6 ms·

His first stop in the US justice system would almost certainly be solitary confinement, which is widely held to be a form of torture. I suppose he might not be

His first stop in the US justice system would almost certainly be solitary confinement, which is widely held to be a form of torture. I suppose he might not be thrown into solitary; he might be kept with other prisoners who have been told that he is a CIA assassin sent to kill them: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/john-kiriakou-letter_n_3359938.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/john-kiriakou-lette...

rayiner 13y ago
Jesus, solitary confinement is not "widely held to be a form of torture." That's totally absurd and makes the term meaningless.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  It's not a widely held belief, but I found this article convincing. Yes, a leftist rag. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_... I think most people don't think it's torture simply because they don't really know what it's like, haven't experienced it, can't readily imagine why it would be painful, etc.
  - pekk 13y ago
    Is anything that someone really hates and doesn't want torture just because it's incredibly awful?
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Yes. Because we're not supposed to be mean to criminals.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - clicks 13y ago
        But at least you agree that it falls under even the most loose interpretation of a "cruel and unusual" punishment and is thus unconstitutional? Or no?
        rayiner 13y ago
        Considering that the First Congress authorized the death penalty for crimes like counterfeiting, and punishments like the pillory were still in use in the U.S. until well into the 1800's, no, I don't think the founders would have understood solitary confinement to be "cruel and unusual." The rack, drawing and quartering, flaying, etc, that's what the 8th amendment refers to.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        gruseom 13y ago
        I seem to recall you making a surprisingly originalist comment about the US Constitution before, as well. Do you really think the meaning of "cruel and unusual" doesn't evolve as we learn more over centuries? All kinds of things now regarded as indisputably abusive were taken for granted in the past (child abuse, to name one—or flogging for that matter). Solitary confinement seems like just this sort of thing, although one that is still somewhat early on the curve.
        rayiner 13y ago
        Even if you're one of those "living Constitution" people, at the very least terms like "cruel and unusual" must be defined relative to the broadly accepted social mores of the time. And treating solitary confinement as torture isn't just early on the curve, its something only a tiny minority of hyperliberals would consider to be true. I don't think the Constitution should be at the leading edge of social thought. It should lag behind until ideas are so clearly accepted as to be "obvious." Otherwise, it becomes a tool for peddling minority social viewpoints, which undermines its legitimacy in other regards. We're already feeling the effects of that today.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Hell, even I would agree that prolonged solitary confinement probably counts as torture. That is the kind of thing that really should be reserved for those who simply cannot safely be around anyone. However, if it were possible to do this without the subsequent mental trauma that would follow then that might be a different story. E.g. virtual social interaction (with other prisoners/guards) might be feasible, we certainly seem to get a lot of people who wall themselves away from others IRL so that they can play their online video games. But even with that I don't see how that would be a more resource-efficient way to handle the task of rehabilitation where possible and humane segregation from society for the rest. I think we have to figure that at some point almost any 'stick' in a carrot/stick system can, with overuse, become more dangerous to mental health than useful as a behavior modifier.
- clicks 13y ago
  No you don't get to decide what can be termed torture or not. A day or two ago you said it's "debatable" whether or not torture happened at Guantanamo Bay ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6007152 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6007152 ). Me? I think strangling and pulling someone on a leash while the individual is naked is torture: http://i.imgur.com/egrawlu.jpg http://i.imgur.com/egrawlu.jpg That said, solitary confinement over long periods of time is definitely torture. There's a stronger psychological component to this form of torture, and it often causes irreparable psychological damage as has been the case for several individuals who were subject to solitary confinement.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Why are you talking about Guantanamo, but linking to a picture from Abu Ghraib, while linking to a post where I clearly point out that when I talk about Guantanamo, I'm not talking about Abu Ghraib?
    - clicks 13y ago
      Sorry, confusion on my part.
- lhnz 13y ago
  Solitary confinement is psychological torture. The effect is to deteriorate the mind. If people end up having panic attacks afterwards clearly it has caused them damage. Whether it's widely held by the masses to be torture is of no importance because they have just as little knowledge as yourself. Educate yourself in what psychiatrists, the United Nations, and Human Rights groups have been saying for a long time before stepping forth onto your soap box to call this "absurd."

rayiner 13y ago

Jesus, solitary confinement is not "widely held to be a form of torture." That's totally absurd and makes the term meaningless.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
It's not a widely held belief, but I found this article convincing. Yes, a leftist rag. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_... I think most people don't think it's torture simply because they don't really know what it's like, haven't experienced it, can't readily imagine why it would be painful, etc.
- pekk 13y ago
  Is anything that someone really hates and doesn't want torture just because it's incredibly awful?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Yes. Because we're not supposed to be mean to criminals.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - clicks 13y ago
      But at least you agree that it falls under even the most loose interpretation of a "cruel and unusual" punishment and is thus unconstitutional? Or no?
      - rayiner 13y ago
        Considering that the First Congress authorized the death penalty for crimes like counterfeiting, and punishments like the pillory were still in use in the U.S. until well into the 1800's, no, I don't think the founders would have understood solitary confinement to be "cruel and unusual." The rack, drawing and quartering, flaying, etc, that's what the 8th amendment refers to.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        gruseom 13y ago
        I seem to recall you making a surprisingly originalist comment about the US Constitution before, as well. Do you really think the meaning of "cruel and unusual" doesn't evolve as we learn more over centuries? All kinds of things now regarded as indisputably abusive were taken for granted in the past (child abuse, to name one—or flogging for that matter). Solitary confinement seems like just this sort of thing, although one that is still somewhat early on the curve.
        rayiner 13y ago
        Even if you're one of those "living Constitution" people, at the very least terms like "cruel and unusual" must be defined relative to the broadly accepted social mores of the time. And treating solitary confinement as torture isn't just early on the curve, its something only a tiny minority of hyperliberals would consider to be true. I don't think the Constitution should be at the leading edge of social thought. It should lag behind until ideas are so clearly accepted as to be "obvious." Otherwise, it becomes a tool for peddling minority social viewpoints, which undermines its legitimacy in other regards. We're already feeling the effects of that today.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Hell, even I would agree that prolonged solitary confinement probably counts as torture. That is the kind of thing that really should be reserved for those who simply cannot safely be around anyone. However, if it were possible to do this without the subsequent mental trauma that would follow then that might be a different story. E.g. virtual social interaction (with other prisoners/guards) might be feasible, we certainly seem to get a lot of people who wall themselves away from others IRL so that they can play their online video games. But even with that I don't see how that would be a more resource-efficient way to handle the task of rehabilitation where possible and humane segregation from society for the rest. I think we have to figure that at some point almost any 'stick' in a carrot/stick system can, with overuse, become more dangerous to mental health than useful as a behavior modifier.
clicks 13y ago
No you don't get to decide what can be termed torture or not. A day or two ago you said it's "debatable" whether or not torture happened at Guantanamo Bay ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6007152 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6007152 ). Me? I think strangling and pulling someone on a leash while the individual is naked is torture: http://i.imgur.com/egrawlu.jpg http://i.imgur.com/egrawlu.jpg That said, solitary confinement over long periods of time is definitely torture. There's a stronger psychological component to this form of torture, and it often causes irreparable psychological damage as has been the case for several individuals who were subject to solitary confinement.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Why are you talking about Guantanamo, but linking to a picture from Abu Ghraib, while linking to a post where I clearly point out that when I talk about Guantanamo, I'm not talking about Abu Ghraib?
  - clicks 13y ago
    Sorry, confusion on my part.
lhnz 13y ago
Solitary confinement is psychological torture. The effect is to deteriorate the mind. If people end up having panic attacks afterwards clearly it has caused them damage. Whether it's widely held by the masses to be torture is of no importance because they have just as little knowledge as yourself. Educate yourself in what psychiatrists, the United Nations, and Human Rights groups have been saying for a long time before stepping forth onto your soap box to call this "absurd."