No announcement yet.


  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Torture

    Posted by Barrett<script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,6,42,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> (Member # 67) on 08-11-2005 13:42<noscript>November 08, 2005 06:42 AM</noscript>:

    There’s a debate of sorts currently going on in the US about the use of torture. You probably know some of the issues if you watch any news at all. One side contends that its use while interrogating potential terrorists or those who support them should not be restricted by law and the other side wants it made illegal under any circumstances. I imagine there are those reading this on either side of the issue.

    What I feel might be useful for us dealing with painful problems would be a discussion of what might constitute torture, when it begins, what might aid another (or us) in recovery from it and how all of this might relate to our patient population and the care we provide.

    This is a difficult subject, I know, and that's precisely why I think we should discuss it openly.

    Let’s proceed carefully.
    <hr> Posted by Jon Newman (Member # 3148) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,11,0,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 08-11-2005 18:00<noscript>November 08, 2005 11:00 AM</noscript>:

    From Elaine Scarry's "The Body in Pain" (p. 28), she writes

    quote: <hr> Torture is in its largest outlines the invariable and simulatneous occurence of three phenomena which, if isolated into separate and sequential steps, would occur in the following order. First, pain is inflicted on a person in ever-intensifying ways. Second, the pain, continually amplified within the person's body, is also amplified in the sense that it is objectified, made visible to those outside the person's body. Third, the objectified pain is denied as pain and read as power, a tranlation made possible by the obessive mediation of agency. <hr>
    It's a start.

    <hr> Posted by Barrett (Member # 67) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,11,24,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 08-11-2005 18:24<noscript>November 08, 2005 11:24 AM</noscript>:


    From the same source (you knew I was going to go there, of course), Scarry points out that torture always begins in the same way-she says that pain “unmakes” us. That it systematically destroys our familiar world by reducing our ability to live in it in our familiar ways.

    Before pain begins we aren't permitted to move or speak in the ways we would prefer, in the ways which we find familiar and, perhaps, comforting. I'm thinking also of doing things that we might find authentic but so unfamiliar that they make us uncomfortable in some way. Forcing many people to "speak their mind" in front of others is more painful for them than the silence they normally suffer within. It's a complicated issue, and contemplating it reveals that quite clearly.

    So, I suppose we should try and confine our discussion here to the issues of physical pain we can speak of with some expertise. Of course I know that emotional pain is often simultaneously felt. I think many would agree it is commonly worse in a sense.

    Maybe torture has the added element of a loss of control. After all, when those who torture others begin their work they are deciding when another will hurt.
    <hr> Posted by tucker (Member # 2493) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,11,48,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 08-11-2005 18:48<noscript>November 08, 2005 11:48 AM</noscript>:

    Just a note..There was an excellent presentation on PT for torture survivors a few years back at the World PT Confederation Conference in Barcelona. It was an eye opener for those of us who have never treated patients post torture.
    <hr> Posted by Sebastian Asselbergs (Member # 174) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,11,58,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 08-11-2005 18:58<noscript>November 08, 2005 11:58 AM</noscript>:

    A careful foray....I think torture is mostly defined by the experience of the recipient of the actions. The most basic and universally recognised is physical pain, inflicted against will. More complex is behavioural/psychological (really: non-physical contact)torture: the threat of torture itself, deprevation of senses, food, freedom, or verbal abuse, denegration, ridicule etc. These seem to occur in many areas of life, including homes, workplaces, health care, bureaucracy,etc.
    The most common thread in all of the above is the perception of the recipient - THAT is the target of the torturer. And the senses are the entry into the victim's brain for him.

    It begins with a need to exert power over another; whether for information, revenge, perceived benefits for the person or society, or establishing superiority, or for personal satisfaction.

    Recovery, I think, begins with empathic empowerment of the torturee - helping rebuilt a sense of self-worth, wholeness and a sense of self-respect.

    The connection with physiotherapy may lie in the occasional abused patient coming under our care, the so often mistaken perception "it has to hurt to get better" in our PT practices, and those patients who come from situations of political torture.

    We may want to examine some common approaches in PT in this context - we are in the position of 'power" as "the professional"; painful techniques are tacitly accepted by many patients as "expected". This is far from intentional torture, and certainly not on the same level of abse, but it has similarities: some patients feel powerless, have pain, and no way out....
    Our college has emphasized the need for ongoing consent, repetitive interaction with the patient about techniques or approaches, to minimize the skewed power-relationship....

    man, when I ramble, I RAMBLE....
    <hr> Posted by Barrett (Member # 67) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,12,1,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 08-11-2005 19:01<noscript>November 08, 2005 12:01 PM</noscript>:


    No rambling as far as I can see.

    I agree though I have things to add. Given what you've said, what do you think of the all too common practice of therapists "joking" about torture?
    <hr> Posted by Jon Newman (Member # 3148) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,12,22,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 08-11-2005 19:22<noscript>November 08, 2005 12:22 PM</noscript>:

    More from Scarry,

    quote: <hr> In The First Circle, Solzhenitsyn describes how prisoners, while sleeping, were forced to keep their hands outside the blanket, and he writes, "It was a diabolical rule. It is a natural, deep-rooted, unnoticed human habit to hide one's hands while asleep, to hold them against one's body." The prisoner's body--in its physical strengths, in its sensory powers, in its need and wants, in its ways of self-delight, and finally even, as here, in its small and moving gestures of friendship toward itself--is, like the prisoners's voice, made a weapon against him, made to betray him on behalf of the enemy, made to be the enemy. <hr>
    Don't get me started on people who 'joke' about it. I spend too much time as it is dispelling this. Or least convincing people that the entire profession is not this way.

    <hr> Posted by Gil Haight (Member # 691) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,12,40,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 08-11-2005 19:40<noscript>November 08, 2005 12:40 PM</noscript>:

    Many years ago I heard someone speak to the practise of making fun of various disabilities. Her point was that PTs do have a great deal of freedom to do so without offending. Her reasons were related to our persistant struggle with and proximity to suffering and the tendency to make light of it to not become "burned out". To this day I believe we get away with this more than most. Joking about torture is kind of like that. It reminds me of the conventional parent who when disiplining a child indicates that although this is going to hurt it must be done. Obviously therapists who practise as such feel it is neccessary.
    Perhaps we simply make fun of the things we find difficult to face.
    <hr> Posted by Barrett (Member # 67) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,12,58,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 08-11-2005 19:58<noscript>November 08, 2005 12:58 PM</noscript>:


    I see your point.

    I'm referring however to those who seem to enjoy such a reputation and brag about it during those moments when it isn't an issue. They like it for the power it seems to give them. They "joke" about it because it's taboo to all others but not for them-they think they're special and unencumbered by the human decency others must bear. For them, levity eases no such burden because it doesn't exist.

    I've seen plenty of this over the years, and it sickens me.
    <hr> Posted by nari (Member # 2772) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,13,55,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 08-11-2005 20:55<noscript>November 08, 2005 01:55 PM</noscript>:

    Inflicting pain with intention of causing some suffering is, to me, a desire to control others and demonstrate a sense of power over others. Rather like rape. I have met a number of PTs over the years who have caused suffering, but not as a conscious act, rather as a blind conviction that it must hurt and maybe hurt a lot before things improve, and people who complain that it hurts, and end up in tears, are seen as "weak".

    Dogmatic beliefs are tied up with control/power mechanisms, but I have not come across anyone who openly brags about their ability to hurt people.
    They simply see their ability to inflict suffering as the only way to gain good outcomes.

    Because of this brutish reputation from the 'old days' where PTs tended to be bullish dragons, we carry the burden of being a tough lot, always causing pain of some kind. In fact what I have seen frequently, are people who are genuinely scared stiff coming to physio because of what we might DO to them. This is part of the reason why a patient might cancel because their "pain is too bad" for 'treatment'.
    It is also part of the reason we must 'back' off at times and consider why we seem to continue with the belief that in order to treat, it has to hurt, and worse, cause suffering.

    I have heard patients say as they went into the gym area of where I used to work: "So this is the torture chamber" and re traction tables: "Are you going to put me on the rack today?" Patients live with this notion; most of us can laugh at it and hopefully dismiss some of those innate fears.

