POLL: Torture?...A little?...Or More?...Or OUCH!!??

And then that brings into mind much more subtle means of interrogation that enter the grey shadows between "torture" and "questioning":

- keeping a known claustrophobe in a small, windowless cell and strapped into a chair
- denial of hygienic facilities
- degrading diet (edible and capable of sustaining life, but not exactly nutritious or palatable)
- constant noise pumped into the cell to make sleep impossible
- even an elaborate and time-consuming method - sensory deprivation for an extended period (IV for sustenance, noise-canceling earphones, wetsuit to deaden sensation, suspended in salt water to lessen any feeling of gravity, etc.) such that the subject feels so isolated and alone, not even sure if still alive anymore, that they become less resilient to questioning

So where does 'torture' stop and 'imaginative interrogation' start? And where does the 'inhumane treatment of prisoners/civilians' line show on this same scale?

 

Well, the poll is running 2:1 against torture, which is mildly discouraging, but the arguments are pretty lively.

jaded empath suggested that I overheated the argument from the beginning by bringing in Hitler and the Nazis, thereby violating Godwin's Law, Godwin being presumably the Emily Post of uncivil discourse. How does one civilly discuss torture? It's like discussing sandwich-making in an abbatoir.

But I didn't bring the Nazis in as some kind of coy liberal ploy; I brought them in because Eisenhower vomited when he viewed one of their concentration camps. I thought this reaction by a Commander-in-Chief was important, not least because he was later a Republican President of these states, and not least becuse it was a reaction quite different from anything we see from the current Republican administration. It's the reaction of a decent human being to horror. If Ike had thrown up in the basement of the Lubyanka Prison in Moscow, I'd have used that, and been equally guilty of violating Godwin's Law.

T2Bruno thought the phrase "lapping up Ike's vomit" absurdly over-dramatic, and it probably was a little overdone, but I do believe most of the candidates on that stage would lap up a lot more than Ike's vomit if it would make them President of the U.S. Sorry if that sounds a bit cynical.

Mea Culpa: The paraphrase I used for the loaded question on torture--which I couldn't remember--was very inappropriate, because my loaded example was personal and not national, and this produced some foggy discourse on the thread, entirely my fault. Some posters believed the actual question was about someone's mother being threatened, and others digressed into the use of torture in dealing with personal threats. The question, really, is about torture as National Policy, official torture. As several posters pointed out, the Doomsday Scenario would probably justify torture. What about the Pseudo-Doomsday Scenario, which is really what we're dealing with here.

[And who the **** is Jack Bauer? Apparently some TV character who regularly tortures people to prevent an avalanche of Doomsday Scenarios. Or is he there just to soften us up to the use of torture as a national option? When I was a kid, only the Bad Guys tortured in popular culture; this is not an insignificant shift. Nor is the fact that a Justice of the Supreme Court cites Bauer as some kind of role model. Times change; or are they nudged?]

I read something a few days ago about the Bed of Procrastes. He was the fellow, in ancient myth, who fitted his guests to the bed in his guestroom. If they were too short, he stretched them; if they were too long, he lopped them off. The author pointed out that it was probably pretty unpleasant to listen to the screams if you lived next door, but not so bad if you were a few miles away.

 

AFAIK, Jack Bauer is the fictional character from the TV Show "24." They sometimes show it here, but I tend to watch other programs in that period so I can't tell you more myself. I've heard that the show is based on TBS cases, and that Bauer, as the antihero, usually resorts to torture to get information out of the suspects. He has become a pop icon of sorts, I guess.

Procrastes, Procrastes... From the Hercules myths, right? I think he lived as a brigand; no doubt that his habits might have been a bit inconvenient to any neighbors. But usually, as they say, out of sight (hearing in this case) - out of mind. The legend also includes the old rule - you get what you give.

 

Which is an apt description, albeit on a lesser cruelty level, for what US congressmen experienced - when they were shown all the pics from Abu Ghraib during the scandal.

