you don't have a point of view. You just want me to understand that you have "experience" and that you work for an organization that oversees government activities.
Sponger... Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my thoughts. I didn't want to compare the spider bit and the dog bit. It was just examples of deliberate & wanton acts of cruetly. Not comparing phobias... Also saying that what seems benign to one may be horrifying to another.
We like to see ourselves as responsible human beings.. we're horrified at some of the pictures we see on TV (not just war but other news...) but we have trouble in admitting to ourselves that the kind of attitude we have by condoning setting the attack dogs on prisoners (admit it... we're all scared of growling dogs, with teeth bared, ready to pounce on you! We know what kind of pain they can inflict!) is no better. Also, the way things go, prisonners think/are led to think that the dogs will be released. That is psychological torture (and that would be enough to make me shit my pants) You (or someone else) are right in saying some are hardened criminals and I do not condone their crimes and I believe they should be punished for them, but people in contact with prisonners/working in prisons cannot let their emotions cloud judgement. A friend of mine is a prison officer and he does come accross some very 'difficult' cases. He may consider some of the prisonners 'scum' but he works hard to keep his personnal feelings out of the way he treats the prisonners. He has rules to follow, whether they be from the prison or just plain 'human' rules.
I don't have answers as to how to get the prisonners out of their cells (have already said so in a post) but attack dogs are over the top.
The same definition could just as easily apply to just about every other submission tactic used by law enforcement.
I'm hoping not as I would like to keep some faith in law enforcement and I'm hoping that the definition does not apply to the majority of law enforcers.
work for an organization that oversees government activities.
An organization that tries to keep us 'human'... even without the debate we're having here, it is important that such organisations exist and take action. Again, it doesn't show us (in the very broad term of us) in a very good light, but it points out 'mistakes' and offers us the possibility to correct these.
Taking out any political debate, I am grateful these organisations exist, along with the Red Cross, Medicins Sans Frontieres, etc...
Comments
I read every post. I have friends that are police officers, whether on the street or taskforce. I also have a friend that is a prison officer..... so no, I'm not talking out of my ass.
Repeating the same opinion over and over again is not a discussion. Taking everything as a personal attack on the US and/or saying americans are the best/do it better is not conductive to any discussion.
Using the attack dogs amounts to torture and is a violation of basic human rights. Wherever these people are on our social ladder and whatever we may think about them, they are human.
BTW... I'm not a 'Brit'
Ok so dogs=torture. What method do you believe should be used in situations where prisoners refuse to listen? They have to do something, so if it's not dogs what is it?
obviously positive reenforcement would work. these "criminals" have been disadvantaged their whole lives. they need a friend in times of need, not an enemy.
I thought dogs were man's best friend.
I'm not a psychologist or a psychiatrist. I cannot claim to figure out what could make these people listen. I leave that to those that can delve in their minds. Torture is not a solution. Leave them in their cells if they don't want to budge?
What about a mock execution? That would scare them enough to not misbehave again in the future.
What about a pyramid of naked bodies?
...where do you draw a line?
What about the people that said that Iraq is better now because, even if there's not WMD, still saddam is not free anymore to use torture? What's the difference between Saddam's torture and american torture?
www.amnesty.org.uk
money, my friend. money.
Positive reinforcement? So, you think the officers should entice the prisoners out of their cells with cookies? I don't think you are really grasping the seriousness of the situation. The average violent criminal is not some lonely soul who just needs a good friend. These people will interpret any shred of friendship as a sign of weakness as use it against you for their own personal gain. Such is the pathological criminal mindset documented time and again by people who do know the difference between positive reinforcement vs. crime and punishment.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Let's see here, if given the choice, which would you rather have?
Being strapped to a chair and beaten into unconciousness just for the sake of being beaten.
or
Having a guard dog bite your arm or your leg until you submit to instructions to exit your cell.
Under your rationale, there is no difference. So, with that in mind, you would really not prefer one or the other.
And that's what leads me to believe that you still don't understand the meaning of torture - only that one action is approved and the other isn't. You say that this could not be so because you work for an organization that oversees the human rights activities of governments. However, your organization is still the "authority". And as far as I can tell, the "authority" is still the only concept you understand.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
How about neither.
I'm sure you understand the concept of differing degrees. You can be tortured by having your fingernails pulled off and you could also be blowtorched. Just because one is quite worse than the other doesn't make one acceptable. Being against all forms of inhumane treatment does not equate to 'only understanding authority'.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
What you're referring to is the concept of the excessive use of force. While a blow-torch is considerably worse than finger-nail pulling, each easily qualify as unnecessary and excessive.
However, it is not so easy to classify the controlled use of a dog as being excessive and unnecessary. I'm sure we can both agree that some measure of force is necessary when a prisoner is refusing to comply. Let's look at the alternatives:
nightstick = head injury, broken bones and possible brain damage
taser = possible cardiac arrythmias and head injury secondary to the fall
bean bag gun= internal bleeding and possible cardiac arrythmias secondary to chest wall hit
pepper spray= only minimally effective with non- compliant prisoners ( ie: still a danger to the officer)
I don't see puck on here complaining about the human rights that are being violated by the use of those tacts. That's why it really is a matter of what is or isn't sanctioned by a "recognized authority".