    <hr> Posted by Diane (Member # 1064) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,14,5,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 08-11-2005 21:05<noscript>November 08, 2005 02:05 PM</noscript>:

    Torture, eh?
    Story number one:
    I went through a several year long period of time during which I became "politicized" in terms of waking up from my standard North American coma (..the one we all must wake up from some day or die while still in the grip of.. but I must not ramble off topic..)

    During this period of time, which practically "undid" me, personally, I travelled some, learned all about torture, and met many who had survived it, some in better shape than others. I learned other things, like the darker side of the (mostly European) companies that manufactured all our supposedly therapeutic electrical equipment, how with only slight modifications those ancient relics (found in the dust bin of physiotherapy's past) that turned a regular electric current into something like sinusoidal current etc, were the preferred choice of torturers not only for their desired 'effects' but also for their reliability and durability and ease of handling.

    I think that was when I realized how duped we had been as a profession in some ways.. how 40 and 50 years ago, buying all this stuff and using it in every hospital department was supposed to make us better more science based therapists, when in fact, mostly what it did was support the ****ing manufacturers.

    Story number two:
    I worked in a busy outpatient clinic, was expected to "see" 4/hour all day long everyday/week/month/year... I had a new guy to treat, who I ended up setting up with TENS. Gave him the unit to hold, showed him how to regulate it, let him work it for awhile, checked in on him about 5 minutes later.. and asked him how it was going. Oops, turned out I had stepped right into a big mental poo-pile. He had a very weird look on his face as he dispassionately told me how much it reminded him of the electrical torture he had endured in his country of origin. I took it straight off him and we did something different.. I had a very hard time ever using this gadget ever again on anyone.

    Story number three:
    I'm busy rereading and typing out chapter 8 of Sagan's Up From Dragons. When it's done I'll put it here. It is all about "The Troop Within Our Heads" and goes into a lengthy discussion of Stanley Milgram's research. It's pertinant here because it was all about the illusion of control the subjects had over "shocks" they thought they were giving to actors who were instructed to behave as though they were being shocked. Instead of telling Stanley Milgram where to put his machine, they did as instructed and turned up the current they thought they were delivering, just because he told them to. The results of his research were far more "shocking" than the actual trials had been, because what he learned was how people default to obeying authority, rather than how they are rumored to develop and then demonstrate any spine or true "free will/ free won't."

    I could go on but I won't.
    <hr> Posted by Gil Haight (Member # 691) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,14,54,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 08-11-2005 21:54<noscript>November 08, 2005 02:54 PM</noscript>:

    Milgrams research is trulely amazing. Remarkably it has come to my attention in entirely different social circles 4-5 times in the past few months. Surely this is no coincidence. I'm not sure what it means, but something about "my God is bigger than your God" keeps coming to mind.
    <hr> Posted by Barrett (Member # 67) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,17,9,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 00:09<noscript>November 08, 2005 05:09 PM</noscript>:

    All wonderful comments. I show a quote from Milgrim to all my classes:

    "It may be that we are puppets-puppets controlled by the strings of society. But at least we are puppets with perception, with awareness. And perhaps our awareness is the first step to our liberation."

    In other words, the torturer turns us into a puppet before he begins to inflict pain. Is there something similar happening culturally when we are children? Within this clinical context can we assume that care that relieves pain restores awareness and thus freedom?
    <hr> Posted by SJBird55 (Member # 3236) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,17,52,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 00:52<noscript>November 08, 2005 05:52 PM</noscript>:

    I'm a bit lost on how physical therapy ties into torture. I view torture more like Bas - there is more than just physical torture. And my mental image is something that is very extreme whether physical or psychological in nature.

    For the argument that physical therapy is viewed as "torture" and joked about and the logic that we as professionals are the ones in power - specifically in an outpatient clinic, all I can say is if the treatment is really "torture" why would the patient get into their vehicle and drive in for a treatment? Personally, I've never said I've tortured patients... of course that is my view. I have heard quite a few patients jokingly say "torture chamber" "Helga" "Sarg" and "PT stands for Pain and Torture." And, I know with those folks that they were never in any extreme pain. I would say that from their perspective the "torture" joking is just the plain and simple fact that they need to do some work that generally they would rather choose not to do. Many years ago, I used to have my feelings hurt by their comments like that because I don't equate what I do with torture - and the patients that were more perceptive of my feelings would say that they knew it would take work to "blank" again. Fill in the blank... walk, run, get back to work, throw...

    Not everything we do is painfree. And, then, there also needs to be a definition of "pain." The regular folks who are completely sedentary and never exercise have discomfort when exercising. Would I consider it "pain?" No. Would I consider it "torture?" No.

    Do you guys really believe that there are many physical therapists that purposely aim to "torture" a patient - to purposely see a patient's reaction, to purposely see pain in his/her eyes, to purposely drag the person down to a puppet level? Those are pretty high stakes to feel "control" for someone in a physical therapy role don't you think?

    I don't believe that when you speak of the use of torture by say military that anyone is initially a puppet. If the person provided the information requested, there would be no torture. If a person is tied, chained or bound and pain is inflicted, how are they a puppet prior to the infliction of pain? It might be the other way around... the person becomes a puppet after the torture? Truthfully, I don't see "puppet" in torture.

    I can fully understand Diane's story on the electrical stimulation.

    I must have been raised in a closet or something, because I never understand the "cultural" aspect you like to speak about, Barrett. I guess "culture" doesn't dictate how I should feel or act? It must not, because I don't have unexplainable pain.
    <hr> Posted by Jon Newman (Member # 3148) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,18,16,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 01:16<noscript>November 08, 2005 06:16 PM</noscript>:

    Gil your point that therapy might sometimes be painful and may be the common source of the PT= "physical torture" (or "pain and torture") joke made me think for a bit. I think the difference is that while therapy that happens to be painful is sometimes necessary, torture and the pain associated with it never is.

    How do the readers of this forum frame 'necessary' pain such as that felt when recovering from a total knee replacement?

    I think it is worth avoiding the 'torture joke' to the extent of correcting someone for at least two reasons. The first being that it demeans those who have suffered such a fate by minimizing their plight. The second is much less altruistic or respectful but I'll state it anyway. It does our profession no good to keep that joke alive.

    SJ, your statement

    quote: <hr> If the person provided the information requested, there would be no torture. <hr>
    absolutely terrifies me. You can't be serious.

    <hr> Posted by SJBird55 (Member # 3236) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,18,22,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 01:22<noscript>November 08, 2005 06:22 PM</noscript>:

    I'm lost as to what you mean, Jon. What terrifies you? I would think and assume that if the reason someone was being tortured was for gaining information, then I'd doubt the person would be tortured if the person freely gave up the information. The person might be killed afterward? I don't know. But I doubt the person would need to be tortured, especially if the torture was going to be the consequence of not providing information.
    <hr> Posted by Jon Newman (Member # 3148) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,18,24,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 01:24<noscript>November 08, 2005 06:24 PM</noscript>:

    The part that terrifies me is that so many people still think that the purpose of torture is to gather information. It isn't.

    <hr> Posted by SJBird55 (Member # 3236) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,18,30,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 01:30<noscript>November 08, 2005 06:30 PM</noscript>:

    Jon, the majority of the patients I've treated post total knee arthroplasty have pain. It is a normal occurrence from having the procedure performed. I don't know what you mean by how do I "frame" it... but, if you've ever seen the surgical procedure, the human carpenters (surgeons) cut into bone which is a sensitive structure. Injured bone, whether, cut, busted or bruised hurts.

    I don't correct patients when they use the "torture" joke because it is their perspective and they are the customer. I believe that if I had a high volume of patients who really were tortured, maybe it would be different.
    <hr> Posted by SJBird55 (Member # 3236) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,18,34,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 01:34<noscript>November 08, 2005 06:34 PM</noscript>:

    Ah.. well, there are some controlling psychos out there, so yes, I guess you are correct, Jon. Add frustration with controlling and psychotic and yeah, there could be torture involved. That's just plain sick.
    <hr> Posted by Jon Newman (Member # 3148) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,18,39,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 01:39<noscript>November 08, 2005 06:39 PM</noscript>:

    I was struggling with a better word for correct but I couldn't come up with one. Perhaps the better way to phrase it would be to "build discrepancy".

