Talk:Prisoner abuse/Archive 1

Archive 1

law enforcement

For this article to be comprehensive, it should include forms of abuse that have been or are currently used in the criminal justice system, not merely those that are used in prisoner-of-war type situations. Of course, the subject matter is difficult: what one person considers abusive may be considered by another to be justifiable punishment. Nonetheless, it might be best to point out various activities that are considered abusive, while also giving alternative viewpoints. The items could be placed in descending order of severity, with the clearest cases of abuse at the top and more controversial cases further below.

Having said all of this, I may not be the best person to write about it since I might tend to have a bias in favor of prisoners. Still, let me mention a few items of which I have knowledge, and which I believe should be considered in an article on prisoner abuse:

Intentionally providing disliked prisoners the opportunity to be attacked by other prisoners Capricious changes in rules to keep prisoners off-guard Unreasonable punishments for minor infractions (e.g. solitary confinement for having "too many linens") Various unpredictable punishments during solitary confinement such as: -denial of daily time outside cell -confiscation of personal items such as books -refusal of incoming mail -denial of daily phone calls -denial of hygienic items such as razors -confusion of time through unnatural use of lighting or by providing "out" time in the middle of the night

There are a lot of other ways prison guards exploit their power over inmates, but these are the ones that immediately come to mind for me.

Thanks, 68.162.165.137 21:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)B

Links

Article needs better links to Abu Ghraib scandal. --Uncle Ed 17:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate section

"Allegations of prisoner abuse by the U.S. military" is inappropriate in this section. More appropriate would be for this section to be included in a US military page, however this section brings question into the globality of the pag and is erroneous. My suggestion would be to replace the section with something simple like "There have been many allegations of prisoner abuse by various military departments internationally. These allegations have spanned centuries and continue to be alleged, even in more recent military prisoner situations such as the East Timor civil war and the Iraq & Afghanistan Wars."

This isn't exactly as it should be (as it needs revising), but it's something of an indication of what would make this page then appear to represent a global and unbiased point of view.

--linca^linca 03:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Vandalism?

Where did the entire article go? I'm pretty sure I visited this one a while ago and it had about five times more content than now. Now it has next to no information and no links. I was looking for the experiment carried out as a prison simulation where the designated "Guards" were performing sadistic acts on the "prisoners" within days, and I was using this article because I didn't know the actual name, but now because the entire article's gone, I can't find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.10.3 (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

Democrats howling for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for not informing them of reports of prisoner abuse in Baghdad are ignoring the fact that concerned parents of an accused soldier informed 16 members of Congress - top Democrats such as Sens. Hillary Clinton, Teddy Kennedy and John D. Rockefeller - and the governor of Virginia of the burgeoing scandal as far back as Feb. 26. [1]

Despite the fact that the military was investigating itself, liberals pretended (a) that there was no investigation but (b) only a cover-up. Neither is true.

Congress was briefed officially by the Pentagon. (I guess without lurid photos to grab headlines, liberals saw no point in bringing the matter up. And the Pentagon correctly chose to investigate the matter as quietly as possible: you get the facts more quickly and accurately that way)

One republican and 15 democrats were informed (unofficially) by a soldier's uncle - and again chose to say and do nothing. It was only when CBS (an major Bush opponent) got hold of the lurid photos that they did anything. Sounds more like an organized PR campaign to "get" Bush and/or Rumsfeld than any genuine concern for Iraq, Iraqis or the the principle of righteousness.

Please help me to write a neutral article, rather than one which endorses the liberal POV. I want:

• the facts, in the order in which they happened.
• the facts, in the order in which they were discovered.
• comments, by liberals accusing the US of "deliberate, concerted, approved abuses"
• comments (by anyone, regardless of party or spectrum), defending the US: e.g., it wasn't torture, it wasn't approved, England deserves prison, etc.

Please don't waste our time saying I want the "right wing" POV. I'm not a right-winger (that's like calling me a fascist; HITLER was a fascist). I'm looking for a balanced article which instead of taking ONE point of view as a given, presents multiple POVs.

If opposing the "pure liberal POV domination" of a Wikipedia article makes me "anti-liberal" in your eyes, so be it. But if you take that line, you're tantamount to admitting that liberalism is opposed to neutral encyclopedia articles. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:14, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest that you get yourself a blog? Rants illustrated by anecdotes do not belong in encyclopedias. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:00, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:46, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

These comments push a serious point of view but if you are interested in some objective analysis then see my own research on the matter: http://tortureprotest.org/atrocities/guantanamo_bay - inducing hypothermia in someone seems like torture to me! I can't recall if the report I cite in my analysis points out specifically which incidents were approved by Rumsfeld but I recall that the use of climate control was in fact. Reading the report listed as a reference (see the right hand side) would be a good starting point for you. However, it seems to me that this belongs in Prisoner abuse related to the War on Terror or some similarly named article rather than specifically in here. Triddle 22:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is unnecessary and appears biased for the list to mention both enhanced interrogation and torture. It specifically outlines something as abuse, even if it can be assumed not to be torture. It is as simple as this: if the methods used can be considered torture, then they are abuse, but they can be mentioned in the "torture" article rather than this one. If they are not torturous acts, then they are not abusive acts, but rather, permissable under the Geneva Convention.

It does not appear to hold NPOV as it is right now, because it puts specific emphasis on a very specific case. If we were to be neutral, it would have a bullet related to every instance of torture or alleged torture throughout history, or none.JosCol (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)