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Pepper spray, I would think, would be at least enough to disorient the prisoner
to get a handle the situation. What would be the effect of tranquilizers? Having a dog come at you ready to attack is terrifying and dehumanizing. It seems like people would say 'What the fuck! Get the dog off that guy! Someone help!' not just accept this as a way of controling people. It just seems sick and twisted to me. Maybe people wouldn't be so hardened and unable to rejoin society if they weren't treated like animals. People make bad mistakes but it doesn't take away their humanity.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You haven't been watching the prison documentaries on A&E. These guys get hit with everything from pepper spray to tear gas, yet still find the means to put up a fight. The prison guards have to get fully suited up in riot gear and enter the cell as a team in order to subdue a single prisoner.
I am not an anesthesiologist, but tranquilizers do possess their inherent dangers as different people do have different responses to them. You'd need to know exactly what level of dosage would be suitable for a person of a certain size in order to ensure that overdosage or underdosage wouldn't occur.
Additionally, that's another means that would most likely have to be administered within a close distance, thus proving a danger to the administering staff. If administered through a gun, then we'd be talking about a very sharp object flying through the air, which may or may not end up landing in an area of the body that the object was intended for. For example, you could be aiming for the person's torso, but it might end up in his eye or in his grown - or even his heart.
The dog has a psychological effect. No one is denying that. But, is it a psychological effect that really amounts to torture? Considering the environment that these violent criminals are accustomed to living in, I have serious doubts as to whether that the trauma that they are experiencing from an attack by a guard dog is really that measurable and debilitating.
The problem is that you think dogs can be scary, and that's all there is to it. You aren't taking into consideration how scary your average violent criminal is. These aren't a bunch of hard-luck cases who need a good friend and a warm environment. These are people who respond only to what they fear. Yes, they are products of their environment. But, as a result, they became that environment. The more you feel sorry for them, the greater the danger you put prison guards at risk of being in.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
dude, check out my post on pg 4. the positive reenforcement comment involved more tongue than my cheek could handle.
Ah, I see. Good one. Sarcasm is great stuff.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I dont think any weapon that "fires" can be used in the cell block area of a prison- it becomes to easy for an inmate to take away and use.
none of the two, thank you. It seems to me that you're the one that is not able to see that the effects of torture are in both cases the same. You don't neither consider that under Saddam people tortured were considered criminals. Same under Bush. And in both the cases we see that some people tortured were innocents, others were guilty, but still even if guilty they could have faced different treatment (I suppose you don't know the laws against ill-treatment, if you don't distinguish what a guard can or can't do, eh?)
www.amnesty.org.uk
Again, you define torture as what falls under the "laws against ill-treatment." You're not actually defining what torture actually is. It sounds like you need to re-read the milgrim experiment link I provided earlier in the thread.
Also, this isn't about innocent people vs. guilty people. This is about torture. You keep throwing words like Saddam and Bush out there, but dropping names doesn't explain what torture is.
Again, I'm going to break it down for you nice and simple so you can't talk your way around it.
Saddam's torture: Senseless, unprovoked beatings
vs.
A dog being used to subdue a non-compliant prisoner.
Again, what you're trying to say is that they are the same, when they, in fact, are not.
You see, all you know is that Saddam = torture and Bush = torture because that's what you've been taught to believe by the media and human rights groups and so forth and so on.
And it's true. Under those regimes, torture was committed.
But, now you've read an article that says controlled use of dogs = torture.
You don't really know why, but your brain is saying, "If this article is calling controlled use of dogs torture, then Saddam = Bush = controlled use of dogs."
You lack the capacity to understand what makes them fundamentally different. And this has been proven by how you really haven't been able to explain exactly why the controlled use of dogs = torture. You just keep saying:
Use of dogs = torture because saddam = torture and bush = torture
You've been brainwashed. And again, the proof is that you don't know what defines torture. That is, you haven't been able to explain what makes the controlled use of dogs inhumane. I've read all your posts in this thread and you haven't done it once. All you know is who commits it. And you know this because it's what the media tells you.
When trying to explain what makes the use of dogs torture, yours answers have been the following:
Now, instead of repeating what the media has fed you, try coming up with an explanation on your own as to what exactly makes the controlled use of dogs to subdue a non-compliant prisoner "torture".
Imagine having to give a presentation to a human rights organization. The presentation is going to convince the organization why the controlled use of dogs to subdue non-compliant prisoners is inhumane.
So far, your presentation consists of "Saddam committed torture" and "Bush committed torture" and "It's the same thing as the torture that Bush and Saddam committed." That is literally all you've been able to say. I just don't see how your presentation would've convinced anybody of anything.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
It's a deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical or psychological pain as an expression of cruelty, a means of intimidation or deterrent. It is also a tool in an attempt to force another person to confess, to yield, or just to keep this person 'in his/her place'.