    Do you also play along with people who think your place should be in the home or with someone carrying on about niggers and spicks? Well maybe the latter, as long as you don't actually treat many of them.

    <hr> Posted by Randy Dixon (Member # 3445) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,18,46,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 01:46<noscript>November 08, 2005 06:46 PM</noscript>:

    From my understanding of torture the primary consideration is control. The lack of it by the one being tortured and the gaining of it by the one doing the torture. Simple pain which doesn't seem to be under the control of the torturer wouldn't have much effect, while loss of control, physical, mental and emotional all contribute greatly to the effect.

    I guess then the question is, is the infliction of pain similar to torture? I think sometimes in therapy it's necessary to inflict pain, I'm thinking of burn patients I have seen, where there really is no choice but to make them hurt. I also think of coaches and drill instructors I have known and they way I coach and have instructed myself. I'm probably different than most here in my tolerance for provoking pain. I don't think you can always tell the good ones from the bad ones by the amount of discomfort they inflict. I do think you can tell them apart from why they believe they do it. I know many coaches who make kids work until they puke as a form of ego trip, they think it shows they are a tough, no-nonsense coach that gets the most from their athletes. Their goal is to deprive the athlete from control and to gain it for themselves. I would agree this is a form of societal sickness common to the coaching world. There are other coaches though that use pain and discomfort to give athletes a sense of control, that they can control their mind and their attitude despite their pain and loss of control in other areas.

    I think there is a similar, although different, situation with PT's, there are some who want to gain the control and some who want to give it to the patient. I think it is easy to rationalize that "it's for their own good".

    This is a complicated subject and I'm short on time, but I also wanted to address the "pain culture" that sports presents us. I know I have fallen victim to it. I enjoy the suffering, take pride in it. This too may play a part in PT's attitudes toward other's pain.

    I also have wanted to post a thread on "how much is too much?" How hard should a patient be pushed? Should a therapist stop the first time a patient says they don't want to do something? I've gone back and forth on this answer. Currently my answer is we should leave it entirely in the hands of the patient, while we can explain what we think will be the result the decision is all there's.

    I once, a long time ago, had a patient that was along term patient. Brain damage from a MVA, couldn't walk, couldn't talk and problems with almost everything. He was 18, an ex-athlete who had his whole life in front of him, and I KNEW that if he tried he could walk and regain much of his function and his life. I wanted that very much for him, but I believed he was giving up and was lazy. One day he wouldn't do anything, while walking him, I laid him on the floor, with some techs and therapists around, and I asked him, "Do you like it down there? Is this what you want from your life?" and I let him stay there for a couple of minutes. He was humiliated, of course, and he did what I asked after, but that moment has stayed with me and shamed me ever since.
    <hr> Posted by nari (Member # 2772) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,18,48,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 01:48<noscript>November 08, 2005 06:48 PM</noscript>:

    Where I live we have several private physios involved specifically in the management of victims of torture; and it has very little to do with traditional PT, which would, of course, be fairly useless. By all accounts, it is a highly successful program.

    jon, I agree with you. Torture is about degradation,control,power++ and dehumanisation; occasionally, but I would think uncommonly, it is to gain information.


    I have seen many patients who are quite scared of physios and yet happily submit to Chinese massage which is fairly rough; and these people have not undergone torture in the true physical sense, (well, they haven't mentioned it) but have endured emotional torture from parents or spouses.

    I think there are some powerful nocebos in the term "physical therapist" as opposed to "masseur."
    Anticipation is a powerful driver of very good and very bad messages.

    The definition of pain is a very broad one but so is the definition of torture. Someone might say "I had to sit on that hard bench for an hour, it was torture!" Yet the event would have not harmed in any way; just very disquietening at the time. That is how a patient who is coerced to do painful exercise, might feel. No harm done, but the meme is planted that PTs inflict pain in what they do. Our perceptions and those of our patients can be very very different....

    <hr> Posted by SJBird55 (Member # 3236) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,19,8,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 02:08<noscript>November 08, 2005 07:08 PM</noscript>:

    This whole thread started off with interrogating potential terrorists. I don't believe that I am completely wrong that in that situation - the reason they are being interrogated is for information. (Maybe I'm wrong and the interrogation is just some fake thing as an excuse to torture someone?) Obviously Jon, you're taking torture to be all an encompassing of all situations.

    Jon, I'll ignore your racial crap. I do believe there is a difference between someone saying I "tortured" them in a joking manner and hearing others being addressed in the manner you tossed out. If someone believes my place belongs in the home, they are right - I value family and home and I am only in the clinic part-time.
    <hr> Posted by Jon Newman (Member # 3148) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,19,20,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 02:20<noscript>November 08, 2005 07:20 PM</noscript>:

    SJ, I'm so glad you got my point.

    Regarding gathering information; Naomi Klein reported the following in The Gaurdian (May 14, 2005)

    quote: <hr> Torture is a machine designed to break the will to resist - the individual prisoner's will and the collective will.
    This is not a controversial claim. In 2001 the US NGO Physicians for Human Rights published a manual on treating torture survivors that noted: "Perpetrators often attempt to justify their acts of torture and ill-treatment by the need to gather information. Such conceptualisations obscure the purpose of torture ... The aim of torture is to dehumanise the victim, break his/her will, and at the same time set horrific examples for those who come in contact with the victim. In this way, torture can break or damage the will and coherence of entire communities."
    Yet despite this body of knowledge, torture continues to be debated in the United States as if it were merely a morally questionable way to extract information, not an instrument of state terror. But there's a problem: no one claims that torture is an effective interrogation tool -least of all the people who practise it. Torture "doesn't work. There are better ways to deal with captives," CIA director Porter Goss told the Senate intelligence committee on February 16. And a recently declassified memo written by an FBI official in Guantánamo states that extreme coercion produced "nothing more than what FBI got using simple investigative techniques". The army's own interrogation field manual states that force "can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear".

    <hr> Posted by Jon Newman (Member # 3148) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,19,49,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 02:49<noscript>November 08, 2005 07:49 PM</noscript>:


    So that I don't leave my point at sarcasm, something I've got a habit of doing, let me explain. I offended your sensibilities when I used those racial slurs. This brings me some relief. However, I find it odd that calling someone names bothers people more than torture does. The main reason I think this is so is because those racial slurs have become the name of torture but for specific groups. Torture without a direction, without a group becomes meaningless to us and thus we can joke about it. In my previous post I was essentially making the suggestion that we elevate the word torture to produce the same sort of offensiveness that racial slurs have, since they are describing the same general sort of behavior in my opinion.

    <hr> Posted by nari (Member # 2772) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,21,38,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 04:38<noscript>November 08, 2005 09:38 PM</noscript>:


    I think a feeling of 'control' (which SJ used in quotation marks as well, I'll grant) is the essence behind any PT's thoughts which result in constantly strong words and directions or orders to patients.
    Such 'prescriptions' and 'orders' say to patients: "I am the boss, I know more, listen to me". It is the medical model creeping in again, the premise that we know what is best for them; the perception that if patients came for Rx or advice,they should do as they are told, without consideration of their circumstances.

    If they are not compliant, then we are at liberty to discharge them, without necessarily knowing the reason WHY they were not compliant.
    This is part of what leads towards a form of abuse that I have seen happen - and going on from there, bullying tactics and possibly very unpleasant memories form in the patients' mind about their own integrity and belief in themselves.

    I can understand your guilt re the TBI incident...I'm sure we all have regrets about how we behaved towards patients in the past.
    I think we need to understand better how we come across to others as a clue to estimating just how much control we really want to exert over others.

    <hr> Posted by Jon Newman (Member # 3148) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,8,22,4,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 05:04<noscript>November 08, 2005 10:04 PM</noscript>:

    In answering my own question regarding how people frame the experience of necessary pain during PT (such as TKA rehab), I usually discuss the difference between hurt and harm (safe/sore) ala Butler and I give them agency.

    If they mention torture I explain the difference between torture and voluntarily achieving their own goal and all that that entails. And they can change their goals and even treatments. I never hear the word again and all of these patients have agreed that therapy wasn't as bad as they expected.

    Randy, I imagine most reflective therapists who have eased up on the no pain no gain attitude and returned agency to the patients have come to do so based on experiences they've had with their patients.