I yesterday heared an interview with Sey Hersh about General Taguba who investigated Abu Ghraib. How was that sexual humiliation involving sodomising male prisoners in Abu Ghraib? At that time Bill O'Reilly, ever the moron, joked that the guys should relax and enjoy it. Oh, and the boys. Oh, and the girls. Sexually 'roughing up' was also administered to female prisoners, and guards got themselves photographed 'pants down' sodomising female prisoners. Now that is a crime in every prison, military or not, at war or in peace. The abuse of female detainees got so bad, as in widespread, that female Iraqi inmates wrote letters to their families asking them to kill them because they had been dishonoured.
It is unlikely even after an honour killing, or even the laughable compensations Iraqis get when they are compensated at all, that for the Iraqi families the issue is dealt with. Talk about a good reason to kill Americans.
Why didn't all of it make it into the news? Because the D.C. press is so courteous to think: "As with sex or real estate, it is often best to keep the lights off." Muckrakers of the world, that's the spirit that gets you invited to Vice Presidential cocktail parties!

It can be assumed that in Iraq the above described conduct has resulted in US troops being killed in revenge and retaliation. Americans in Iraq have impunity. US contractors and civilians have impunity as a result of Executive Order 13303 from 22 May 2003 ( as in Luskan low justice and Neverwinter high justice ), and soldiers are under US military jurisdiction. In less public cases they're quietly rushed out of service or redeployed home rather than punished, a common practice. Private Greene is a point in case. Superiors apparently prefer not to look too close, an impression Gen. Taguba confirms, and that seems supported by polls among troops.
Killing the culprit on the spot, or hitting some other American are the only ways to get accountability for an Iraqi. The US paying "blood money" is better than not caring at all, but it doesn't suffice, and is usually connected with humiliating procedures. Think about that psycho Green, and what happened to his unit. Green was quietly sent back home, discharged, and only investigated and prosecuted once the crime he committed became public, in the US. His acts likely got then two of his comrades snatched, tortured and killed in retaliation because the Iraqis couldn't get Greene himself.

Normally I am against death penalty. But it arguably would have impressed the Iraqis just as much as Greene's comrades had the US had put Green to the wall on an Iraqi market and publicly shot him, after putting him on a public trial under the US military code, in Iraq, hearing local witnesses, allowing the locals to witness the verdict and punishment in person, followed by degrading his superiors for dereliction of duty and lack of oversight. You'd have bet that would have made a difference. It would have prevented repetitions, made an example, and probably had saved his comrades. But no, another few bad apples. What a relief.
What I want to say with that is that the lukewarm US reaction suggests to me that in the official view such incidents are best covered up and kept under the rug. With that I mean they are seen as mere excesses to be dealth with by PR, and not as a real and systemic problem that is corroding the army from within. But that is what we have when soldiers are willing not to report comrades who violate the laws of war and abuse prisoners or kill bystanders. It is a fundamental disciplinary problem, exacerbated by at the very least a permissive climate coming from the top. I think Rummy didn't and doesn't even understand that, or he doesn't dare admit it to himself.

As I said the Abu Ghraib scandal is a perfect illustration about how torture, under the pressure to produce results, proliferates: Allow torture or 'ego-down-techniques' as an emergency measure, and they'll become standard operating procedure used indiscriminately. Abuse will be rampant, as a result of a climate of 'everything goes'. For practical purposes there is no longer a difference between Khalid Sheik Mohammed, a Baathist General, insurgent leader, his wife, son or daughter, or Ali the baker from Haifa Street who got picked up by mistake.

Polls indicate that for Iraqi support for the US the tipping point was Abu Ghraib, after which it never recovered. Like other atrocities, torture backfires instantly, unless of course, you're as ruthless as Saddam or Pinochet and kill and bury the tortured quietly.

