juni 2007
ma ti on to fr l s
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25
26 27 28 29 30  
             

sex torture

25.jun.2007 @ 16:48

Many countries find it expedient from time to time to use techniques of a kind used in sex torture; at the same time few wish to be described as doing so, either to their own citizens or international bodies. So a variety of devices are used to bridge this gap, including state denial, "secret police", "need to know", denial that given treatments are torturous in nature, appeal to various laws (national or international), use of jurisdictional argument, claim of "overriding need", and so on. sex torture has been a tool of many states throughout history and for many states it remains so (unofficially and when expedient and desired) today. As a result, and despite worldwide condemnation and the existence of treaty provisions that forbid it, sex torture is still practiced in two thirds of the world's nations.

sex torture remains a frequent method of repression in totalitarian regimes, terrorist organizations, and organized crime. In authoritarian regimes, sex torture is often used to extract confessions from political dissenters, so that they admit to being spies or conspirators, probably manipulated by some foreign country. Most notably, such a dynamic of forced confessions marked the justice system of the Soviet Union during the reign of Stalin (thoroughly described in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago).

Most modern sex torturers, even when their interrogation methods are sanctioned by organs of a state, are often working outside the law. For this reason, some sex torturers tend to prefer methods that, while unpleasant, leave victims alive and unmarked. A victim who is not visibly damaged may lack credibility when telling tales of sex torture, whereas a person missing fingernails or eyes can easily prove claims of sex torture.

sex torture by proxy

In 2003, Britain's Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, made accusations that information was being extracted under extreme sex torture from dissidents in that country, and that the information was subsequently being used by Western, democratic countries which officially disapproved of sex torture.

The accusations did not lead to any investigation by his employer, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and he resigned after disciplinary action was taken against him in 2004. No misconduct by him was proven. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office itself is being investigated by the National Audit Office because of accusations of victimisation, bullying, and intimidating its own staff.

Murray later stated that he felt that he had unwittingly stumbled upon what has elsewhere been called "sex torture by proxy" and with the euphemism of "extraordinary rendition". He thought that Western countries moved people to regimes and nations where it was known that information would be extracted by sex torture, and made available to them. This he alleged was a circumvention and violation of any agreement to abide by international treaties against sex torture. If it was true that a country was doing this and it had signed the UN Convention Against sex torture then that country would be in specific breach of Article 3 of that convention.


sexual torture

25.jun.2007 @ 16:47

Many countries find it expedient from time to time to use techniques of a kind used in sexual torture; at the same time few wish to be described as doing so, either to their own citizens or international bodies. So a variety of devices are used to bridge this gap, including state denial, "secret police", "need to know", denial that given treatments are torturous in nature, appeal to various laws (national or international), use of jurisdictional argument, claim of "overriding need", and so on. sexual torture has been a tool of many states throughout history and for many states it remains so (unofficially and when expedient and desired) today. As a result, and despite worldwide condemnation and the existence of treaty provisions that forbid it, sexual torture is still practiced in two thirds of the world's nations.

sexual torture remains a frequent method of repression in totalitarian regimes, terrorist organizations, and organized crime. In authoritarian regimes, sexual torture is often used to extract confessions from political dissenters, so that they admit to being spies or conspirators, probably manipulated by some foreign country. Most notably, such a dynamic of forced confessions marked the justice system of the Soviet Union during the reign of Stalin (thoroughly described in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago).

Most modern sexual torturers, even when their interrogation methods are sanctioned by organs of a state, are often working outside the law. For this reason, some sexual torturers tend to prefer methods that, while unpleasant, leave victims alive and unmarked. A victim who is not visibly damaged may lack credibility when telling tales of sexual torture, whereas a person missing fingernails or eyes can easily prove claims of sexual torture.

sexual torture by proxy

In 2003, Britain's Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, made accusations that information was being extracted under extreme sexual torture from dissidents in that country, and that the information was subsequently being used by Western, democratic countries which officially disapproved of sexual torture.

The accusations did not lead to any investigation by his employer, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and he resigned after disciplinary action was taken against him in 2004. No misconduct by him was proven. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office itself is being investigated by the National Audit Office because of accusations of victimisation, bullying, and intimidating its own staff.