    <hr> Posted by Sebastian Asselbergs (Member # 174) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,9,6,15,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 13:15<noscript>November 09, 2005 06:15 AM</noscript>:

    I do believe VERY much that we need to look at the whole personality thing around the therapist. I know quite a few, who - if they use the word torture jokingly - would stun me and I would be taken aback. The word can be used for many situations (see nari's post on the "hard bench") and I have been in army training where I used the word for what the drill sergeant put us through - all for the purpose of "moulding us into a disciplined team" - of blind obedience! Never saw the purpose of that, but then again, I never could shut off my brain....or my mouth and got into trouble.
    Anyway - so much of that type of "torture" is acceptable in society (see Randy's post on coaching issues), that it becomes acceptable for practitioners to push past what the patient indicates is their limit - or allows PTs to remain somewhat "deaf" to the non-verbal signs of distress under their hands.... Because we see it in the football movies, the army training movies (remember GI Jane? for one?) that that type of behaviour - crushing individuality - is a bit more normal....a bit more acceptable.

    Yes, the joke is a common one in our profession - mostly from patients...but I am happy to say, I haven't heard them use it here in a looong time. Other then when I tell a joke....they often call that torture...
    <hr> Posted by Barrett (Member # 67) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,9,6,32,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 13:32<noscript>November 09, 2005 06:32 AM</noscript>:

    I think we’ve established that torture in the sense that it means the infliction of pain upon another is not about gaining information. Many would wonder how anybody could come to this conclusion unless they relied exclusively on the movies for their understanding of such things.

    I said in a speech a while ago after referring to the control that torture implies…although that circumstance leading to painful sensation is not something we are commonly familiar with, the perception of pain secondary to nociception otherwise is not essentially different.

    I still think that this is the case, and however our patients may have come to experience pain, they end up in the same place-their world “unmade” and now, in effect, alone, at sea, searching for a connection necessary for health and well-being.

    Being therapists, what sort of movement can we offer that makes sense given the nature of pain’s “unmaking”?

    What did Tom Hanks do on that island in “Cast Away”?
    <hr> Posted by Diane (Member # 1064) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,9,9,36,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 16:36<noscript>November 09, 2005 09:36 AM</noscript>:

    Here is an excerpt (a short one) from Up From Dragons (Sagan and Skoyles) that speaks directly to the torture issue and why it is a problem and why it looks like it might always be one.

    quote: <hr> From Chapter 8: The Troop Within Our Heads (p 93)

    Unlike other animals, we have free will, or so some have claimed. Much religious doctrine has asserted that Man, being God-made, was given a will to choose. Even if we are not religious, free will is something we feel in our lives and our emotions. (And if it is not true, we have the illusion of free will, which is even stranger!) We may not always be rational – we may be stupid, ignorant, selfish, and even callous – but we imagine ourselves to be the masters of our actions and beliefs. We seek to learn our own lessons and to be wrong in our own way. Above all, we want to do our own thing, not what others want us to do. We have, after all, a brain packed with a large prefrontal cortex that can organize itself by inner cues.

    But does that make us free? Some have questioned whether, in fact, we are. “A freeman? – there is no such thing! All men are slaves; some, slaves of money; others, of chance; others are forced, either by mass opinion, or threatening law, to act against their nature.” (Euripides, ‘Hecabe’ lines 863-869). Such were the dark words of the ancient Greek playwright Euripides. Was he right?

    When looking at freedom, we need to distinguish between physical and psychological freedom. Roughly, the first is that made by the nature of our society and technology, the second that made by our minds. When you have no money, someone has a knife to your throat, technology is not advanced enough, or the law forbids something, you lack physical freedom. But often we do not lack money, no one is threatening us, technology lets us do just what we want, and the law gives free rein to our actions, and yet we still cannot carry them out. Somehow our freedom is blocked at the source of our minds.

    The problem is social deference. Sociability takes precedence over our own inner cues. We defer to superiors or the group. Even when we have a right to assert ourselves. Social pressures and situations arise that trap us so that we find it hard to say no or take a stand. How often do you go into a restaurant and get poor-quality food or service but remain silent – even when asked, “How is everything?” Some of us are skilled at complaining, but all of us defer in one way or another to the “right thing.” We might be able to organize our behavior by inner cues, but these cues themselves can be over-ruled. Although we may be loath to admit it, sometimes we become like puppets of the wants and expectations of others.

    Such deference can be surprisingly strong. Consider your ability to ignore orders from a stranger. It’s easy. If someone politely tells us to do something we do not want to do, we can walk off. But perhaps we are over-estimating our freedom. Imagine that you answer a newspaper advertisement asking for volunteers to take part in a short experiment. The advertisement says you will be paid for your help. A scientist in gray lab overalls greets you and explains that you will take part in a study of learning. He pairs you with someone else who has answered the same advertisement. Following the toss of a coin, you take the role of “teacher” and the other person takes the role of “learner.” The learner goes into another room and is wired with electrodes. When the learner makes a mistake on a learning task, you are to administer an electric shock. The scientist in gray overalls asks you to give increasingly strong electric shocks when the learner fails to “learn.” What is the chance that a few minutes later you will obey the scientist and, as the learner fails to learn anything, give increasingly stronger shocks – so strong that they torture and kill the learner?

    A young academic at Yale asked psychiatrists and psychologists whether people would do this (Milgram, 1963; 1974; Miller, 1986). Universally he found that such experts on human nature thought that they would not (Milgram 1963: 375; 1974: 27-31). In the early 1960s, Stanley Milgram, in one of the most famous (or infamous) experiments in the history of psychology, then went and showed that people would. Of course, Milgram did not let people give real shocks, but through an ingenious system of acting and fake equipment he led them to believe that they were. No doubts exist that his subjects believed that the shocks they were giving were for real. Most of them did not enjoy electrocuting the other person. Indeed they fought a stressful battle between the urge to stop and the orders given to them to continue. They felt deeply that what they were doing was wrong and kept asking whether they had to continue. But when pressed, they still obeyed. The man in the gray overalls did not force them; he merely told them to keep giving stronger shocks: “It is absolutely essential that you continue” and, “You have no other choice, you must go on.” Nothing stopped them from telling the man in the gray overalls where to put his “*******” machine and walking the hell out – they were not locked in. They were just told to stay and give killing shocks. It was not bars, but words – and something in their minds – that imprisoned and “forced” them.

    Milgram’s results have been a cause célèbre ever since. After all, showing that ordinary Americans would kill if ordered is not a small discovery. It cuts to the heart of our deeply held feelings about humans in a free society. We like to believe that given freedom, we will use it for good, not for what we know is wrong. But here was a scientist showing that we can all be easily tricked into giving up our free will and electrocuting another human being.

    Milgram’s experiment offers a mirror in which to see history and ourselves. Before, when people looked at the horrors in Nazi death camps, they could tell themselves that they would never do such things – “Oh no, not I.” But Milgram took away such comfort. Here were people like us giving up responsibility for their actions and, however much they may have disliked doing it, obeying orders to kill. We can no longer tell ourselves that we are so different. Somehow our free will can disappear, and with it our ability to do what we know is right. It is not a pleasant thing to discover.

    Nor is it pleasant to find that animals can act far better. Monkeys trained to pull a cord for a food reward stop when they see that their action causes visible and auditory distress to a monkey in the next cage! Some refuse even if they have to go without food for days (Masserman, Wechkin, Terris 1964). Many theologians have denied that animals have a soul, but if they don’t, then perhaps it is an evil appendage they are better off without. Here we have a very dark finding about ourselves, a “bestiality” unique to the human animal.

    A Scientific Taboo
    We do not want to look. Before we press further into our social natures and what underlies them in the brain, we need to ask why so little is known. Surely one of the most fascinating aspects of ourselves is how we affect each other. It is both part of the richness of our lives and one of the ways in which we lose freedom (an understanding of the loss of which is needed for understanding our evolutionary origins). It is an area as important as it is understudied.

    The problem can be traced to our individualism. We see ourselves as masters of our actions and prefer to be ignorant of the ways in which we are not. One of the most striking findings of Milgram’s experiment was the failure of psychiatrists and psychologists to predict its result. If anyone could have, it should have been them. But they did not, and part of the reason is that our philosophy of individualism makes us underplay how far we influence (and are influenced by) each other. Our independence is overrated. We take it for granted that people are free from others if we observe no visible restraint. This is not an unreasonable belief, but often it is just wrong. We are more than reluctant to accept this, for we find the subject distasteful. We would rather avoid finding that people give up their freedom than do the research that could show us how to keep our independence.