In his report Taguba said he didn't find direct order given for abuse. Maybe. But he wasn't allowed to investigate his superiors. He was tasked to investigate Abu Ghraib only. I think it will be most interesting to see what's in the files of guys like Cambone for instance. That is a job for senate and house committees, unless, of course, it is found it is best 'to keep the lights off' so everybody can keep his dinner.
The pleasant thing about the whole affair is that Rumsfeld probably committed perjury when he said under oath that he didn't know of the abuse when it happened. Taguba suggests that the generals knew of it days later after the first internal report, and it is very unlikely that when every general knew it, Rummy didn't, or Bush for that instance.
That then raises the question why in the long time between the first internal reports and the final public surfacing of the scandal nothing happened and no corrective measures were applied. To me it suggests that the program was indeed sanctioned from the top. Copper Green, bad apples anyone?

 

I think what we're seeing is that the American system works fine when there's competent leadership at the top. It can even work fine when incompetent leadership is balanced by competent leadership (that would be the checks and balances thing).

However. If the executive branch is run a by a bunch of half-wits, the legislature is permissive--at best--and the judiciary is irrelevent, then the system doesn't work.

The real lesson to be drawn from all of this is to not elect incompetent, incurious, stubborn jackasses 'I'd like to hang out with at a BBQ' to the highest office in the land.

Anyone care to place bets as to whether the electorate's learned that lesson?

*snicker*

 

Ragusa, not to sound too cynical, but I do not think a US soldier is likely to be sentenced to death over his or others' conduct in Iraq, and even a court-martial over a serious crime would be hard. Not even if s/he were guilty. The aura of global, Manichean confrontation this conflict has makes the "he's our SOB" mentality all too pervasive, and at least the current performance of everyone involved - especially the politicians, but IMO also the military- indicates that no one is interested in claiming responsibility for failures.

Now, to add to this, any military has a sense of elitism and group cohesion, and I dare say the US is no exception. The idea of essentially sacrificing someone seems completely unthinkable in that conspect, even if it would be productive.

 

I'm not an American, but I voted yes. As others have already pointed out, the question was loaded. So just because a politician in the TV agrees something that basically every* human would do, it wouldn't change on how I judge him. (So if I planned to vote for him or her, the new 'information' wouldn't make any difference in my plans.) Of course, it's another matter that newspapers on the other day with headlines "X supports torture!" will manipulate people, especially for those who didn't watch the talk (or watched it, and they are too naive). It's another question if they are asked about "legitimized torture", about torture made by some national or national security interest etc.**

So let's make a distinction between the two things.

*Yeah, most people would do it [torture the assumed bad guy]. If someone who you love is in great peril, you won't be thinking. The only difference may root in your temperament and composure -- how sure you're whether it's really the bad guy, and thus what you decide. But this has little significance, especially if you feel convinced that he is the "bad guy". You may condemn a politician who accepts such form of torture, while not realizing you would exactly do the same. You may believe you wouldn't do it: no, you definitely would. These are situations when your rational, intellectual side gets little role.

**Of course, politicians mustn't support any organized and/or legitimized way of torture (e.g. in war, or in national security issues), but it doesn't change on the fact that it's done. It's done by CIA, by FSZB, by American soldiers, if the reason is "justified" -- regardless what the actual law is. Let's not be idealists.

This is true, but as I've said above, you must be able to stay very restrained in such a situation.

Torture is wrong, but I wonder what you would do if your mom (or anyone who you love) actually got to the aforedescribed situation.

This reminds me to Blackthorne_TA's (disagreeing) statements about ordering houseowners to clean the sidewalk in front of their house, from the snow/ice. If he had an old and/or ill relative who he loves, living in a country where social security is poor (and sidewalks aren't cleaned by the city anywhere) ; and the old man was forced to use such snowy sidewalks and one day, he slipped... All in all, the analogy is that everyone judges based on what he sees, where he lives, and what he has experienced. You've never experienced it, so your thinking is somewhat idealistic.

 

Um, Cernak? You got things precisely backwards with me. I'd pointed out that the Godwin's Law thing was moot (i.e. "deprived of practical significance : made abstract or purely academic") since it a) occurred at the start of the discussion, and b) was TOTALLY apt.

