Talk:Torture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Torture article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
48px} This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Dubious

Modern sensibilities have been shaped by a profound reaction to the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Axis Powers in the Second World War, which have led to a sweeping international rejection of most if not all aspects of the practice.

This sounds as if the Nazis simply went a little too far, and as a result people got overly emotional about it and were stupid enough to "sweepingly" forbid all torture, even including the good and useful torture such as the one used by the US government. In fact, humanists and progressives realized both the inefficiency and the inhumanity of torture for decades if not centuries before the Nazis. The opposite claim requires a citation.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Any torture, of course, goes "too far" according to any humanist, irrespective of the regime. It reflects the depravity of the ruling elite (and, yes, that applies to American tortures in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib).

The Nazis brought torture to places that had fully accepted the Enlightenment concept that torture is abominable, inexcusable, and ineffective contrary to the sensibilities of the conquered peoples. That it continued in the Soviet Union and other "socialist" states reflects that fanaticism and vindictiveness that degrade the "enemies of the people" into dehumanized pariahs against whom no abuse is understood as excessive. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dictionary definitions.

The lead has been wandering from a clear definition of torture.

The Oxford English Dictionary gives for its first two definitions for torture as a noun

  1. The infliction of severe bodily pain, as punishment or a means of persuasion; spec. judicial torture, inflicted by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority, for the purpose of forcing an accused or suspected person to confess, or an unwilling witness to give evidence or information; a form of this (often in pl.). to put to (the) torture, to inflict torture upon, to torture.
  2. Severe or excruciating pain or suffering (of body or mind); anguish, agony, torment; the infliction of such.

And as a verb:

  1. trans. To inflict torture upon, subject to torture; spec. to subject to judicial torture; put to the torture. Also absol.

It seems to me that given the above we should go back to the us of the UN definition at the start of the article --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uses of torture in recent times

Singling out two states from all the states listed in the Uses of torture in recent times leads to biased and is not a WP:NPOV. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

How so? No one is singling out any country as the edit mentioned every democratic country (all two of them) where torture is condoned by the state and did so with neutral terminology so to revert is POV. Refering to Uses of torture in recent times shows no other that could be added. If you can name other countries then I suggest you add them to the Uses article. Wayne (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually you might have an argument for removing the UK from the edit as they have not condoned torture since 1972 but it depends on what you class as recent. I'd prefer to leave them in as 1972 falls within the memory of most people. Wayne (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If you take modern times to be the same as the article since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then there are many states that have used torture. In what you have written there are several embedded POVs What is a "democratic state"? What is "torture"? "pressure was brought to bear to use torture" but equally one could write 'pressure was brought not to use torture' and there was more pressure brought not to use torture (as the Parker Report and the European commission and ECHR trials testify) than to use it. Further the British government was not pressured to use torture but to use "a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
What name would you use instead of "democratic"? We are talking state condoned in democratic "free" countries. Inhuman and degrading treatment to an Iraqi qualifies as mental torture under the UN definition because of their culture. You need to prove the edit "singles out" any country. Wayne (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You write above "Inhuman and degrading treatment to an Iraqi qualifies as mental torture under the UN definition because of their culture." Has there been a court case that makes this ruling, because the conventions are clear in making a distinction? Are you really claiming that there is no difference under law?

The ECHR ruled that the five techniques as practised by Britain in the 1970s were "a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment" not torture. You have not addressed the bias in the wording you choose to use "pressure was brought to bear to use torture" when one could write 'pressure was brought not to use torture'. You still have not defined what democratic means.

The allegations against the US et all were moved out of this article into another one and I think it show a form of bias to present a few countries out of those listed in the article Uses of torture in recent times (a very incomplete list) and list them on this page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Again you are missing the point. We can't say "pressure was brought not to use torture" because that pressure did not come from the state which is the subject. There is no bias in "presenting a few countries out of those listed in the article" because the edit presents ALL (ie:100%) of the countries in that article for which the claim is applicable. Feel free to add any other country that the claim applies to. Whatever bias the original editor had for adding the paragraph is irrelevant because it is the accurracy and relevance of the edit I am defending. To remove it without legitimate cause is bias. Wayne (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
We can't say "pressure was brought not to use torture" because that pressure did not come from the state which is the subject Yes we can take the Parker report for example. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sure pressure is brought not to break the law in most countries, or else it would not be the law. Torture occurs when that pressure is removed. The five techniques were only found not to be torture by the ECHR on appeal by the UK Government, but was still illegal but they agreed to call it something different. The European Convention on Human Rights forbids inhuman and degrading treatment, so the difference between this and torture is a just a form of words- a form however which allows Condoleeza Rice to be able to deny that the US uses "torture" even though it does. To paraphrase Shakespeare "torture does never prosper and here's the reason- for if it prosper none dare call it torture" (OK so it doesn't rhyme) --Streona (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Sates which have Condoned Torture in Recent Times

1. United Kingdom 2. USA 3. France 4. Israel 5. Iraq 6. Pakistan

and probably India and Sri Lanka. Is Iran democratic- Ahminejad was certainly voted in, although as many opposition parties were banned this is only partially true. The same can be said of Zimbabwe. Any more ? Brazil or Jamaica ? More than just two. --Streona (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stockdale

The article on Stockdale states that he did reveal information about the Gulf of Tonkin incident.--Streona (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Algerian Death Squad

I posted a statement about coercion upon members of the Algerian Army. I cannot source this as it was based upon a personal interview with a man who had refused to participate any more after having bayonetted a mother with a child in her arms. He was imprisoned and tortured by being fed salted food and deprived of water and then jetted by high pressure hoses. He was discharged, due to becoming medically unfit as a result of his torture. The rebels then visited him and stabbed him in the heart (which he survived). Obviously I cannot give his name or further details.--Streona (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

good point but do you have a source for the specific accusation?--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, except my ex client.--Streona (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Waterboarding and Guantanamo

NPOV means not even mentioning the mere words, let alone the international dispute of the practices of the present US government?!
In my opinion, more likely a miscomprehension of "political correctness" and a misuse of NPOV. Very sad, for the tortured, for the wikipedia and for the mentality of a (the 'ruling') part of the american society.

I have placed a link on the article Waterboarding to the wikipedia page, where it is defined as a form of torture.--Streona (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)