    No one today would be allowed to repeat Milgram’s research. To put it mildly, strong voices in psychology complained that Milgram had gone too far and treated his subjects badly. To show obedience, he had had to mislead his subjects. He could not tell them what he was really studying or ask them to give real electric shocks, let alone fatal ones. So he lied and paid someone to fake the creams and pleadings of a person being electrocuted. In other words, he deceived people. Was he wrong to do so? There was a strong reaction to his use of deception. Today, no ethics committee would permit such research.

    But was deception really the reason people objected? Some doubted this and did their own experiments. They asked people to evaluate the research done by Milgram, but they deceived them by varying the description of what he actually did and found. Half of the subjects were told the true nature of the experiment and that the person’s screams were faked. The other subjects were not. Each of these groups was then split again, with one half being told the true outcome of the experiment – that people obeyed – and the other half what was predicted but not found – that people didn’t.

    The presence of deception in a description of an experiment did not alter people’s judgement about its morality. People judged the use of deception to be acceptable, but only if the experiments did not find that people obeyed (Bickman and Zarantonello 1978; Miller 1986: 110-115). Thus, what people really objected to in Milgram’s research was its finding, that people easily give up their freedom. Any research that shows that we are born unfree, and suppress our individuality with regard to others or our group, touches a raw nerve. We would rather not know.

    Individualism has thus made our social natures one of the last taboos, at least in science. If psychologists study it, they usually do so from an individual point of view. Indeed, one social psychologist, C. Daniel Batson (Batson 1990: 336) has complained that it has “become a taboo topic – like sex for the Victorians – that we social psychologists politely avoid, especially in public.” Research, he observes, “has been to stay close to the surface… assuming perhaps that the embarrassing problem of our social nature will disappear.” As Batson further notes, “Perhaps the reason that social psychologists have spent little time on the question of our social nature is because they already know the answer… our behavior may be highly social; our thoughts may be highly social; but in our hearts, we live alone… We are social egoists.” As another psychologist put it, “From Freud to sociobiologists, from Skinner to social cognitionists, from Goffman to game theorists, the assumption in Western psychology has been that humans are by nature asocial individualists… social relationships are instrumental means to nonsocial ends, or constraints on the satisfaction of individual desires” (Fiske, 1992:689). A Chinese anthropologist has called it a Western “hang-up” (Hsu 1971: 34). Scientists would prefer it if we were machines that used others to satisfy our individual wants and drives. That is how they mostly study us. It poses problems for them that they (with the rest of us) are, most of the time, warm, feeling, and caring social creatures.

    But of course that is what we are. Being a social creature does not normally limit our freedom, but in some circumstances it can. If we want to be free, we need to understand why we so often give our freedom up. It is a question we need to ask to understand what skills lie behind our sociability, our mind and its odyssey. But we cannot start to do so until we acknowledge that we have social natures.
    Especially the little paragraph about how monkeys have more intrinsic compassion than humans do, reminds me of an old cartoon, I think the name was Ogo-Pogo: "We have met the Enemy, and he is us."
    <hr> Posted by Barrett (Member # 67) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,9,9,48,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 16:48<noscript>November 09, 2005 09:48 AM</noscript>:

    As they say, "The problem is social deference."

    I see it all the time and in every corner of this country. Therapists who remain seated though they hurt and would completely relieve their pain simply by standing up. These same people say rather huffily (I'm not certain that's a word, but it should be), "I'm not constrained by the culture. I do what I want."

    It's clear they don't. They can react to this fact in one of two ways: they can acknowledge they've been wrong or they can get mad at me.

    Now, how can movement solve this problem if it becomes painful?
    <hr> Posted by Diane (Member # 1064) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,9,10,54,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 17:54<noscript>November 09, 2005 10:54 AM</noscript>:

    I think the main confusion lies in who "I" is.. That particular construct is an illusion, generated by the brain and the prefrontals, by the need for this polymodal organism called the "brain" to set a point about which it can pivot, a sense of self around which it can exist and organize its sense of inside outside/ self other. This elaborate illusion is constructed by the brain so that it can mount defense. Mostly that is useful, frequently it isn't; the 'torturer' is inside. It is suppressing all the other bits of body/other ways of behaving that would feel good. The culture and the inner torturer collude to maintain social harmony/peace in the human troop at the expense of the individual. Social grooming releases a bit of pressure in the individual brains of the primate troop.. humans are primates.. enter physiotherapy/manual therapy. (Can we ever be free of the "wheel of existance"? Before we dissolve away in death that is?)

    Barrett, you go around teaching a way to step out of the outwardly directed merry-go round, and look instead at the inner merry-go-round, and move to its bidding for a change. A change instead of a complete rest. The zone in the middle, (the "I"), is always going to be a bit grey, but the two sides of the 'barbell of life' can balance each other up a little better perhaps, be more easily borne by the physicality of our individual existances instead of suppressed by intractable obeisance to culture. (It definitely helps to either call on, or construct if necessary, an 'inner butthead' to give one the right to feel personal well-being instead of culturally maintained pain.)
    <hr> Posted by paulpt (Member # 5125) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,9,12,12,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 19:12<noscript>November 09, 2005 12:12 PM</noscript>:

    Barret: so simple. How can movement solve this problem? Such a simple explanation for how to torture someone. Deny them a glass of water when thirsty. Make them remain standing for hours on end. Keep their hands out of the blankets. Deny access to sleep when tired. Give them NO MEANS to attain a recovery of a simple inconvenience.

    The term torture, when used by Porter Goss, was not operationally defined. Denying a glass of water to a thirsty 'would be terrorist' might be viewed as torture... then again it might not be. I am not certain what Jon meant when he referenced Goss's comments - out of context as it was. As many may know, all interrogators FIRST are subject to any treatment they might perform on a captive. All know their own sleeplessness breaking point. As Sen John McCain has staed, "Everyone has a breaking point." His was an accumulation of factors, to include the vietnamese rope trick, where they would tie his hands behind his back and lift him up in the air - by the rope, until his shoulder dislocated and his hands would rise over head. He opposes the physical types of torture, such as this. By the way, this is not on the list of techniques used.

    So I take the point of this topic to mean that sometimes the patient will get relief from simple 'things' that they are denied, actively or passively. It is our duty to lead them to these - such as the glass of water to th thirsty person, or to allow the sleepy one to nap, to stand after a prolonged sit episode, etc. Some of our patients will need us to lead them to simple solutions.
    <hr> Posted by Barrett (Member # 67) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,9,13,6,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 20:06<noscript>November 09, 2005 01:06 PM</noscript>:


    I don't quite get your point and what I do understand I don't agree with. I am talking about the infliction of pain upon another and you seem to be talking about just denying them comfort. Your statement about all interrogators first submitting to all the forms of torture they subsequently inflict is simply untrue.

    Watching TV last weekend I heard Joe Scarborough, a noted conservative commentator and former member of congress, ask whether a technique of intermittant near drowning could be considered torture. Everyone present agreed it was but his own opinion wasn't sought. I suspect he doesn't, but I'd really like to know what he thinks. I'd especially like to know his opinion right after he was personally subjected to this.

    Stopping torture-the infliction of pain-often isn't sufficient for the victim to recover, according to Scarry. Something more is needed. Does this sound a bit like the pain our patients describe-present long after healing, long post-trauma?
    <hr> Posted by paulpt (Member # 5125) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,9,14,19,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 21:19<noscript>November 09, 2005 02:19 PM</noscript>:

    You refer to waterboarding, and I believe this is acceptable. Also, those who are properly trained to perform the techinuqe have been run through the torture themselves. It would be very very interesting to note how he felt immediately after, as well as during. While this may be a method to encourage a would be terrorist to give away useful intel, it is also a mechanism to cause said individual to say whatever it takes to make it stop. I am also not certain that this particular technique causes any long term psychosocial problems.