And just for the record; "Godwin's Law" is merely an observation on behaviour, not an injunction to end 'pointless' debate; It is, literally:

And that's ALL - it doesn't assert that a comparison or reference to Hitler or the Nazis is inappropriate, or detrimental to the referrer's arguments, just that it will occur.

Indeed, this is one of those instances when referring to Adolf and his gang of wacky National Socialists is exactly appropriate; it's this sort of thing that Mike Godwin has argued (separately from his 'Law') about not overusing the 'You're a Nazi' cliche retort, since it robs the value of the VALID use...

 

Torture? We don't need no stinkn' torture...

And there you have it...from the "Commander" himself. Smart kids though....

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

 

Well, after they re-definded torture as everything illegal, logically, the stuff they ordered through secret executive order can't be torture, because if the president wants it, it's legal. Magic! Because waterboarding is now a 'coercive interrogation technique', it is irrelevant that before it was re-labeled everybody considered it torture. So probably Bush is lieing to himself as much as to everybody else.

The stark irony, certainly lost on Bush, is that the 'coercive interrogation techniques' used by the US originated from Special Forces and CIA SERE training, and were specifically designed "to replicate harsh conditions that the service member might encounter if they are held by forces that do not abide by the Geneva Conventions." and to prepare personnel for the case of their capture.

The US using these techniques in interrogations is according to this quaint and obsolete 'oldthink' view just that, a country that violates the Geneva Conventions

But no despair! Moral Clarity (tm) comes to the rescue: 9/11! 1%! The enemy is evil! He deserves whatever he gets! Rogue states! An end to evil! Vorwärts immer, rückwärts nimmer!

And the Geneva Conventions don't apply. And US law doesn't apply too. Neither in Cuba, or Iraq or Afghanistan and any other place overseas for that instance. I really wonder why they always hurry to add these afterthoughts. As if the re-definition alone is insufficient Bush should get himself a battery of prayer mills that say 'America does not torture'.... All left to do is that he spins them real fast....

 

I disagree. I don't think it's possible that Bush could lie to himself as much as he does to everyone else. There isn't that much time in a day....

 

And yet, in the media at least, there is little outrage. Torture-lite practices are, if not accepted, politicized enough so they pass for a partisan issue. This will come back sooner or later - everything has a price, after all - and then we will judge if it has been worth it.

But as far as I am concerned, if there is a hell, all the officials on both sides of the channel who contributed to the mainstreaming of these practices have a special place in it.

 

It already has. Abu Ghraib did a great deal of harm to us.

 

Please elaborate as I don't understand this?

 

I don't think I need to explain how AG hurt us in the hearts and minds department.

 

AMaster you forget that the Arabiacs would understand that America means nothing but good, if these ingrates could only be made to listen to Karen Hughes explaining to them the truth about the pictures from Abu Ghraib and what their lieing eyes really see, or should see.

America's problem today is that they can say whatever they want, and that no one cares because rightly or wrongly everbody has a pretty precise view on what they do.
Talk contradicted by actions will usually be interpeted as hypochrisy, or as indications a delusional state if the observer is so kind to assume benign motives, neiter is particularly reassuring. Bush's or Rice's high strung babble inevitably reminds me of Honecker's demented ramblings about the blessings of Socialism. They all share a lack of moorings in reality.

 

Torture should never be used. Ever. I have yet to see a situation when tortured would be good or even acceptable.

 

Cernak:

Perhaps they should ask these Senators the following:

"Your mother is being held captive, and the lead terrorist approaches her with a sledgehammer. However, they promise to let her go unharmed if you have anal and oral sex with a random male stranger. Would you engage in anal and oral sex, if in doing so you could rescue your mother?"

Then, we the Senators give an unanimous yes, they would give a man a dirty troumbone, we respond "Aha, so you support homosexual behaviour. So why are you so hypocritical as to act in opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage?"

Oh man, I'm awesome. I think I might start 'The Mountain Hare News', and label my station as 'fair and balanced'!