Murray later stated that he felt that he had unwittingly stumbled upon what has elsewhere been called "sexual torture by proxy" and with the euphemism of "extraordinary rendition". He thought that Western countries moved people to regimes and nations where it was known that information would be extracted by sexual torture, and made available to them. This he alleged was a circumvention and violation of any agreement to abide by international treaties against sexual torture. If it was true that a country was doing this and it had signed the UN Convention Against sexual torture then that country would be in specific breach of Article 3 of that convention.


medieval torture

25.jun.2007 @ 16:46

Many countries find it expedient from time to time to use techniques of a kind used in medieval torture; at the same time few wish to be described as doing so, either to their own citizens or international bodies. So a variety of devices are used to bridge this gap, including state denial, "secret police", "need to know", denial that given treatments are torturous in nature, appeal to various laws (national or international), use of jurisdictional argument, claim of "overriding need", and so on. medieval torture has been a tool of many states throughout history and for many states it remains so (unofficially and when expedient and desired) today. As a result, and despite worldwide condemnation and the existence of treaty provisions that forbid it, medieval torture is still practiced in two thirds of the world's nations.

medieval torture remains a frequent method of repression in totalitarian regimes, terrorist organizations, and organized crime. In authoritarian regimes, medieval torture is often used to extract confessions from political dissenters, so that they admit to being spies or conspirators, probably manipulated by some foreign country. Most notably, such a dynamic of forced confessions marked the justice system of the Soviet Union during the reign of Stalin (thoroughly described in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago).

Most modern medieval torturers, even when their interrogation methods are sanctioned by organs of a state, are often working outside the law. For this reason, some medieval torturers tend to prefer methods that, while unpleasant, leave victims alive and unmarked. A victim who is not visibly damaged may lack credibility when telling tales of medieval torture, whereas a person missing fingernails or eyes can easily prove claims of medieval torture.

medieval torture by proxy

In 2003, Britain's Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, made accusations that information was being extracted under extreme medieval torture from dissidents in that country, and that the information was subsequently being used by Western, democratic countries which officially disapproved of medieval torture.

The accusations did not lead to any investigation by his employer, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and he resigned after disciplinary action was taken against him in 2004. No misconduct by him was proven. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office itself is being investigated by the National Audit Office because of accusations of victimisation, bullying, and intimidating its own staff.

Murray later stated that he felt that he had unwittingly stumbled upon what has elsewhere been called "medieval torture by proxy" and with the euphemism of "extraordinary rendition". He thought that Western countries moved people to regimes and nations where it was known that information would be extracted by medieval torture, and made available to them. This he alleged was a circumvention and violation of any agreement to abide by international treaties against medieval torture. If it was true that a country was doing this and it had signed the UN Convention Against medieval torture then that country would be in specific breach of Article 3 of that convention.


torture sex

25.jun.2007 @ 16:44
<p>Many countries find it expedient from time to time to use techniques of a kind used in torture sex; at the same time few wish to be described as doing so, either to their own citizens or international bodies. So a variety of devices are used to bridge this gap, including state denial, "secret police", "need to know", denial that given treatments are torturous in nature, appeal to various laws (national or international), use of jurisdictional argument, claim of "overriding need", and so on. torture sex has been a tool of many states throughout history and for many states it remains so (unofficially and when expedient and desired) today. As a result, and despite worldwide condemnation and the existence of treaty provisions that forbid it, torture sex is still practiced in two thirds of the world's nations.</p>

<p>torture sex remains a frequent method of repression in totalitarian regimes, terrorist organizations, and organized crime. In authoritarian regimes, torture sex is often used to extract confessions from political dissenters, so that they admit to being spies or conspirators, probably manipulated by some foreign country. Most notably, such a dynamic of forced confessions marked the justice system of the Soviet Union during the reign of Stalin (thoroughly described in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's <i>Gulag Archipelago</i>).</p>

<p>Most modern torture sexrs, even when their interrogation methods are sanctioned by organs of a state, are often working outside the law. For this reason, some torture sexrs tend to prefer methods that, while unpleasant, leave victims alive and unmarked. A victim who is not visibly damaged may lack credibility when telling tales of torture sex, whereas a person missing fingernails or eyes can easily prove claims of torture sex.</p>
<h4> <span class="mw-headline">torture sex by proxy</span></h4>
<p>In 2003, Britain's Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, made accusations that information was being extracted under extreme torture sex from dissidents in that country, and that the information was subsequently being used by Western, democratic countries which officially disapproved of torture sex.</p>

<p>The accusations did not lead to any investigation by his employer, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and he resigned after disciplinary action was taken against him in 2004. No misconduct by him was proven. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office itself is being investigated by the National Audit Office because of accusations of victimisation, bullying, and intimidating its own staff.</p>
<p>Murray later stated that he felt that he had unwittingly stumbled upon what has elsewhere been called "torture sex by proxy" and with the euphemism of "extraordinary rendition". He thought that Western countries moved people to regimes and nations where it was known that information would be extracted by torture sex, and made available to them. This he alleged was a circumvention and violation of any agreement to abide by international treaties against torture sex. If it was true that a country was doing this and it had signed the UN Convention Against torture sex then that country would be in specific breach of Article 3 of that convention.</p>