    At this time, your point is difficult for me to grasp... and made worse having read this report:


    The issue is far more complex than I can handle right now. But I will get back to it tomorrow.
    <hr> Posted by Barrett (Member # 67) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,9,14,47,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 21:47<noscript>November 09, 2005 02:47 PM</noscript>:


    I'll say something so that you won't take my silence for assent.

    We aren't anywhere near agreement here-not in any way. That is the kindest thing I can think to say.
    <hr> Posted by nari (Member # 2772) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,9,14,55,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 21:55<noscript>November 09, 2005 02:55 PM</noscript>:

    The memory of a pain-inflicting experience can last forever in some people's minds, and vanish early in the piece for others.
    Somewhere along the line,those who fear pain the most may well have had a history of pain-infliction as a child -I don't know, it's a surmise.
    If that pain experience is perceived as being all their own fault, and/or it was perceived as a result of vindictiveness, that person can end up in a state of disintegrity (just made that up) which would require more than a few assurances.

    As far as movement goes, there are a few options -SC is one, and likely to be the most helpful; another might be finding out what that person WANTS to do in terms of general activity (dancing, walking) and help them set up a program of realistic goals.
    We would have to be very careful not to suggest anything to them (relinquishing their 'power', but keep paths open for them to investigate.

    If we fall into the trap of suggesting/telling them what to do, it will fail miserably, or work just temporarily.

    Primarily, they have to discover who they are and where they fit into the world, and only they can do that. If we hand over the 'control factor' to them, they will 'succeed' better. Empowering is an annoyingly trendy word, but relevant here.
    The last thing they would need is for someone to mobilise joints or give out a regime of exercises.

    The scary thing is, there are a lot of these people out there - probably 50% of our patients - and it may not be well recognised by PTs.

    Just a bit of a rant, about 5 cents' worth.

    <hr> Posted by Jon Newman (Member # 3148) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,9,14,55,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 21:55<noscript>November 09, 2005 02:55 PM</noscript>:


    Do you suppose that there might be a difference between being "run through" a torture technique and being tortured?

    <hr> Posted by Christophb (Member # 3884) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,9,15,19,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 22:19<noscript>November 09, 2005 03:19 PM</noscript>:

    I just had a gal in here that was concerned about my "hands-off, let the patient explore movement" approach. Turns out she was trained in ballet, and that it was absolutely necessary for her to have strict control and guidance for health. She felt, left to her own devices that she would "screw herself up." I suspect we get a few people from both ends, wanting guidance/wanting freedom. What is the proper course of action? Convince the ballerina that a subconscious seed has been planted in her brain and she is perfectly capable of being spontaneous and healthy at the same time? This might be construed as very threatening to her sense of "self" as needing discipline and structure. Not sure this has anything to do with torture though... still trying to wrap my head around these posts. Some very interesting points though.

    <hr> Posted by paulpt (Member # 5125) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,9,15,31,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 22:31<noscript>November 09, 2005 03:31 PM</noscript>:

    Jon. Yes, as I grow in my thoughts about this issue, it has occurred to me that in training, the CIA agent intuitively knows that it will end eventually. The training will familiarize this person with the technique, but again, they know it will end. When the detainee is subject to the same device, s/he does not know how long it will last. I believe that to be the fundamental difference.

    edit to add: Barrett, sorry we are on the wrong page on this one. Perhaps I am just poor at my explanations
    <hr> Posted by Jon Newman (Member # 3148) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,9,15,50,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 09-11-2005 22:50<noscript>November 09, 2005 03:50 PM</noscript>:

    Hi Paul,

    I think it may even be more than that. Not only does the torture victim not know when it is going to end but does not know how it will end (will they kill me?), how low the moral standards of the torturer can sink to, what the next torture device might be, what will happen between sessions, if anyone knows where they are, etc. There is no comparison. One is torture, one is not.
    But let's pretend that those trained in torture are trained in an identical way that a torture victim is subjected to abuse. Are you suggesting it is then ok to torture?

    <hr> Posted by nari (Member # 2772) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,9,18,1,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 10-11-2005 01:01<noscript>November 09, 2005 06:01 PM</noscript>:

    Hi Chris

    Hope all is well in (wet?) Seattle.

    Ballerinas, as far as I am aware, tend to fall apart somewhat when they stop dancing for good. Partly because ballet is so tough on the body, and maybe, because they can lose their sense of being without the external drive and close monitoring. Some teach, and in this way preserve a modicum of regime.

    I would think that it would be very difficult to reach such a 'choreographed' brain; maybe Barrett has an answer to this?
    I don't think I can offer anything except education that finding a 'new movement' might assist with this pain (I assume she has pain)and that this movement will be very pleasant to experience...but she will have to overcome her fear of 'letting go'. Yikes..a tricky one. Lots of visual stuff (floating, drifting, sinking,etc) might help.

    As part of this thread, I consider ballet a form of voluntary torture.. [IMG]eek.gif[/IMG] but I am weird in that I think a lot of sport is torturous, both to play and watch!!
    Wish you luck with her.

    <hr> Posted by Barrett (Member # 67) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,9,19,20,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 10-11-2005 02:20<noscript>November 09, 2005 07:20 PM</noscript>:

    I think it comes down to distinquishing between productive and creative movement.

    The former produces a sort of health we can't acquire in any other way and we know that it can become addictive, especially if it is combined with the "exercise bulimia" that, I believe, has been documented and would fit in with the lifestyle of a serious ballerina. If they crave exhaustive, vigorous work, creative movement (which I think is the sort that relieves pain) won't be sufficient.

    If we return to Scarry's insights regarding the "making and unmaking of the world" we can assume that only the creative act will restore the victim of pain to a normal state.

    She puts it this way: "(Pain's) complete absence of referential content almost prevents it from being rendered in language but this is also what may give rise to imagining by encouraging the process that eventually brings forth the dense sea of artifacts and symbols that we make and move about in.”

    She means what we do creatively-and ballet doesn't include this but, rather, quite the opposite.

    So, what movement is creative in nature?
    <hr> Posted by Jon Newman (Member # 3148) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,9,19,29,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 10-11-2005 02:29<noscript>November 09, 2005 07:29 PM</noscript>:

    Hi Chris, Nari,

    In the book Rapture of Maturity by Charles Hayes, he states, "The times in which we live contribute to shaping our values". I would also suggest that the our own actions contribute to shaping our values. He goes on to state, "In the 1950's, David Riesman's book The Lonely Crowd identified a tectonic shift in the nature of individual motivation. Riesman observed that people of the current generation were becoming increasingly "other-directed." That is, they were acting in response to the expectation of others, doing things because of what other people thought, as opposed to being "inner-directed" and doing things simply because they were the right things to do."
    I was reminded of your dancer's dilemma. It would seem that she has been convinced, by her training (at least, if not by other influences), to distrust her inner direction. This sort of loss can be subtle but important as there is plenty of research that describes how passive coping (which being "other directed" circumscribes) predicts persistence of pain.
    This is germane to this thread, I think, because there are similarities to loss of self efficacy/becoming one's own enemy, and some techniques used in torture. So understanding one may help the understanding of the other.

    <hr> Posted by Christophb (Member # 3884) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,9,22,37,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 10-11-2005 05:37<noscript>November 09, 2005 10:37 PM</noscript>:

    Thanks Nari, Barrett and Jon.

    One of the more interesting things I see lately is how challenging it is for people to embrace their own creativity and movement towards correction. The ex-ballerina is one example, but there are many others. The ballerina was one of the more obvious examples but at least she verbally expressed her concerns, and I am appreciative of that, at least we can discuss. The difficult ones are the people who just sit quietly and wonder "what the heck is he doing? I'm paying him to tell me what to do." This I have a huge problem with. As a profession we have this identity of knowing what's best for the unique individuals who see us. Ok, I have a huge student loan verifying this statement, but at the same time its also an absurd notion. How the heck can I know what is best for someone when they don‘t even know what is best for themselves? The best I can do is respect their unique individual nature and give them the space to figure that out. That is what learning is about, at least to me, otherwise I just become better at techniques, acquire more tools, and probably have excellent outcomes [IMG]biggrin.gif[/IMG]

    On a slightly different note, a fella I was working with today was having difficulty with his ROM a few months post-op and found myself becoming irritated because he wasn't giving me the “right response." I wasn't seeing the results I desired and had the urge to "press him" for the information I craved. Fortunately I was able to observe the situation and restrain myself. A few years ago I would have just pushed harder. Was that the right decision?

