Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/06/scott-allen-md-lead.html#more

Here it is. The research about enhanced interrogation on war prisoners  is well research conducted on war prisoners.
A quite serious war crime.

A depeche from the associated press on the subject : http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i7_4JbLxkvRy4dt8HV4hUJqnr1VwD9G66T500

[Pathos]

Is it war prisoners or general prisoners? I mean, the way the US treats people without a trial is terrible, but as soon as someone violates someone else's human rights (and, of course, this has to be proven through a trial) they shouldn't have any themselves. Actually, this could make a thread on it's own.

[Soadreqm]

Nah, human rights apply to all humans, even the ones who are dicks. You can't do involuntary human research on regular prisoners either, although that's generally more regulated since the CIA generally doesn't get involved.

How would that even work? Could doctors start testing torture methods on the previous doctors who tested torture methods? ._.

[Pathos]

Nah, human rights apply to all humans, even the ones who are dicks.

Sure, but when you rape and murder someone, you should no longer count as human. You're a monster, to be put down.

[ChairmanPoo]

Nah, human rights apply to all humans, even the ones who are dicks.

Sure, but when you rape and murder someone, you should no longer count as human. You're a monster, to be put down.

Or steal someone's avatar, for that matter

[Phmcw]

Pathos, please stop derailing the tread. This have nothing to do with the article, and is a pretty debatable position.

[Pathos]

Pathos, please stop derailing the tread. This have nothing to do with the article, and is a pretty debatable position.

I don't really know if it has anything to do with the article. It claimed prisoners AND war detainees:-

Boing Boing: The first thing that came to mind as I read this report is that we're really talking about treating a vulnerable population—prisoners, war detainees—like lab rats.

I'm discussing the viewpoint that I have no real trouble with it being conducted on prisoners who don't deserve human rights. Then again, I don't know if they're meant to be two discrete variables or just "war prisoners". It's not very clear who the experiments are conducted on. Why should I take something seriously if it's incapable of outright telling me who it was conducted on?

Experiments in Torture is the first report to reveal evidence indicating that CIA medical personnel allegedly engaged in the crime of illegal experimentation after 9/11, in addition to the previously disclosed crime of torture. In their attempt to justify the war crime of torture, the CIA appears to have committed another alleged war crime—illegal experimentation on prisoners.[/quote

What prisoners, what were they imprisoned for? Acts of terrorism only? There are a great deal of mitigating circumstances in my (and I'm sure much of the public's) eyes. What sort of crime was it? Was it testing tolerance to pain? How do we know it wasn't voluntary (on a promise of an early release on the grounds of good behaviour if they volunteer)? None of this has been mentioned, it was merely, "PEOPLE WERE DEFINITELY EXPERIMENTED ON."

Or steal someone's avatar, for that matter

I am a terrible person. :p

[Soadreqm]

Sure, but when you rape and murder someone, you should no longer count as human. You're a monster, to be put down.

What about the executioner, then? If it's completely okay to kill rapists and murderers because they are no longer people, does that make it okay for insane vigilantes to rape and murder the non-people? How about killing someone and posthumously accusing them of rape? How would that legally work? And what if one of the murderer rapists is later found innocent? What if they're later found GUILTY; what if I rape and murder someone I don't know, and then during the investigation it's found that he was also a rapist or a murderer, which I did not know at the time of the rape-murder? Do I go free on a technicality, despite obviously being a danger to people around me? This system you propose clearly doesn't work.

And, like I already asked, could CIA have doctors test torture methods on the previous doctors?

Involuntary human medical experimentation has been decided to be WRONG, even if performed by a government-mandated professionals politely following their orders, performed on people who have been declared by the government to not really be people. Well, the Jews were later found to have been humans all along, but the point is that you can't just unperson someone on a majority vote. Not to imply that you even have one of those.

[fenrif]

Also note: War prisoners just means POWs. It could be a chef they captured wearing fatigues and doesn't necissarily mean someone who rapes and murders.

Also also note: The USA under the bush administration pretty much arrested anyone with brown skin as a terrorist and threw them in guantanamo or whever else they were holding 'terrorists' without a trial.

But aside from that, as Soadreqm said, human rights can't be conditional. It's a terribly slippery slope to say "everyone has these inalienable rights... except those guys" The concept only means something if it applies to everyone. "Human rights... for some" is pointless.

I wonder if they should add some sort of footnote to Godwin's law about Bush. In 8 years there was human experimentation, two invasions for dodgey reasons, torture, spying on his own citizens, suspending his own citizens rights, secret courts, secret laws, secret trials, etc...

[Pathos]

What about the executioner, then? If it's completely okay to kill rapists and murderers because they are no longer people, does that make it okay for insane vigilantes to rape and murder the non-people? How about killing someone and posthumously accusing them of rape? How would that legally work? And what if one of the murderer rapists is later found innocent? What if they're later found GUILTY; what if I rape and murder someone I don't know, and then during the investigation it's found that he was also a rapist or a murderer, which I did not know at the time of the rape-murder? Do I go free on a technicality, despite obviously being a danger to people around me? This system you propose clearly doesn't work.

And, like I already asked, could CIA have doctors test torture methods on the previous doctors?

Involuntary human medical experimentation has been decided to be WRONG, even if performed by a government-mandated professionals politely following their orders, performed on people who have been declared by the government to not really be people. Well, the Jews were later found to have been humans all along, but the point is that you can't just unperson someone on a majority vote. Not to imply that you even have one of those.

A great deal of convoluted examples that merely reinforce my point. If you can't find a whole in the reasoning at it's basic level (and subsequently have to make up flaws that're easily averted in advance) then there's no reason to distrust the concept. Like I said, post-trial (no worse than locking someone up for 15 years, in my opinion) and any use of it in defence doesn't count. Potentially could be used as mitigating evidence in a trial (especially on the topic of vigilante justice, but that's a question for another day). The system is sound, it merely needs a few bits of tweaking.

I'm not saying an eye for an eye. I'm not saying to rape rapists or sexually torture child abusers. I'm merely saying that forcefully abusing someone's human rights makes you less than human yourself.

If someone is incapable of functioning as a human, why should they have the rights of one?

[DJ]

You have a very odd definition of "human". They're called "human rights" rather than "good guy rights" for a reason.

[Pathos]

You have a very odd definition of "human".

Probably.

[fenrif]

So if a mentally handicapped person abuses someones human rights, they deserve to be experimented on?

You're not responding to Soadreqm's points at all, calling them conveluted examples and ignoring them doesn't really adress any of them.

Applying human rights to everybody, regardless of what they have done or who they are isn't done for their benefit. It's not for the benefit of the worst of the worse, to save them from horrible punishment, it's for our benefit. It's to save us from the slippery slope of picking and choosing who we allow to be human, who we protect from torture and experementation and all the other horrible things. It's a measure of our civilisation, it's why we were the good guys in WW2.

If it's a blanket thing, that applies to every human then no corrupt official, government, or coorperation can say "yeah we fucked these people over horribly, but they did something bad too so its ok." It's a baseline level of how ALL humans should be treated, anywhere on the earth. Not something you pick and choose.

[Josephus]

Also also note: The USA under the bush administration pretty much arrested anyone with brown skin as a terrorist and threw them in guantanamo or whever else they were holding 'terrorists' without a trial.

That's an unfair generalization. They didn't arrest me or anyone I know, for example.

[fenrif]

yeah ok, I was exaggerating for effect, but there were many instances of people being arrested and put in guantanamo without trial for basically nothing.