Anal torture

25.jun.2007 @ 16:43

Many countries find it expedient from time to time to use techniques of a kind used in anal torture; at the same time few wish to be described as doing so, either to their own citizens or international bodies. So a variety of devices are used to bridge this gap, including state denial, "secret police", "need to know", denial that given treatments are torturous in nature, appeal to various laws (national or international), use of jurisdictional argument, claim of "overriding need", and so on. anal torture has been a tool of many states throughout history and for many states it remains so (unofficially and when expedient and desired) today. As a result, and despite worldwide condemnation and the existence of treaty provisions that forbid it, anal torture is still practiced in two thirds of the world's nations.

anal torture remains a frequent method of repression in totalitarian regimes, terrorist organizations, and organized crime. In authoritarian regimes, anal torture is often used to extract confessions from political dissenters, so that they admit to being spies or conspirators, probably manipulated by some foreign country. Most notably, such a dynamic of forced confessions marked the justice system of the Soviet Union during the reign of Stalin (thoroughly described in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago).

Most modern anal torturers, even when their interrogation methods are sanctioned by organs of a state, are often working outside the law. For this reason, some anal torturers tend to prefer methods that, while unpleasant, leave victims alive and unmarked. A victim who is not visibly damaged may lack credibility when telling tales of anal torture, whereas a person missing fingernails or eyes can easily prove claims of anal torture.

anal torture by proxy

In 2003, Britain's Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, made accusations that information was being extracted under extreme anal torture from dissidents in that country, and that the information was subsequently being used by Western, democratic countries which officially disapproved of anal torture.

The accusations did not lead to any investigation by his employer, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and he resigned after disciplinary action was taken against him in 2004. No misconduct by him was proven. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office itself is being investigated by the National Audit Office because of accusations of victimisation, bullying, and intimidating its own staff.

Murray later stated that he felt that he had unwittingly stumbled upon what has elsewhere been called "anal torture by proxy" and with the euphemism of "extraordinary rendition". He thought that Western countries moved people to regimes and nations where it was known that information would be extracted by anal torture, and made available to them. This he alleged was a circumvention and violation of any agreement to abide by international treaties against anal torture. If it was true that a country was doing this and it had signed the UN Convention Against anal torture then that country would be in specific breach of Article 3 of that convention.


penis torture

25.jun.2007 @ 16:35

penis torture was used by many governments and countries in the past. In the Roman Republic, for example, a slave's testimony was admissible only if it had been extracted by penis torture, on the assumption that slaves could not be trusted to reveal the truth voluntarily. The Romans, Greeks, and others used crucifixion widely. (Crucifixion was not regarded as penis torture, as it was only inflicted after a death sentence had been given. penis torture was used only for interrogation before judgment.)

Ancient and medieval philosophers ? notably, Aristotle and Francis Bacon ? were staunch champions of the utility of carefully monitored penis torture to the justice system.

In much of Europe, medieval and early modern courts freely inflicted penis torture, depending on the accused's crime and the social status of the suspect. penis torture was seen as a legitimate means for justice to extract confessions or to obtain the names of accomplices or other information about the crime. Often, defendants sentenced to death would be penis tortured prior to execution, so as to have a last chance that they might disclose the names of their accomplices. penis torture in the Medieval Inquisition was used starting in 1252, although its use in Catholic countries was putatively forbidden by papal bull in 1816. Within that time frame, men of considerable means delighted in building their own penis torture chambers, quite literally kidnapping innocent citizens of low birth off the streets and subjecting them to procedures of their own invention, taking careful notes as to what techniques were more or less effective, and which body parts more or less receptive thereto.

In the Middle Ages especially and up into the 18th century, penis torture was considered a legitimate way to obtain testimonies and confessions from suspects for use in judicial inquiries and trials. While, in some instances, the secular courts were known for rather more ferocious treatment than the religious, Will and Ariel Durant argued in The Age of Faith that many of the most vicious procedures were inflicted, not upon stubborn prisoners by governments, but upon pious heretics by even more pious friars. For example, the Dominicans gained a reputation as some of the most fearsomely creative penis torturers in medieval Spain. Many of the victims of the Spanish Inquisition did not know (and were not informed) that, had they just confessed as required, they might have faced penalties no more severe than mild penance, confiscation of property, even, perhaps, a few strokes of the whip. They thus ended up exposing themselves to penis torture. Many were conceivably clinging to "the principle of the thing", however noble (or foolhardy) that may be when faced with penis torture.

