U.S.: Attack Dogs Used Against Prisoners
Comments
-
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.0 -
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.sponger wrote:You've been brainwashed. And again, the proof is that you don't know what defines torture.
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
www.amnesty.org.uk0 -
it depends what you want to obtain: in abu grahib and guantanamo they used both dogs and phobias.sponger wrote: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.
well, you know: a lot of countries don't use as much force as you paint is needed. Maybe alternatives are possible?sponger wrote: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.www.amnesty.org
www.amnesty.org.uk0 -
Puck78 wrote: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.0 -
*yawn*, blah, blah... next one, please...sponger wrote: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.www.amnesty.org
www.amnesty.org.uk0 -
Puck78 wrote:*yawn*, blah, blah...
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.0 -
http://www.onemoreblog.org/images/munch-urlo.jpgsponger wrote: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.www.amnesty.org
www.amnesty.org.uk0 -
0
-
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.Sponger wrote: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.0 -
sponger wrote: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...0 -
redrock wrote: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...
I'm not saying they shouldn't exist. I'm sure they do a lot of good. But, we can't assume that they never do wrong. That would be totally illogical. Of cousre they do wrong from time to time. No organization or entity or person or anything of this earth is without some imperfection.
Sometimes people forget that. They start to think that since such and such organization says it's OK, then it MUST be OK. Or, they say since such and such organization says it's wrong, then it MUST be wrong. That is something I'll disagree with in a moment's notice as it is totally and utterly a whole bunch of bullshit - bullshit for people who can't explain their own point of view.0 -
sponger wrote:Sometimes people forget that. They start to think that since such and such organization says it's OK, then it MUST be OK. Or, they say since such and such organization says it's wrong, then it MUST be wrong. That is something I'll disagree with in a moment's notice as it is totally and utterly a whole bunch of bullshit - bullshit for people who can't explain their own point of view.
Too many things are happening in the world 'behind closed doors'. As with anything that it put in front of us, we need to look into it with open eyes and an open heart. A lot of these NGOs have people in places where news teams, etc will never dream of going - they are our only witnesses. I don't think they ask people to take what they say for granted but would like them to open up to what is happening.
And, as you, I do not take anything anyone says for granted. Politicians included! Should a person (or group of persons) in a position of power say what we are doing is right and you have to have blind faith in us... I would question it.....0 -
If it were up to me, prisoners would be subdued with no physical pain or emotional suffering or anything of that matter. But, as things stand as of the present moment, you cannot achieve subduction without a little bit of each, regardless of the sanctioned methods.
Tasers, nightsticks, stunguns...etc. all have an intimidating, physically threatening, and emotionally discomforting aspect to them. But, those methods are all sanctioned because we as a society see them as being necessary to enforce compliance.
The only (and I mean the ONLY) difference is that a dog has a psychological impact prior to its ever being used. The prisoner becomes terrified and then submits.
In which case, the use of tasers, nightsticks and stunguns are avoided. The prisoner was so scared of the dog that he submitted. Then he went about his day and the dog was put back into the kennel. Instead of being stunned, whacked with a nightstick (sure to cause bruises), or incapacitated with tear gas, the prisoner just decided it wasn't worth getting doggy teeth sunk into his leg or arm.
Just how in the world that amounts to torture is beyond me, really. No one is deliberately trying to traumatize the prisoner for the sake of being sadistic. To me, that is what defines torture. If force is used excessively and unnecessarily and has no other purpose other than to cause discomfort to the prisoner, then we have an instance of torture.
If the prisoner still does not comply, then obviously he was not that scared of the dog. Obviously, the emotional trauma just isn't happening. So that whole "psychological torture" trip goes right out the window with that one.
And stranger yet is the comparison between this an abu gharib. At Abu Gharib, the guards were undeniably being sadistic. There was absolutely no reason to use those dogs. That force is totally unnecessarily and strictly being imposed for the purpose of causing discomfort to the prisoner.
And that's the huge difference between the two. To make a correlation is to not understand what sadism really and truly is. If you ask me, that's kind of scary - people not knowing what the difference is between sadism and necessary and practical use of force.0 -
sponger wrote:If it were up to me, prisoners would be subdued with no physical pain or emotional suffering or anything of that matter. But, as things stand as of the present moment, you cannot achieve subduction without a little bit of each, regardless of the sanctioned methods.
Tasers, nightsticks, stunguns...etc. all have an intimidating, physically threatening, and emotionally discomforting aspect to them. But, those methods are all sanctioned because we as a society see them as being necessary to enforce compliance.
The only (and I mean the ONLY) difference is that a dog has a psychological impact prior to its ever being used. The prisoner becomes terrified and then submits.
