As a point of clarification, I find the Rolling Stone article compelling, but not convincing. It is obvious that Tietz has done a lot of legwork in researching this piece. However, the evidence he's using to support the allegations of torture and the specifics behind them, which he is presenting as fact, fall short of what is needed to convince me that he is correct. His article blurs the lines between speculation, hearsay, and fact.
In regards to the transitive assertion, the Post article does not "just plain say that". I don't think I'm being unfair in pointing out the flaws in your interpretation of the article. In addition, you're using an article describing Guantanamo feeding conditions in 2006 to counter an article describing torture allegation at Guantanamo from 2002-2005, the worst of which appeared to occur during the 2002-2003 period. The two articles do not refer to the same point in time, and therefore one can not be used to refute the veracity of the other. Furthermore, the Post article is as full of holes as the Rolling Stone article. For example, the name of the 410 lbs inmate and his medical records were not released, which means that neither his existence nor the context of his weight gain can be verified.
In my reply to your brother's post, I allowed for the possibility that torture had been used in the past, but is no longer being used now that Guantanamo is under higher scrutiny. Therefore, both articles could, in fact, be accurate, since they cover different periods of time. This possibility is far more likely than the possibility that the torture has been ongoing and that now "we're being stupid about it". In your argument, you do not allow for the possibility of past torture. Rather the essence of your argument is that since we're treating them so well now (under contention) than we must have always treated them this well, and therefore no torture ever occured. That I find this argument simple is an understatement.
As a side note, there are a number of effective torture tactics can incorporate feeding prisoners well. For example, feeding them well and telling them that we're keeping them healthy and strong so they can be tortured for longer. We can't infer that just because they're being fed well, they're not being abused on other levels.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2006-10-07 06:33 am (UTC)In regards to the transitive assertion, the Post article does not "just plain say that". I don't think I'm being unfair in pointing out the flaws in your interpretation of the article. In addition, you're using an article describing Guantanamo feeding conditions in 2006 to counter an article describing torture allegation at Guantanamo from 2002-2005, the worst of which appeared to occur during the 2002-2003 period. The two articles do not refer to the same point in time, and therefore one can not be used to refute the veracity of the other. Furthermore, the Post article is as full of holes as the Rolling Stone article. For example, the name of the 410 lbs inmate and his medical records were not released, which means that neither his existence nor the context of his weight gain can be verified.
In my reply to your brother's post, I allowed for the possibility that torture had been used in the past, but is no longer being used now that Guantanamo is under higher scrutiny. Therefore, both articles could, in fact, be accurate, since they cover different periods of time. This possibility is far more likely than the possibility that the torture has been ongoing and that now "we're being stupid about it". In your argument, you do not allow for the possibility of past torture. Rather the essence of your argument is that since we're treating them so well now (under contention) than we must have always treated them this well, and therefore no torture ever occured. That I find this argument simple is an understatement.
As a side note, there are a number of effective torture tactics can incorporate feeding prisoners well. For example, feeding them well and telling them that we're keeping them healthy and strong so they can be tortured for longer. We can't infer that just because they're being fed well, they're not being abused on other levels.