If you have a phobia of spiders, someone knowingly locking you up in a room with a dozen or so spiders to scare you/to get something out of you, is commiting an act of torture as this would inflict great psychological distress.
A menancing attack dog would have the same effect.
Obviously, one may perceive there are varying 'levels' of torture, but whatever level depending on what is done and who it is inflicted upon, the result is the same... pain and fear for the person at the receiving end and cruelty from the person on the 'giving' end.
We all know what torture means.. Torture is a harsh word. I find it difficult to come to terms with, because of the implication it has in our 'civilised' world. It rears it's ugly head in everyday life when we would rather keep it for situations such a war, etc.
First off, you compared the use of dogs to the use of spiders on someone who has a phobia of spiders. By using that comparison, you assume that these prisoners have a phobia of dogs. A spider is useful pretty much when people have a phobia of spiders. A dog is useful regardless of phobias. So, the comparison isn't one that is linear and applicable. sorry.
Secondly, you bring up the definition of torture:
The same definition could just as easily apply to just about every other submission tactic used by law enforcement. Could it not? Let's replace the word dog with the word nightstick. They are interchangeable. The only difference is that one is less dangerous to the officer.
A menacing dog is scary. But so is being threatened with a nightstick. If someone acts like he's ready to crack a person's skull with a nightstick, that person is going to be terrified. This is called the "menacing" use of a nightstick.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I worked with people tortured in Chile. Notice that people were not "innocent": under the eyes of the authorities they were dangerous people. let's not discuss here if it was true or if that's propaganda from the government of pinochet. Let's just say that pinochet wanted information and used what i call "torture".
I worked also with people tortured in israeli jails. Also here they might have been innocent or not, we don't know.
Most of these people were forced to drink their own pee, to have information estracted. Others were binded to their chairs, on their knees for more than 48 hours, so that they were unable to move when freed.
Others were left blindfolded for days. They could hear gilrs screaming and the guards were telling them that they were raping their wives.
They had mock executions.
I can go on very long. You can find out about other methods in many human rights sites in internet.
Most of the people that i met had still psycological problems for that after many years (consider that people were tortured in chile and argentina more than 20 years ago..). Still, after all those years, they tried suicide, had nightmares and fears for which they were unable to have a normal life and a job, suffered of permanent injuries.
This is what i mean for torture. I didn't use definitions.
You might argue that the situation in us jails is differnt, because dogs are used "for a reason". well, if you talk to the torturers they will always have good reason for what they do ("security", blah blah).
Now, stop telling me that i was brainwashed, because i suspect that i have more direct experience than you.
www.amnesty.org.uk
www.amnesty.org.uk
Wow. all that and you still weren't able to explain why dogs amount to torture...amazing.
No, seriously, you didn't even try to explain it. All you did was bring up examples of torture and then say that dogs are the same thing.
And then instead of explaining why the use of dogs amounts to torture, you just said, "I have experience...."
That is what's what's known as an appeal to authority. It's a fallacy of reasoning. It's what's behind the milgrim experiements. Quite amazing, actually...you are a real life perfect example of what people are thinking when they blindly follow authority.
At least redrock had the sense to say that dogs amount to terror just as spiders amount to terror for people who have phobias. At least he was sort of in the right track in that he was really trying to explain the actual effects that dogs have. It was just too bad that he forgot that most prisoners probably don't have a phobia of dogs.
And also, in case you missed that part, I made a clear example of how the definition of torture easily applies to "legal" methods currently in usage. It's just a matter of understanding the context.
Now, again, without using the appeal to authority (ie the fact that you have "experience") try explaining exactly why the controlled use of dogs to subdue a non-compliant prisoner amounts to torture. Like I mentioned, you haven't even done that part yet.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
www.amnesty.org.uk
That's what I thought. You really actually have nothing to say. You haven't been able to explain what you claim to be your own point of view.
In other words, you don't have a point of view. You just want me to understand that you have "experience" and that you work for an organization that oversees government activities.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
www.amnesty.org.uk
Puck = doesn't know how to explain what torture is in his own words.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
We like to see ourselves as responsible human beings.. we're horrified at some of the pictures we see on TV (not just war but other news...) but we have trouble in admitting to ourselves that the kind of attitude we have by condoning setting the attack dogs on prisoners (admit it... we're all scared of growling dogs, with teeth bared, ready to pounce on you!
I don't have answers as to how to get the prisonners out of their cells (have already said so in a post) but attack dogs are over the top.
I'm hoping not as I would like to keep some faith in law enforcement and I'm hoping that the definition does not apply to the majority of law enforcers.
An organization that tries to keep us 'human'... even without the debate we're having here, it is important that such organisations exist and take action. Again, it doesn't show us (in the very broad term of us) in a very good light, but it points out 'mistakes' and offers us the possibility to correct these.
Taking out any political debate, I am grateful these organisations exist, along with the Red Cross, Medicins Sans Frontieres, etc...