In which case, the use of tasers, nightsticks and stunguns are avoided. The prisoner was so scared of the dog that he submitted. Then he went about his day and the dog was put back into the kennel. Instead of being stunned, whacked with a nightstick (sure to cause bruises), or incapacitated with tear gas, the prisoner just decided it wasn't worth getting doggy teeth sunk into his leg or arm.
Just how in the world that amounts to torture is beyond me, really. No one is deliberately trying to traumatize the prisoner for the sake of being sadistic. To me, that is what defines torture. If force is used excessively and unnecessarily and has no other purpose other than to cause discomfort to the prisoner, then we have an instance of torture.
If the prisoner still does not comply, then obviously he was not that scared of the dog. Obviously, the emotional trauma just isn't happening. So that whole "psychological torture" trip goes right out the window with that one.
And stranger yet is the comparison between this an abu gharib. At Abu Gharib, the guards were undeniably being sadistic. There was absolutely no reason to use those dogs. That force is totally unnecessarily and strictly being imposed for the purpose of causing discomfort to the prisoner.
And that's the huge difference between the two. To make a correlation is to not understand what sadism really and truly is. If you ask me, that's kind of scary - people not knowing what the difference is between sadism and necessary and practical use of force.
But its mean! Poor dog has to taste human filth.
Why go home
www.myspace.com/jensvad0 -
A guard using a stick or some other weapon because someone refuses to come out of his cell(it would be different if the guard was attacked,then it becomes defence)is also unnessary force in my opinion.But why i think that it becomes torture when a dog is send in there....the prisoner is not going to know what the dog is capable of,also a dog is not going to stand trial if he "accidently "kills or seriously injures a prisoner.A guard that beats someone to death with a blow to the head with a night stick will have to answer for his actions.It is torture because of two things combined...the psycological effect and the physical injuries that they might get.When a dog is sent in there is a loss of controle over what might happen.The prisoner can freak out and the smell of fear can trigger a dog....howe well trained it may be.When something can be resolved without fear and physical wounds and they choose to take the "solution" that does have those effects ....in my eyes it is torture.And the previous line does not mean that i think milk and cookies wil do the trick.0
-
Well, you're assuming the prisoner does not know what the dog is capable of. I think it's pretty much common knowledge that the dog is going to bite down real hard on the arm or on the leg and not let go until the police man says heel.
Also, you're assuming that the policeman will be held liable for his actions. Only when he is caught on video is that the case. If a cop bashes a guy's head in and is not caught on vidoe, then all said cop has to do is say the guy was resisting and became a danger to the officers. Happens all the time.
Also, you're again citing the possibility that the cop might lose control of the dog. This is such a rare occurrence that I don't think it's really relevant to the issue at hand. There's a much higher chance of a good nightstick bashing than of a dog tearing out a person's artery.
But, you did say that nightsticks are also inhumane and should also be removed from the hands of prison guards. So, that just leaves tasers, tear gas, pepper spray...etc. Those just aren't all that effective against your average violent criminal. Once that person resists, it usually has to get physical. At least with the threat of the dog, the physical confrontation is minmized.0 -
I've read this thread and I have the feeling that there is something forgotten here.
Last I heard, prison is supposed to be a place where criminal are kept away from society because of their behavior, both as punishment AND as a place where they're supposed to be helped re-integrating their place.
And no, violence never solved anything except in video games, which I'm really fond of
Reality isn't what it used to be.0 -
Jackhammer wrote:Last I heard, prison is supposed to be a place where criminal are kept away from society because of their behavior, both as punishment AND as a place where they're supposed to be helped re-integrating their place.
As a result of circumstances that are beyond our control, there currently exists a difference between the way things are supposed to be and the way things must be. The dog and other forms of physical restraint are a necessity. The money, the technology, and the resources aren't available to make prisons the rehabilitative utopia that we as an idealistic people have envisioned. The best we can do for now is try to put ourselves in the cop's shoes and understand what the best solution is given the circumstances and the available means.0 -
wel i do see some logic in what you are saying....it just stil feels like a wrong thing to do in my opinion.But that is what it al comes down too...a difference of opinion.I wil never see it as a humain thing to do...not even if it is with somebody that has killed or raped (or what ever the crime may be)
And of course i am assuming...i do not say that in every case it wil be the same...but neither can you.You cannot be sure it wil never go wrong.
The fact that you say that an officer can get away with beating somebody to death makes me wonder if it is not just as easy(if not easier) to wait a litlle too long with yelling heel to the dog....so torture in my opinion.
But i think we are never going to agree...but then again who says we have too:D
So thanks for a good sharing of opinions sponger....you make strong points and stil stay polite,unlike some others here!
Nothing wrong with a good discussion!!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help