    <hr> Posted by nari (Member # 2772) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,10,0,40,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 10-11-2005 07:40<noscript>November 10, 2005 12:40 AM</noscript>:

    One of my favourite films is "Vengo", an Andalusian gypsy tale of revenge. (Diane knows this one!)

    One could argue that flamenco and its verbal expression is choreographed - but in this gutsy film both the singing and the dancing are creative. The women who are singing pour their whole being into the lyrics and the rhythm, almost shouting with their enthusiasm. It is not like other forms of Western dancing - well I think so, anyway. Their voices are almost torturous.

    Chris, I think you were right with your fellow who didn't respond. Some years ago I would have pressed for more information, but came to realise that I probably wouldn't get the answers I wanted to hear anyway. Perhaps this is something students need to know, at least to consider...

    <hr> Posted by paulpt (Member # 5125) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,10,8,32,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 10-11-2005 15:32<noscript>November 10, 2005 08:32 AM</noscript>:

    Jon. I know we are drifting from the premise of this topic... and I know, eventually, where this is going... but I do support the use of non-lethal techniques during interrogation. Interrogation should be done by those who are trained to conduct them, and they should be done according to the standards of the Geneva conventions, of which I am familiar.

    All persons captured who meet the criteria of 'soldier' deserve the full standards of the Geneva Code (GC). Anyone captured who does not wear a uniform, carry a GC card, or give his name/ rank/ ID number loses those priveleges.

    "Torture" can include sensory deprivation. It can inlcude things such as water boarding, deception, sleep deprivation. It can also include use of inducements, rewards, non-lethal punishments, etc.

    Why? I believe that those who serve the USA are volunteers. They volunteer to serve our country, and they deserve every last chance to have the opportunity to return home. If an interrogation of a captive can provide useful intel that might serve to prevent the next attack, well, for the sake of the courageous young men and women who volunteer to serve, well, let them do what they think they need to do. Let the soldier, the CIA operative, the marine... let the do what they think is best. They are trained, and if they violate their training they will be subjected to the Universal Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Let us not tie their hands and remove a potentially useful weapon, replacing it with nothing.

    In the mean time, other techniques must be learned, trained, and prepared. The enemy is studying what we do, and our free press media is anxious to let the world know about our techniques. While we can 'debate their usefullness', the enemy can prepare for their use. I know we are off topic. And God bless the young man or women who joins the military and serves with honor, and may they return home swiftly and safely, from whatever mission the nation calls upon them to do, from whatever land the nation sends them to.
    <hr> Posted by Randy Dixon (Member # 3445) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,10,9,11,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 10-11-2005 16:11<noscript>November 10, 2005 09:11 AM</noscript>:

    I watched the Bill Maher show that Barrett referenced earlier and I had a similar thought about the question Scarborough asked. It seemed clear what his intention was but I had a hard time believing that that was his attitude.

    While it is more of a political question than one that is relevant to PT, I found it hard to fathom that he would argue that American soldiers being subjected to "waterboarding" by the enemy are being treated humanely. I don't want our soldiers subject to that kind of treatment.

    About the creative movement thing, I often tell athletes I'm coaching to "shadow box" or "shadow fence". To imagine an opponent and react to what they do. A large number of them just stand there looking at me, waiting for me to tell them what moves to do, a lot of the others just repeat whatever movements I had just demonstrated. Occasionally though one will really get into it, even getting angry when the "opponent" scores on them. I haven't correllated the actions to pain, it hadn't occured to me to try.

    I believe what Paul was referring to in his first post would fall under the "consummatory act" thread that was on here one time. That not being able to complete an action that one was preparing for and felt a need to do causes a mental and physical strain beyond what is imposed by it's actual absence.
    <hr> Posted by SJBird55 (Member # 3236) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,10,10,15,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 10-11-2005 17:15<noscript>November 10, 2005 10:15 AM</noscript>:

    With the original post and Barrett questioning torture with terrorists... I'm seeing it as paulpt is.

    For any of us not in the military and not knowing any of the specifics of what our military are up against and what options there are available seems unreasonable to be completely against torture. I mean, if they have one potential terrorist captured and they are interrogating that potential terrorist, then I would assume that the military person involved in the situation is going to do what it takes to get the desired result. Now, whoever brought up the issue that torture isn't necessarily the best avenue to take because there are other options that provide results better... all I can say to that comment is that even in our field, there are many of us not staying current with current literature and not practicing the most optimal interventions for defined classifications of patients. (So, again, are any of us in a position to judge what someone else does as being ineffective in light of differing evidence when maybe we aren't holding ourselves to the same standard?) Also, when I think back to 9/11 and when I think of all the bombings that have occurred and the lives lost - the terrorists the military are dealing with have zero respect for the lives of others OR for their own lives.

    I have a friend in the Marines that just returned to the States a month ago (after his second time in Iraq)... I have always been impressed with the dedication he has for all of us and this country. He lived and made it back twice (all in one piece). I fullheartedly agree with paulpt. Those in the military need to make it home safely AND they also protect us. Sometimes the end justifies the means - even with torture. Randy, it's war... you may not want to see Marines subjected to torture, but it happens. I believe the things they see and experience can be just as much of a torture of sorts. I'm sure war isn't a pleasant experience.

    I honestly don't see a connection between torture and physical therapy. I can see the idea of control, but not torture.
    <hr> Posted by Gil Haight (Member # 691) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,10,11,2,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 10-11-2005 18:02<noscript>November 10, 2005 11:02 AM</noscript>:

    Sj and paulpt,
    As long as the enemy is seen as a lower form of human as compared to a human at a lower stage our planet will continue to struggle with these issues.
    <hr> Posted by Barrett (Member # 67) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,10,11,58,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 10-11-2005 18:58<noscript>November 10, 2005 11:58 AM</noscript>:

    "I'm sure war isn't a pleasant experience."


    The connection here is between pain and recovery, however the pain might have been acquired.

    As it turns out, others have chosen to reveal in this thread their ignorance and the nature of their humanity. I will say nothing more about that.
    <hr> Posted by nari (Member # 2772) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,10,13,23,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 10-11-2005 20:23<noscript>November 10, 2005 01:23 PM</noscript>:

    Don't know if I am at the wrong end of the stick/gun, but I fail to understand what SJ and paulpt are saying, other than a glorification of the war process. I wonder how someone without any experience of the process can support torture "so the boys can come home"...
    We are not a pacific sort of species, never have been, (note, we have caused wars and found reasons to go to war ever since we crawled out of the ocean)and dire circumstances will always bring out the worst in us...

    ..but what on earth has this got to do with the origin of the thread??

    <hr> Posted by SJBird55 (Member # 3236) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,10,16,26,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 10-11-2005 23:26<noscript>November 10, 2005 04:26 PM</noscript>:

    I guess that seeing others' views on torture, especially of terrorists, and especially thinking of the military out there protecting us and sacrificing for us, I believed that I could defend their actions with potentially their perspective on the matter. If I had the balls, I'd invite a few Marines I know to pop in and address the rationale behind torture, but the one I know just got back to the States from Iraq and I don't believe it would be appropriate for him to defend torture after he saw bodies from massacres and lost men in his unit to bombs.
    <hr> Posted by Jon Newman (Member # 3148) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,10,18,24,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 11-11-2005 01:24<noscript>November 10, 2005 06:24 PM</noscript>:

    Paul, unlike yourself, I don't know where this is going eventually. I'm afraid no place. I think you show your true thoughts on what torture is (or is not) for when you state "Let us not tie their hands and remove a potentially useful weapon..." I'm offended, but not surprised, that you use God and patriotism to shield your advance of an anti-humanistic agenda so as to deflect attention from the atrocity you endorse.

    SJ, Evidenced based torture? Oh boy. Why not oppose it because it is wrong to treat people that way?