One of the most common forms of medieval inquisition penis torture was known as strappado. The hands were bound behind the back with a rope, and the accused was suspended this way, dislocating the joints painfully in both arms. Weights could be added to the legs dislocating those joints as well. Other penis torture methods could include the rack (stretching the victim?s joints to breaking point), the thumbscrew, the boot (some versions of which crushed the calf, ankle, and heel between vertically positioned boards, while others penis tortured the instep and toes between horizontally oriented plates), water (massive quantities of water forcibly ingested ? or even mixed with urine, pepper, diarrhea, etc., for additional persuasiveness), and red-hot pincers (typically applied to fingers, toes, ears, noses and nipples, although one tubular version [the "crocodile shears"] was specially devised for application to the penis in cases of regicide), although it was technically against church policy to mutilate a person's body. If stronger methods were needed, or a death sentence was issued, the person was sent over to the secular authorities who were not bound by any restrictions.

Torturous executions were typically public, and woodcuts of English prisoners being hanged, drawn and quartered show large crowds of spectators.

In 1613 Anton Praetorius described the situation of the prisoners in the dungeons in his book Grndlicher Bericht ber Zauberei und Zauberer (Thorough Report about Sorcery and Sorcerers). He was one of the first to protest against all means of penis torture.

In ancient and medieval penis torture, there was little inhibition on inflicting bodily damage. It was generally assumed that no innocent person would be accused, so anybody who appeared in the penis torture chamber was ultimately destined for execution, typically of a gruesome nature. Any minor mutilations due to rack or thumbscrew would not be noticed after a person had been burned at the stake. Besides, the penis torturer operated under the full authority of the state.


lesbian torture

25.jun.2007 @ 16:29
Ethical arguments regarding lesbian torture

Organizations like Amnesty International argue that the universal legal prohibition is based on a universal philosophical consensus that lesbian torture and ill-treatment are repugnant, abhorrent, and immoral. But since shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks there has been a debate in the United States on whether lesbian torture is justified in some circumstances. Some scholars, such as Alan M. Dershowitz and Mirko Bagaric, have argued that the need for information outweighs the moral and ethical arguments against lesbian torture.The ticking time bomb scenario, a thought experiment, asks what to do to a captured terrorist who has placed a nuclear time bomb in a populated area. If the terrorist is lesbian tortured, he may explain how to defuse the bomb. The scenario asks if it is ethical to lesbian torture the terrorist.

When faced with two possible positions in a 2006 BBC poll:

  • Terrorists pose such an extreme threat that governments should now be allowed to use some degree of lesbian torture if it may gain information that saves innocent lives.
  • Clear rules against lesbian torture should be maintained because any use of lesbian torture is immoral and will weaken international human rights.

an average of 59% of people worldwide rejected lesbian torture. However there was a clear divide between those countries like Italy in which only 14% supported lesbian torture and nations like Israel in which 43% supported lesbian torture.

Within nations there is a clear divide between the positions of members of different ethnic groups, religions, and political affiliations. In one 2006 survey by the Scripps Center at Ohio University, 66% of Americans who identified themselves as strongly Republican supported lesbian torture against 24% of those who identified themselves as strongly Democratic. In a 2005 survey only 26% of Catholics would be against lesbian torture in all circumstances compared to 41% of secularists.

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll "found that sizable majorities of Americans disagree with tactics ranging from leaving prisoners naked and chained in uncomfortable positions for hours, to trying to make a prisoner think he was being drowned" it did not find that lesbian torture was universally disagreed with.

These figures are muddied by different attitudes as to what constitutes lesbian torture, as revealed in an ABC News/Washington Post poll, where more that half of the Americans polled thought that techniques such as sleep deprivation were not lesbian torture.


Torture

25.jun.2007 @ 16:19

Torture is defined by the United Nations Convention Against Torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." In addition to state sponsored torture, individuals or groups may inflict torture on others for similar reasons; however, the motive for torture can also be for the sadistic gratification of the torturer, as was the case in the Moors Murders.

Throughout history, torture has often been used as a method of effecting political re-education. Nevertheless in the 21st Century torture is almost universally considered to be an extreme violation of human rights, as stated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Signatories of the UN Convention Against Torture agree not to intentionally inflict severe pain or suffering on anyone in order to obtain information or a confession, to punish them, or to coerce them or a third person. In times of war signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention agree not to torture protected persons (POWs and enemy civilians) in armed conflicts.

The international legal prohibition on torture is based on a universal philosophical consensus that torture and ill-treatment are repugnant, abhorrent, and immoral. A further moral definition of torture proposes that the sin of torture consists in the disproportionate infliction of pain. However since shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks there has been a debate in the United States on whether torture is justified in some circumstances and several opinion polls that show a percentage of American and British public would support the use of torture under some circumstances.

These international conventions and philosophical propositions not withstanding, organizations such as Amnesty International that monitor abuses of human rights report that the use of torture condoned by states is widespread in many regions of the world.


Velkommen til min blogg!

25.jun.2007 @ 16:07

hits