C.I.A.- Torture and Lies?

[EquALLity]

It's not subjective, it's semantic.

Oh, semantics. I've heard some of you guys on here talk about that before, and I've looked into it, but not much.
Here are some definitions I found:

se·man·tic
/səˈman(t)ik/
adjective
adjective: semantic
relating to meaning in language or logic.

1.Semantic is defined as the meaning or interpretation of a word or sentence.

Meaning relating to interpretation of words? Isn't interpretation subjective also?
Unless it actually means something else?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain

Waterboarding is not painful, in the proper sense. It's neither damaging, or potentially damaging to tissues. It's a state of panic induced by a drowning reflex.

Oh, ok, I guess it *technically* isn't painful.

As to pain, no, it depends on the temperature and other conditions of the nerves. There's something called the pain threshold, where a sensory stimuli crosses from uncomfortable into painful; it's the point where your nerves tell your brain your tissue is being damaged (correctly or incorrectly). Temperatures that are low but not too low, or lowered gradually enough, may never lead to the pain threshold being crossed (although warming back up can be extremely painful even though it's not damaging).

Wait what? I thought things had to be damaging to be painful?

You have to paste it for every quote, individually.

Or, you can write it.
Anyway, I know. I just didn't feel like doing it for all of them, because I was only responding to one person, and not referencing anything. But I still wanted to show ya I could do it now.

[brimstoneSalad]

Meaning relating to interpretation of words? Isn't interpretation subjective also?
Unless it actually means something else?

The meanings of words are the root of virtually all arguments in philosophy.

E.g. Does god exist? Well, what does 'god' mean? Agree on that, and you're most of the way home.

Each person does understand and interpret words in his or her own way, so in that sense it is 'subjective', relative to the subject, in practice, but due to the way language works (that the purpose of language is to relay meaning between individuals, which requires them to be interpreted in the same way), the ideal of language and word meaning is relative only to the language itself, which is NOT subjective.

Or:

The reason people communicate so badly is because interpretations of words is subjective.
BUT language itself is supposed to be objective, and has to be, in order to function.
SO in each of those cases of miscommunication, somebody is wrong (sometimes both parties, sometimes there's a problem with the language itself lacking proper definition).

So, it's not subjective in the sense of 'everybody is right in their own way', but in the sense of 'this is what's wrong with the world'.
Language is and must be as an ideal (and in all correctness) inherently objective, or it fails at being language.

Oh, ok, I guess it *technically* isn't painful.

Which is why politicians can say it's also not technically torture to waterboard somebody.

And yet, it is obviously torture.

So, we have a problem where words are failing us and leading to misunderstandings (or outright deception).

Wait what? I thought things had to be damaging to be painful?

No, the nerves just have to fire in a way that reports that sensation to the brain; confused nerves still fire pain signals even when they're wrong.

"Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage."

E.g. ghost peppers are very painful to eat, but there's no real damage there; capsaicin just tricks the nerves into "thinking" they're on fire, and sending the signal that they're burning (describing to the brain the sensation in terms of that particular kind of damage).

So using spicy peppers to "burn" somebody without harming them is still torture, because it does create pain (the signals that the nerves send associated with tissue damage). The same with electricity. Platypus venom is another prime example (you would beg to be killed). There are plenty of ways to trick nerves and cause excruciating, world shattering, pain without any meaningful damage at all.

But waterboarding, nope, that's a different sensation. Not technically pain, so it's not technically torture, and it's just fine for the CIA to use liberally.

Unless we fix the definition of the words, and understand these concepts in more meaningful and more useful terms.

[EquALLity]

No, the nerves just have to fire in a way that reports that sensation to the brain; confused nerves still fire pain signals even when they're wrong.

Oh, ok.

But waterboarding, nope, that's a different sensation. Not technically pain, so it's not technically torture, and it's just fine for the CIA to use liberally.

Doesn't it trick the body into thinking it's drowning, though?
Would they even change if it was technically torture?

Among its findings, the report says that: “The CIA did not conduct a comprehensive or accurate accounting of the number of individuals it detained, and held individuals who did not meet its own legal standard for detention.”

The CIA acknowledged to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) in February 2006 that it had wrongly detained five individuals throughout the course of its detention programme. The report’s review of CIA records indicates that at least 21 additional individuals, or a total of 26 of the 119 (22%), of detainees identified did not meet the CIA’s standard for detention.

The report calls the number “a conservative calculation” and notes it does not include “individuals about whom there was internal disagreement within the CIA over whether the detainee met the standard or not, or the numerous detainees who, following their detention and interrogation, were found not to ‘pose a continuing threat of violence or death to US persons and interests’ or to be ‘planning terrorist activities’.

With one exception, the reports says there are no CIA records that indicate that anyone was held accountable for “the detention of individuals the CIA itself determined were wrongfully detained.”

They don't really seem to give a shit.

[brimstoneSalad]

Doesn't it trick the body into thinking it's drowning, though?

Yes, and the sensation of drowning is not one of pain. It's panic.

Would they even change if it was technically torture?

Maybe; rhetoric is powerful. Even if calling something by a different name doesn't change any of the facts of the matter, it has a huge effect on perception of and understanding of the matter, which means much more than fact in practice.

That's why semantics are so important. Being right in using a certain word or not can mean the difference between victory and defeat in the field of rhetoric, which is the root of most politics.

[EquALLity]

Yes, and the sensation of drowning is not one of pain. It's panic.

I thought it didn't cause damage, and I was asking mostly for confirmation on that, because I had a lingering suspicion that it might. But I looked it up, and apparently, it can often cause brain damage. So I guess that's afterwards, and so it doesn't really matter, because it's not real drowning (Or is it something else?)? But it still tricks the body into thinking it's drowning, so I'm confused.

Maybe; rhetoric is powerful. Even if calling something by a different name doesn't change any of the facts of the matter, it has a huge effect on perception of and understanding of the matter, which means much more than fact in practice.

Would they even care if definitions are changed, and make waterboarding *technically* torture? Even if that happens, based on the things they have been doing, it doesn't seem like they would.

"The report’s review of CIA records indicates that at least 21 additional individuals, or a total of 26 of the 119 (22%), of detainees identified did not meet the CIA’s standard for detention."

[brimstoneSalad]

It's politics. They don't want to do things that are technically torture, because that sounds bad. It's just as easy to do other things that are not technically torture, as long as the definition is so lenient.

Why do you keep quoting that? That has nothing to do with torture. They just have lax detainment policies and enforcement.

[EquALLity]

Why do you keep quoting that? That has nothing to do with torture. They just have lax detainment policies and enforcement.

I'm quoting it because it shows that they don't care about those people. I didn't realize you were saying they would change for their image.

[brimstoneSalad]

I didn't realize you were saying they would change for their image.

Image is not just how others see you, but also how you see yourself.

It's not just that the public thinks "they don't torture people", it's that they tell themselves that too.

Look into cognitive dissonance.

Of course they care about these people... just like carnists 'care about animals'; but at the same time, they're usually delusional, and engaging in some seriously hypocritical and counterproductive behavior.

[EquALLity]

Image is not just how others see you, but also how you see yourself.

It's not just that the public thinks "they don't torture people", it's that they tell themselves that too.

Look into cognitive dissonance.

Of course they care about these people... just like carnists 'care about animals'; but at the same time, they're usually delusional, and engaging in some seriously hypocritical and counterproductive behavior.

Some carnists seem to think they do, but in reality, I think don't. For example, my dad says he cares about animals, and claims to know what goes on in slaughterhouses, but still eats meat because he "doesn't think that he would be able to sustain himself as a vegetarian," even though I've explained otherwise with sources. So maybe he thinks he cares about animals, or wants to, but...

I don't think that, at least the officials, care about those people. I remember reading that some interrogators wanted to stop sessions getting out of hand, but officials told them to proceed.
The report says that the C.I.A.'s chief of interrogations explained their rectal feeding as to implement "total control over the detainee."
They did this on some detainees, so probably on ones that by their standards weren't even supposed to be there in the first place.

How can they not think of that as wrong?
Maybe, they could just not make the connection (but really, how?). And now that I think about it, my dad's situation could be dissonance too. But how do you determine which it is?

Also, I don't know if you're responding to this now, but

I thought it didn't cause damage, and I was asking mostly for confirmation on that, because I had a lingering suspicion that it might. But I looked it up, and apparently, it can often cause brain damage. So I guess that's afterwards, and so it doesn't really matter, because it's not real drowning (Or is it something else?)? But it still tricks the body into thinking it's drowning, so I'm confused.

[EquALLity]

Update- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSBDcXDrn7w