    <hr> Posted by nari (Member # 2772) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,10,18,43,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 11-11-2005 01:43<noscript>November 10, 2005 06:43 PM</noscript>:

    WOuld anyone else like to comment on Chris's post which is relevant to the thread and is essentially apolitical? [IMG]confused.gif[/IMG]

    <hr> Posted by SJBird55 (Member # 3236) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,10,18,59,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 11-11-2005 01:59<noscript>November 10, 2005 06:59 PM</noscript>:

    nari, the whole darn thread started out political by mentioning terrorists.
    <hr> Posted by Barrett (Member # 67) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,10,19,2,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 11-11-2005 02:02<noscript>November 10, 2005 07:02 PM</noscript>:

    Ah yes, my fault of course.

    I'm so sorry.
    <hr> Posted by Jon Newman (Member # 3148) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,10,20,9,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 11-11-2005 03:09<noscript>November 10, 2005 08:09 PM</noscript>:

    Nari, the body is political, but perhaps that's another thread. I think the following may help clarify how all this ties together. The passage is from The Culture of Pain by David Morris (pp. 186-187).

    quote: <hr> Torture is so deplorable that it makes questions of ethics seem almost irrelevant. Most people would now say that torture under any circumstances is wrong. End of discussion. The danger is only that the quickness with which we condemn torture may prevent us from recognizing and discussing other uses of pain extending to the most casual, unnoticed details of our daily life, where ethical questions often go not only unanswered but unasked. We simply do not possess at present anything like an adequate ethics of daily practice. Philosophers and medical ethicists prefer to concentrate on gaudy, headline grabbing issues such as abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, and the right to die. An ethics of daily practice, by contrast, would need to employ almost a novelist's eye in order to uncover the implications of acts and choices so small that we rarely stop to observe them. <hr>
    He goes on to describe a doctor--patient encounter that has elements that Chris and Randy both mention and that I've experienced myself and continue to hear about in the back office between patients. There's something to learn if one chooses but perhaps ethics 101 should be a pre-requisite.

    <hr> Posted by Diane (Member # 1064) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,10,20,36,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 11-11-2005 03:36<noscript>November 10, 2005 08:36 PM</noscript>:

    Thank you for thoughtfully putting that passage by David Morris up Jon. Yes, ethics would be good. So would poli-sci 101.
    <hr> Posted by nari (Member # 2772) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,10,21,6,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 11-11-2005 04:06<noscript>November 10, 2005 09:06 PM</noscript>:

    (I think) I did realise how torture/health professionals/patient encounters and politics do all tie up in a bit of a mess, admittedly.

    I have no idea what ethics 101 means.

    What I implied was the terrorist (political) and terrorist (health professional) relationship was being lost in the subjective political wars.

    or maybe I'm lost....

    <hr> Posted by Sebastian Asselbergs (Member # 174) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,11,6,0,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 11-11-2005 13:00<noscript>November 11, 2005 06:00 AM</noscript>:

    I can't help but think about that well-worn cliche: "Do unto others...." followed by "Lead by example"....Both resonate in my thinking about war-related torture and PT related torture. If I ever want to grow beyond "I am right and this is MY way" I have to consider those cliches very carefully.
    <hr> Posted by paulpt (Member # 5125) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,11,7,4,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 11-11-2005 14:04<noscript>November 11, 2005 07:04 AM</noscript>:

    On the political aspect:

    Randy: I have learned much about the term consummatory act. Thanks for bringing it up, and Barrett – a google of that phrase does bring up your speech from 04, about 3rd or 4th on the list. That was very interesting. Thanks.

    Nari: I have combat experience

    Jon: My anti-humanistic agenda is not what you are making it out to be. Have you read this report?

    Warning - graphic verbage

    Under method of torture, I endorse the use of #6 without the simultaneuos beating, #10. On the 'mental', #2 is okay, #7 without the firing of a bullet. Note that this done by the BALKANS not by Americans. I repeat, Americans did not partake in these forms of torture.

    Now, back to the topic of Evidence Based Interrogations. That is exactly what we need. We need to have our agents armed with the best techinuqes. They must have the absolute best skills and tools, such that they might be better able to do their jobs.
    I still pray for our troops, that they might return home safeyl and swiftly... and that our nation may be safe.

    I saw something this morning that made me think of all of y'all. There is a survey about treatment of Iraqi war vets, 72% would warmly receive themg, 12% would greet them cool-ly, and 10% would turn their head. I know I am in the majority on this one. So if this offends you, please provide a list of acceptable techniques to be used during iterrogation of suspected terrorist. Keep in mind that unless they are captured wearing a uniform, carrying a GC card, and willing to grant name/ rank/ serial #, they have LOST all GC protections.

    And Sue, if a Marine were to read this post, today on Veterans' Day... a day after the 230th birthday of the Corps... they would probably laugh off this banter, recognizing how ill informed the genral public is, and think that this entire post does nothing but to glorify PT.

    and if there are any Vets out there, thanks a million boys and girls!
    note: edited to change the spelling of corps
    <hr> Posted by Jon Newman (Member # 3148) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,11,7,22,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 11-11-2005 14:22<noscript>November 11, 2005 07:22 AM</noscript>:


    Welcome back, glad you made it home safely.

    <hr> Posted by paulpt (Member # 5125) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,11,7,35,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 11-11-2005 14:35<noscript>November 11, 2005 07:35 AM</noscript>:

    thanks man.
    and if you can, take a moment to thank the newest vets - and the ones who will be going next. they need it, most of us are over it. thanks again
    <hr> Posted by Randy Dixon (Member # 3445) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,11,8,35,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 11-11-2005 15:35<noscript>November 11, 2005 08:35 AM</noscript>:

    quote: <hr> Randy, it's war... you may not want to see Marines subjected to torture, but it happens.

    I don't understand this argument. Because it happens it is morally right and we should condone it? People with explosives strapped to them walk into buildings full of women and children and blow them all up, I guess that must be right too.


    The lack of GC status may pose a legal argument for the treatment of some people but I don't see that it changes the moral argument. George Washington and his little group of insurgents wouldn't fall under the GC today either, while the Iraqi troops under Saddam would have, the Kurds and others opposing them, on our side, wouldn't have. I was an Army officer, though I never was in combat. I did do a paper on POW's and one thing that sticks out clearly is that US POW's overwhelmingly condemn torture. of any type, of either side. In the end, it isn't about the people we are fighting but about ourselves. The end justifying the means is the argument that terrorists use to justify their actions.

    I can certainly find reasons that I personally would want to use torture, which is why we have rules of conduct for war and there is some room for disagreement about what those rules should be, however the standard I believe we should use is, would we accept it happening to our soldiers. I have a pretty low tolerance for their abuse.

    I also don't see that the arguments for the treatment of foreign prisoners should be that much different than the treatment of our own, civilian US prisoners. A lot of them are pretty bad people.

    To lamely tie that into a PT related topic, do you decide to treat patients by who they are, or by who you are? I would guess you do your best by them because you are a professional that takes pride in their work and their moral obligations to the profession seriously.
    <hr> Posted by SJBird55 (Member # 3236) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,11,11,7,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 11-11-2005 18:07<noscript>November 11, 2005 11:07 AM</noscript>:

    Randy, and those folks that blow up the buildings are the exact folks that are being dealt with. What do you suggest as a way to be one step ahead of those people that have a goal to harm and kill a large population of innocent people? Our military and Marines are doing the best they can with the tools and information they have available. Do you know something that they don't? What is occurring may not be humane and there seem to be quite a few of you against it, but I don't know a better solution and I'd assume that if there was a better solution that was effective, it would be used. If your son were over in Iraq and he was at location A... and there happened to be a terrorist captured and detained and interrogated based on knowledge of that particular terrorist AND that there was a great potential that location A was going to be targeted, wouldn't you want the military to know about it AND do something about it? If torture was the only option available to use on that terrorist to have your son at location A be safe, you'd rather see torture eliminated, the terrorist walk and your son dead?
    <hr> Posted by Barrett (Member # 67) on <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,10,11,11,15,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script> 11-11-2005 18:15<noscript>November 11, 2005 11:15 AM</noscript>:

    This argument is simply too brilliant to be effectively refuted. Perhaps it should be sent to the Pentagon so that the impending official policy in favor of torture will no longer be opposed by anyone not bright enough to have thought of all this before.

    I'm going to leave it up here and now close this topic so that no one will be confused by any subsequent argument.
    Last edited by bernard; 29-12-2005, 06:00 PM.
    Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. L VINCI
    We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. I NEWTON

    Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not a bit simpler.
    If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein