Conjuring what spirit of the original den Beste challenge as I can, the challenge issues ….
Resolved: As a matter of U.S. policy, torture should be used by the U.S. and its allies in fighting the war on terror.
UPDATE: Our smarty-pants commentators have pointed out that this formulation gives me too much in light of my caveat no. 2 below. Ahh, well. Fair should be fair. Katherine suggests a more precise formulation, which I’ve slightly modified. The new position is:
Resolved: in fighting the war on terror, there are some circumstances where a U.S. government agent should be able to torture a prisoner without risking criminal or civil liability.*
Original Post Continues:
If you are (1) a blogger, (2) support the foregoing position, and (3) you’re up for a bit of fun, e-mail Obsidian Wings with your contact information (the e-mail is at the top of the front page).
I’ll take the contrary position — i.e., torture is not a wise and proper tool — and debate the first serious respondent. For simplicity and my own sanity, I will only debate one person, and therefore will not respond to requests for debate via methods other than an e-mail. The debate will proceed, one post alternating and tracking the other, until one of us gets horribly bored. At which point it will end.
Incidentally, yours truly will be the sole judge as to who is "serious" and who is not. If I reject your challenge, I will explain why in an e-mail.
Before you send that e-mail, however, realize what this debate is not about:
1. It’s not about the Geneva Convention, the Gonzales memoranda, or associated technicalities or legalisms. Very few members of the blogosphere are competent to debate such things with the required knowledge, and I’m uninterested in a debate — no matter how passionate — among non-experts (and I include myself among that category). This is a debate about policy; about what kind of country us well-informed citizens want.
2. It’s also not about prosecuting soldiers on the battlefield, the ticking time bomb scenario, or what you saw last night on 24. If your position is going to be that torture may be defensible if minds are fogged by war, or if there’s a terrorist ready to explode a nuclear bomb in thirty minutes and the guy you’ve just captured knows where it is and how to defuse it — this is going to be a pretty boring debate because I’m going to largely agree with you. To paraphrase another, I can twist the utility knob and come up with a hypothetical in which most of us would enthusiastically advocate the slow torture and death of a seven year old kid. The extremes tell us very little about what should be done day-to-day, and so this isn’t a debate about the extremes. [Portion of original deleted at the suggestion of KenB in comments; "resolved" revised to exclude the ticking time bomb/battlefield scenario.]
3. Do not expect the debate to fall into the usual liberal v. conservative dog-and-pony show. As the Mudville Gazette writes:
Let’s dispense with the right/left aspect of this outright. Not everything can be pigeonholed into those political categories, and certainly no one on either end of the political spectrum feels torture is one of the defining points of their position. As much as some may take delight in setting up a "torture aficionado straw man" who supported that other guy in the last election" it’s certainly not a legitimate starting point for any reasonable discussion on the matter.
Indeed, I’m relatively center-right; don’t be surprised if, at the end of the day, you find yourself pretty far to left of me — with other noted lefty torturers, such as Castro, Stalin, etc. [But I should keep the rest of my powder dry, no?]
As always, my best.
*Let’s put aside the possibility of a government agent indirectly causing someone to be tortured by sending them to another country (Saudia Arabia; Syria). One gets into tricky questions of intent, etc.
That’s a nice topic for debate however as no one has actually authorized the use of torture it’s really not very timely.
Good point, thorley winston. Let’s wait until somebody authorizes torture before we debate whether or not somebody should authorize torture.
What’s the realworld difference between authorizing the use of torture and arguing that terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Convention, Thorley? In all the handwringing over the advantages we’re giving the terrorists by not torturing them, I can’t figure this one out.
Thorley, some have proposed making the use of torture official U.S. policy. (See, e.g., Instapundit of a few days back.) I’d like to debate them regarding their proposal. Am I forbidden from doing so until their proposal is accepted?
If so, are we also forbidden from debating Social Security reform?
Really, help me out. Because right now you’re not making any sense.
Von wrote:
What part of “that’s a nice topic for debate” was beyond your comprehension abilities? I merely pointed out that it wasn’t timely because no one has actually authorized the use of torture nor frankly has anyone seriously (beyond the blogosphere and water cooler) debated the merits of using it.
By all means debate it if you will but unlike Social Security reform, it’s not a topic that’s actually before our government nor likely to come up anytime soon.
Seriously, I may not comment as often as I want to here, but this post is just one more example of why this IS the best group blog out there. Period.
And von, I am trying to figure out how it is that I know that I am a bit to the left of you, yet I agree with you more often than not. Then again, I hardly ever agree with Bird and usually agree with Edward so I probably don’t have a personal crisis on my hands afterall.
Edward wrote:
Argument ad absurdum. There is nothing that says because we recognize that unlawful combatants such as Al-Qaeda who do not themselves follow the rules of war are not protected by laws which grant special protections to those who do, that it is axiomatic that we are going to then proceed to torture them.
Try again.
“What’s the realworld difference between authorizing the use of torture and arguing that terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Convention, Thorley?”
There are a lot of differences in treatment which are not torture, including the subjects persuable in interrogation.
Once more, the right creates it’s own reality.
Rather, this is a debate about the wisdom of using torture as official policy where there is no apparent necessity.
Isn’t this sort of begging the question? Who’s going to argue for torturing just for the hell of it?
KenB wrote:
Good catch, sounds like Von set himself up a straw man argument.
kenB: Isn’t this sort of begging the question? Who’s going to argue for torturing just for the hell of it?
I’ve seen several right-wingers argue that torture of the kind advocated by Gonzales in the infamous memo ought to be allowed routinely – and that what happened at Abu Ghraib wasn’t really torture at all. I’d certainly be interested to see who meets Von’s challenge.
The Geneva Convention not only prohibits torture. It also completely prohibits interrogation of any kind. When you capture terrorists* you would want to be able to try to get information, and given that they do not abide by the Geneva conventions, it’s odd to imply that they are fully protected prisoners-of-war.
* The heart of my disagreement with administration policy was the fact that they did not convene tribunals to make sure they had actual Al-Queda or Taliban members on their hands.
There is nothing that says because we recognize that unlawful combatants such as Al-Qaeda who do not themselves follow the rules of war are not protected by laws which grant special protections to those who do, that it is axiomatic that we are going to then proceed to torture them.
There’s nothing saying that one must torture them, granted, but I’m asking about realworld consequences here.
Yesterday Senator Sessions noted:
IThe President has gone further than the law requires in granting them privileges that he didn’t have to do as regards humane treatment. What is “humane treatment” in this context if not stopping short of torture?
So, in other words, if the President isn’t obligated to NOT torture them (i.e., as Sessions implied, Bush would legally be able to order inhumane treatment) what is the realworld difference between this position and authorizing inhumane treatment?
Isn’t the legal door wide open there? Wasn’t that the entire point of the exercise in Presidential immunity Gonzales signed off on in the 2002 memo?
Jesurgislac wrote:
Which is a lie of course since Alberto Gonzales wrote no such memo advocating torture.
Another way of phrasing the question to avoid KenB’s concerns might be:
“Resolved: In fighting the war on terror, there are some circumstances when the United States should legally authorize the torture of prisoners.”
Dershowitz would argue against you in that case (unless Abu Ghraib has changed his mind) so I would imagine you could find someone right-of-center to do the same.
If you wanted to be really precise about it, you could say: “Resolved: in fighting the war on terror, there are some circumstances where a U.S. soldier or intelligence officer should be able to torture a prisoner or send him to be tortured by another country, without risking criminal punishment under civilian or military law.”
This would clearly distinguish people who favor prior legal authorization of torture, by the President or a “torture warrant” or anything/anyone else, from people who think that torture should never ever be authorized in advance but a limited necessity defense should be available to defendants prosecutred for torture. IIRC you’re in the latter category.
The BelmontClub has the good start of a discussion about torture, though the comments slip early.
Defining quote:
Edward wrote:
Providing them with prayer cloths/rugs, copies of the Koran, and letting them pray at regular intervals in Gitmo. Providing them medical care to fix preexisting (non life-threatening maladies) such as dental care. Providing meals consistent with the requirements of Muslim law.
Seriously it’s like you guys aren’t even trying any more to come up with a serious argument.
“The Geneva Convention not only prohibits torture. It also completely prohibits interrogation of any kind. ”
I’m not an expert on the Geneva Conventions. I have been told by some experts that Geneva does not prohibit interrogation of POWs; that this is an exaggeration by people who do not want to follow the treaty at all. I have been told by other experts that it does forbid interrogation. Since both groups include law professors who were presumably not trying to deceive their students, I assume that the treaty is at least somewhat ambiguous on this point.
KenB and Thorley
Good catch, sounds like Von set himself up a straw man argument.
I was referring to the defense of necessity, which I’ve sought to exclude from the debate. I think that’s clear enough, but I can see the basis for your confusion(s). I’ll update.
I’m fine with either of Katherine’s rephrasings, and I’d change the wording in your caveat #2 to something like “this is a debate about using torture in cases other than those where we know for a fact that the detainee (and only the detainee) has exactly the information we need to save x number of lives and that torture is the only way to extract that information, which isn’t real-world in any case.”
Von wrote:
Actually Von if you really want to have an honest debate you would remove Number 2 entirely since you’ve set yourself up as being able to argue “I’m against torture unless it’s necessary” thereby committing anyone arguing the affirmative as defending torture just for the heck of it.
If you really wanted a reasonable debate. You should change this sentence just a big…
“Resolved: As a matter of U.S. policy, torture should be AN OPTION AVAILABLE to the U.S. and its allies in fighting the war on terror.”
Seriously it’s like you guys aren’t even trying any more to come up with a serious argument.
Leave the snarks aside if you can Thorley…your nonsnarky responses are far more interesting.
Providing them with prayer cloths/rugs, copies of the Koran, and letting them pray at regular intervals in Gitmo. Providing them medical care to fix preexisting (non life-threatening maladies) such as dental care. Providing meals consistent with the requirements of Muslim law.
But Sessions wasn’t talking about Gitmo. He was talking about Iraq. In a Muslim country that we were supposedly only providing security for at that point, you mean to argue that the President went beyond his obligations by not treating Iraqi prisoners worse than newly trained Iraqi guards would have treated them?
If not, what does “humane treatment” mean in the context Session meant it? Iraq.
Also: Even if you don’t say “torture is authorized”, if you systematically dismantle all of the legal prohibitions and procedural safeguards against torture, and (this is key) do not replace them with any other safeguards–you are responsible for the torture that results. At best you have negligently or recklessly caused someone to be tortured. At worst you have knowingly or intentionally caused someone to be tortured.
(clarification: I am using some law school jargon here, but I’m talking about moral rather than legal responsibility.)
A debate challenge from Von
Von of Obsidian Wings has a challenge to anyone willing to identify as a pro-torture blogger: Resolved: As a matter of U.S. policy, torture should be used by the U.S. and its allies in fighting the war on terror. If…
A debate challenge from Von
Von of Obsidian Wings has a challenge to anyone willing to identify as a pro-torture blogger: Resolved: As a matter of U.S. policy, torture should be used by the U.S. and its allies in fighting the war on terror. If…
Edward wrote
Yes he was and Gonzales in the portion of his statement that Edward cut out said that the GPW was applicable in Iraq which makes this a rather pointless debate as to the supposed “real world consequences” if we don’t apply the GPW. However the examples I gave of “humane treatment” as the term has been used for the last couple of years are applicable to a situation where the GPW does not apply such as in combating Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
“if you systematically dismantle all of the legal prohibitions and procedural safeguards against torture, and (this is key) do not replace them with any other safeguards–you are responsible for the torture that results. At best you have negligently or recklessly caused someone to be tortured. At worst you have knowingly or intentionally caused someone to be tortured.”
I agree with you, which is why we should have procedural safeguards.
[This is not an attempted threadjack]
But I must admit that I get a twinge of annoyance since I have used this very same argument in nearly every abortion debate on this site to support the idea that we need to have a monitoring system regarding 3rd-trimester abortions to ensure that they really are employed with the proper balance between the life of the fetus and the health of the mother. And every time, I get shot down hard.
[Once again, just whining, not an attempted threadjack]
Actually Von if you really want to have an honest debate you would remove Number 2 entirely since you’ve set yourself up as being able to argue “I’m against torture unless it’s necessary” thereby committing anyone arguing the affirmative as defending torture just for the heck of it.
Thorley, I am right that you are a law student or lawyer, right? And, thus, I presume that you recognize that the “defense of necessity” means something fairly specific. One can be, for example, against torture as policy but be in favor of allowing a defense to a torture charge — just as one can be against homicide as policy but be in favor of allowing a defendant to raise a defense of “self-defense” (or insanity, etc.).
Now, you may take the next long leap and argue that self defense justifies torture as policy. But, just because one can take that next long leap does not mean that one must take that next long leap.
Thorely,
in the portion of his statement that Edward cut out
Just for clarity (not that you’re implying this) Gonzales said that more than once..the omission was not designed to try and fool anyone.
I’ll try this from another angle and see if I can be more clear. Sessions was arguing that Bush was more humane than he had to be with the prisoners in Iraq. This implies the Geneva Conventions didn’t apply to some of those captured in Iraq. I guess that would have to mean for nonIraqis or Iraqis aligned with organized terrorist groups, but let’s assume he’s right.
If the “Geneva Conventions didn’t apply,” in this context, what could that possibly mean other than that torture was permissable? They were surrounded by Muslims, the US guards. They were in a Muslim country, so it’s not like they had to go out of their way to accomodate their dietary or religious needs or any of the other items suggested so far. None of that represents any needed extra effort on the part of the US. It would be easier to give them Muslim food.
So what does it mean here really? What did the US do, other than not torture them, that went further than the law required here? I can’t see a real world difference between saying the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply and authorizing torture. There’s no other logical explanation for what that could mean in this context.
I’ve updated to respond to KenB’s, Katherine’s, and Thorley’s reasonable comment. (My response to Thorley’s unreasonable comment is above.)
Jonas Cord: The heart of my disagreement with administration policy was the fact that they did not convene tribunals to make sure they had actual Al-Queda or Taliban members on their hands.
Exactly.
Further, the Geneva Convention does not prohibit interrogation: it merely prohibits, and very sternly, any kind of coercion to force PoWs to provide anything other than evidence of their identity.
So, the only reason for not wanting the Geneva Convention to apply to prisoners is if you want to be freed from the restrictions in Section 17 on questioning them. (In any case, I concede the point that terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention: but the requirement is for the detaining power to determine the status of each prisoner by a competent tribunal – and until their status has been determined, all prisoners are entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention, Section 17 included.)
If I were going to argue in favor of torture, I guess the best I could do would go something like this:
Again, none of this is my actual position on the matter, I am playing devil’s advocate here.
A debate challenge from Von
Von of Obsidian Wings has a challenge to anyone willing to identify as a pro-torture blogger: Resolved: As a matter of U.S. policy, torture should be used by the U.S. and its allies in fighting the war on terror. If…
Edward–there are other laws besides the Geneva conventions that prohibit torture. They include U.S. statutes
Thorley knows a lot about the law, but he uses legal arguments very much like the Bybee OLC or John Yoo uses them. I would not turn to him for a neutral explanation. (I wouldn’t turn to me alone either, because I haven’t actually graduated and passed the bar yet and because there’s usually a certain amount of room for interpretation. But between me, von and Sebastian you should do okay. So here’s my best understanding:
1) It is false to say we applied the Geneva Conventions in Iraq. Even accepting that none of the worst abuses at Abu Ghraib were authorized by the administration, we know that Donald Rumsfeld authorized hiding “ghost detainees” from the Red Cross. This violates the Geneva Conventions. That’s only the most obvious of a host of examples. So do many of the interrogation techniques short of torture that we know were authorized at Abu Ghraib.
2) Even if the Geneva conventions do not apply, there are other, entirely separate laws against torture, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the anti-Torture statute, and the Convention against torture, to name a few.
3) However, the OLC Bybee memo states that the President’s commander in chief power allows him to override and disobey any of the treaties or laws if it is necessary to the war effort. The new memo on torture did not reject this position, and Gonzales refused to reject it at his hearings yesterday. Even if the new memo had changed this position, it was the official position of the justice department for two years.
4) In addition, the Torture Convention and anti-Torture statute, unlike Geneva and the UCMJ, do not have a good set of procedural mechanisms to guarantee the laws are actually obeyed.
5) (this is the one I’m least certain of but this is my best understanding): The UCMJ does not apply to the C.I.A. or to private contractors who conduct investigations or to civilian Defense Department officials. And because the military justice system does not allow you to investigate someone who outranks you, it’s a lot more effective at prosecuting low level people like Lynndie England than it is at prosecuting generals.
No, it means the GCW didn’t apply. Or that someone thought they didn’t.
Katherine, Thorley, Edward, et al. —
Take a look at the link to the ACS blog in my most recent post. It contains a detailed discussion of the Yoo memorandum, and a comparison to the revised DOJ memorandum.
Thanks for the lucid explanation Katherine…very helpful. It’s hard for some of us nonlawyer types around here. 😉
Slarti, my question arises when I add the two together. Sessions insisted the Geneva Conventions didn’t apply to some in Iraq, yet Bush went further than the law required. I cannot wrap my mind around what action constituted going further than the law required in Iraq. How did he go further than the law required? By doing what exactly? The only conclusion I can come to is that he didn’t authorize torture, which is what I assumed it meant back when I started my ramblings.
I don’t have a fixed or educated opinion on torture (what constitutes torture, where, if anywhere, it is justified, whether or not it should actually BE policy or not), so I’m not debating you Von. But what I do think is that our enemies should absolutely BELIEVE our threat to torture them as a vehicle for soliciting information. I want the threat to be compelling. If we publically say no torture ever, then that threat as a tool becomes unuseable. While perhaps privately we should repudiate the practice, and perhaps that requires phantom charges be levelled at those who DO torture against policy, rather than torture charges, so as to maintain the fiction, I do want someone who walks into a room fool of sharp instruments, car batteries, waterboards etc. scared to the maximum extent and to think it is a real possibility they will be subject to being victimized by them.
I don’t think such threats constitute torture, but I’d hate to give away the tool. So for public consumption, I’d allow torture (subject to limitations etc.) as policy.
Well, that’s certainly novel. Some questions:
1) How would you propose that voters tell the difference between that government policy and a government policy of actually torturing prisoners?
2) Wouldn’t your policy send mixed signals (at BEST) to soldiers about what was and was not legal that would almost certainly lead to even more instances of torture that have already happened? (Remember, we already know of cases where it’s happened to innocent people.)
3) Aren’t there serious due process issues with charging soldiers with crimes they did not commit, to punish them for something that is officially legal?
4) Would you suggest that Congress repeal the anti-torture statute or the President announce that he reserved the right to override it?
5) How do you think our remaining allies would react to our withdrawal from, or announced intent to violate, the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture? I’m not talking only about what they think about us–I’m also talking about whether they contribute any troops to any future U.S. wars, share intelligence with us, extradite suspects to us, allow U.S. planes to use their airspace or refuel at their airports, etc. etc.
6) Say you were a moderate Iraqi civilian or Muslim immigrant utterly opposed to terrorism. Say you suspected your neighbor or family member of participating in the Iraq insurgency or contributing money to Al Qaeda or other terrorist activities. Wouldn’t this policy make you much less willing to report your suspicions, particularly if you were not certain of his guilt?
7) Doesn’t Abu Ghraib adequately demonstrate to prisoners that torture can happen on a large scale even if it is officially illegal?
“officially legal”
or illegal…
Well, that’s certainly novel. Some questions:
Actually, I think Felix sort of hit on it in his “Devil’s Advocate” post.
1) How would you propose that voters tell the difference between that government policy and a government policy of actually torturing prisoners?
The same way they do on lots of other matters, using their judgement of what would happen rather than perfect knowledge. It’s the way we make most decisions.
2) Wouldn’t your policy send mixed signals (at BEST) to soldiers about what was and was not legal that would almost certainly lead to even more instances of torture that have already happened? (Remember, we already know of cases where it’s happened to innocent people.)
No, because commanders at Sr. levels would be the authorizing agent for torture in any case, and only specific, specially trained intel troops would be part of the “torture squad,” noone else would be permitted in the room, they’d be responsible. Not a perfect approach by any stretch, just better than the alternative.
3) Aren’t there serious due process issues with charging soldiers with crimes they did not commit, to punish them for something that is officially legal?
I was thinking of creating a kind of “conduct unbecoming” sort of general catch all charge. The actual trial would be secret, the charge regarding the offense could be done that way. They still get their trial and due process.
4) Would you suggest that Congress repeal the anti-torture statute or the President announce that he reserved the right to override it?
I’m not sure either is a big problem. Kind of like the Prez limitation on foreign assasination which he can withdraw. Maybe that’s the best approach, I’m open.
5) How do you think our remaining allies would react to our withdrawal from, or announced intent to violate, the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture? I’m not talking only about what they think about us–I’m also talking about whether they contribute any troops to any future U.S. wars, share intelligence with us, extradite suspects to us, allow U.S. planes to use their airspace or refuel at their airports, etc. etc.
Fair point. I’m sure for public consumption they’d yell and scream, but I don’t think anyone has pulled out of Iraq over Abu Graib, so I’m not particularly concerned about this.
6) Say you were a moderate Iraqi civilian
Like my distant relatives in Baghdad? The ones who claim the major mistake we are in Iraq is not being brutal enough?
or Muslim immigrant utterly opposed to terrorism. Say you suspected your neighbor or family member of participating in the Iraq insurgency or contributing money to Al Qaeda or other terrorist activities. Wouldn’t this policy make you much less willing to report your suspicions, particularly if you were not certain of his guilt?
Jeeze, no. What you think that someone is considering turning someone in at the risk of theoretically life imprisonment or even the death penalty is going to be stopped by this? If someone is that concerned with their relatives welfare, he ain’t turning him in at all, regardless.
7) Doesn’t Abu Ghraib adequately demonstrate to prisoners that torture can happen on a large scale even if it is officially illegal?
No. An explicit statement of such policy following Abu Graib would demonstrate new resolve and remove the threat in the mind of the bad guys.
A challenger?
Yesterday the discussion here focused mainly on whether or not the Democrats should use the filibuster, especially as leverage to force the administration to release key do
I don’t think such threats constitute torture, but I’d hate to give away the tool.
FWIW, mock executions have been found to be torture by American courts (in the case I know of, they were American soldiers held by Iraqi forces during the Gulf War). And then there was this case, where an American commander led an Iraqi general to believe that his family would be held hostage if the general did not turn himself in (look for “David Hogg” in the article). This post includes arguments by a couple of current and former members of the armed forces that Hogg’s actions were in fact violations of the Geneva Conventions’ prohibitions on hostage taking, regardless of whether or not the family would have been released if the general had not turned himself in.
terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Convention
Eddie, that is correct. Now you ought to read this to clear up your understanding.
mock executions are clearly not legal.
to wit:
—————–
2) ”severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from –
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
Do mock executions cause prolonged mental harm?
Persian notes — major & minor
Some major reasons for brooding
Von at Obsidian Wings has a fascinating and vigorous thread going over how/whether to debate the…
Persian notes — major & minor
Some major reasons for brooding
Von at Obsidian Wings has a fascinating and vigorous thread going over how/whether to debate the…
Persian notes — major & minor
Some major reasons for brooding
Von at Obsidian Wings has a fascinating and vigorous thread going over how/whether to debate the…
“Do mock executions cause prolonged mental harm?”
The short answer is, yes.
The long answer is, I don’t have any psychiatric or medical training but I know a bit about this subject. I have had an investigative journalism professor who had stabbed almost fatally and suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder, and made us all learn about it because most journalists will deal with a traumatized person at some point in their career and he wanted us to be ethical about it. I worked in a trauma psychiatry program after college, though only in an administrative position. I also interviewed several clients who had been violently harmed at an immigration clinic.
PTSD, like any mental disorder, is not a neat and clean thing. Two people can face the exact same traumatic situation, and one will never be the same at all and one will recover reasonably quickly. Some people who were in the buildings in 9/11 are doing fine, some people who just saw it from across the river or even just on TV are not. It depends on the person. It depends on the kind of treatment, and more importantly, support from friends and family they get afterwards. It depends on why they were tortured–studies have shown that people tortured for their political activities, where they took this risk knowingly and for a reason and are part of a community of human rights activists and dissidents, tend to do better than people who are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Women are more likely to develop PTSD than men.
So you can’t say with certainty what kinds of trauma will cause PTSD (or another mental disorder–some people believe that chronic depression is even more common than PTSD in the long run. Other anxiety disorders are also common enough. In a few cases a trauma can also trigger an even more serious mental health condition, especially if it happens early enough in life.)
Some forms of trauma are more likely causes than others. You can’t neatly separate this out, because many if most people have suffered more than one form of trauma–and certainly you can’t separate out different forms of torture, as usually when you’re tortured you’re subjected to a whole range of them. As well as the obvious things like risk of death, length of the trauma, and whether you experienced it yourself or just witnessed it, symptoms seem to go up based on:
1) how intense the sense of powerlessness was, and how long it lasted
2) whether this is being done to you deliberately and sadistically by another human being, as opposed to by an accident or an “act of God”.
3) a sense of shame or guilt
If I remember correctly, rape and sexual abuse victims and torture victims have the highest rate of PTSD of any form of trauma. I don’t remember which group is higher; I think it varies based on the study and based on whether you control for gender (as a higher % of women are rape victims than torture victims and women are more than twice as likely to suffer from PTSD). Both are intensely sadistic and personal form of violation. In both cases you’re completely powerless at the hands of another person–“torture is to be totally at the mercy of those whose job it is to have no mercy,” was one of the sayings I heard somewhere or other. And I guess rape creates more of a sense of shame/guilt, but torture usually lasts longer.
As I said, the studies I’ve read don’t go into different forms of torture. Most people don’t experience only one. So I can’t compare mock execution to waterboarding, electric shock, severe beatings, or what have you. But mock execution is designed to demonstrate that you are completely at the mercy of someone–not only can they kill you if they want to, but they’re almost making a game of it. (There’s a mock execution was the one scene in Schindler’s List that I was least able to forget.) So I’d imagine that it’s up there as far as PTSD rates go.
“Do mock executions cause prolonged mental harm?”
Dostoevsky was subjected to a mock execution and described it as a very difficult and life-changing experience (read _The Idiot_ for a near-description) – reportedly several of the people in his group at the gallows went insane afterwards.
Just so as to save time, I link to this languagehat blog post about a harper’s essay by Mark Soluka comparing Dostoevsky’s mock execution to Czech poet Jaroslav Seifert mock execution. Unfortunately, the essay is not online, but it is worth a read.
Of course, one might point out that Dostoevsky turned his life around after that and asked for forgiveness from the goverment. But given the fact that people have more power today and a small committed cell of people could (and has) wreaked previously unimaginable havoc, providing people rationalizations (which then provides the surrounding population the opportunity to rationalize their behavior of ignoring warning signs and failing to report people) could cause more problems than it solves.
Of course, mock execution was a favorite technique of Tsarist Russia and we see how well that worked out.
Arrrgh! beaten to the punch! Curse you rilkefan!
Dostoevsky was subjected to a mock execution and described it as a very difficult and life-changing experience (read _The Idiot_ for a near-description)
Read _House_of_the_Dead_ for a virtually autobiographical account.
Von, I wanna say your posts are both funky and substantive.
I’d like to observe you in court.
Just wanted to say.
lj: “Arrrgh! beaten to the punch! Curse you rilkefan!”
I was there first, but you were there better, so it’s me cursing you. I knew someone from Eastern Europe who went through a mock execution [and it’s hard to suppress the hilarious awful-taste comment made by friend about his survival], and wanted to make a link from Tsarist Russia to mid-century Communism, but I lacked the google-energy or erudition needed. Now hopefully someone will chime in with a harrowing poem on the subject and make us both look bad…
“I’d like to observe you in court.”
Yes, bring on the streaming video.
er, who suggested mock executions????????
Can I ask the question that nobody else is asking?
What’s wrong with going by the standards laid down in FM 34-52 and taught at Fort Huachuca? If we won’t gain additional useful information by using differing standards in the interrogation of prisoners — and that seems to be the general consensus among interrogators — why should we change the standards? And why are we not consulting these interrogators during the process, instead leaving it to bloggers and lawyers and people who sit in leather chairs and muse on existentialisms without ever getting their hands dirty?
It’s all very well the people at the Belmont Club asking what the line should be, but we already know pretty damn well what the line actually is in practice, and that changing the line, far from getting us better information, in fact gets us worse information. Making comments like “torture is wrong” garners accusations of fuzzing the argument: “ah,” say the self-appointed hard-nosed realists in the room, “but where do we draw the line?” Well, simple. The same place it is now. Unless people can argue a compelling reason for changing the status quo on torture, I’m afraid you’re going to have to call me a conservative on the matter.
It’s not broken, or at least it wasn’t before the “clear-eyed, hard-nosed” types in the Bush administration made some “tough decisions” and, er, fubarred the whole thing, so let’s not try and fix it, eh? It’s a classic case of a solution looking for a problem.
“Do mock executions prolong mental harm?”
Not if they are fatal. But I mock.
“er, who suggested mock executions?????”
“I do want someone who walks into a room fool (sic) of sharp instruments, or batteries, waterboards, etc. scared to the maximum extent and to think it is a real possibility they will be subject to being victimized by them”
Hey, close enough, tough guy. On the other hand, you might be describing my garage. Wanna come over?
spc67, glad to see you posting here again, always learned something from your posts over at tacitus.org.
John, love that your garage is “a room fool of sharp instruments”. Hope you keep the kids out.
I do want someone who walks into a room fool of sharp instruments, car batteries, waterboards etc. scared to the maximum extent and to think it is a real possibility they will be subject to being victimized by them
So you want the US to use terror as a weapon to achieve its political goals? It worked for the Green Mountain Boys, I guess.
Rilkefan:
Well, you know, most of my saws and drills and stuff need sharpening because carpentry is torture for me but like spc67 I can make up anything I want about my personal experience with torture .. which is precisely zero .. but spc67 .. whose experience with same is precisely zero is a good role model for talking like a tough guy.
Oh, yeah, I forgot, we’re talking POLICY. Got it. 🙂 Smiley faces all around. You too, spc67.
Von:
“with other noted lefty torturers, like Castro and Stalin, etc.
Kinda breezy, don’t you think, on the way to funky, but merely… breezy .. just saying.
Kinda like .. I don’t know … righty Jew-burners, like Don Drysdale and Bob Gibson or Noam Chomsky .. except not exactly.
Wasn’t Yoko Ono a lefty-torturer? I mean, from Julian Lennon’s point of view?
Did I really write “fool” for “full?” AAArgh.
And Felix, my answer is I don’t know, but since I expressly said that I assume you are choosing to engage in your usual foolery. I do want to use the threat, same as I always want the threat of every tool in the USA toolbox.
“because carpentry is torture for me”
walking in Christ’s footsteps, I see. Don’t let Mel know.
Jihn Thullen,
Talking like a tough guy? How the hell did you come up with that? If I was talking like a tough guy, I’d say “Hey John, sure I’ll come to your garage, but you better have more than pointy objects, cuz I sure will.” How’s that?
I assume you are choosing to engage in your usual foolery
Oh, I don’t know that I’ve ever said a bad word about the Green Mountain Boys. Don’t know how I would feel if the British had used their tactics.
Never heard of Banastre Tarleton huh?
spc67:
Well, I don’t know. Maybe because you seemed intimately
familiar with the language and practice of torture.
My garage. Pilsner or lite. Just beer.
A few pointy objects…. in the garage. It’s like the stuffed owl heads in Anthoney Perkin’s motel lobby in Hitchcock’s ” Psycho”.
Somebody’s gonna get pecked to death. Eventually.
But, it’s just a movie. Go to sleep.
Never heard of Banastre Tarleton huh?
Hadn’t before now, but after a quick google, that’s not an apt comparison. The Green Mountain Boys were insurgents, but during their insurgency they did not actually kill anyone. They made a lot of people believe they were about to die, and if I recall correctly they were not averse to tarring and feathering and the like, but before the actual outbreak of war they managed to accomplish their goals through terror without having to take a single life.
If I was going to sharpen the arguments in the devil’s advocate piece above, I would probably include a reference to Ethan Allen and his cohort. It seems like a relevant comparison when you are talking about people being, “scared to the maximum extent and to think it is a real possibility they will be subject to being victimized…”, etc.
Thanks for the history lesson though, I’ll be reading about Mr. Tarleton.
I’m back, and at the risk of people screaming slippery slope, if mock executions are authorized, what is stopping them from taking children hostages and threatening to execute them? With some hollywood special fx, we could have those kids convinced they were going to die and they would force their parents to cough up the goods. It works for the toy industry.
I’d also note that there is some joke embedded in “I always want the threat of every tool in the USA toolbox.” about the Social Security lockbox, but I leave to better comedic minds than mine to formulate it.
But what I do think is that our enemies should absolutely BELIEVE our threat to torture them as a vehicle for soliciting information. I want the threat to be compelling. If we publically say no torture ever, then that threat as a tool becomes unuseable.
Counterproductive. Do we really wish to promote the idea that it’s preferable for our enemies to fight to the death against our troops rather than surrender and subject themselves to the perceived threat of torture?
It’s worth noting that mock executions are something that the US government complains about when other countries do it. Notably, the Japanese used this technique against Americans in WWII, and it really pissed us off. I also believe that the Iraqis used mock executions after the Gulf War.
I thought this link might be helpful. Unfortunately, it is illustrative rather than comprehesive, but it would allow those who want to argue for particular techniques to see where else they are used.
*waves*
If it doesn’t get any more useful information than not torturing, why should we include torture in the list of things we ask our soldiers to do to prisoners, against the advice of experienced army interrogators? What is the benefit of changing the policy laid down in FM 34-52?
McDuff
I’m sure that the reason no one is addressing this is because it would be unfair for von to cite previous policy as an argument and we haven’t gotten anyone to argue against him, except as a devil’s advocate.
Of course, if smlook‘s point (from another thread) holds, just because experienced army interrogators haven’t gotten any useful information so far doesn’t mean that we might not get some useful information in the future. I hope he pops over here to defend that notion.
Well, I could pre-empt it by pointing out that so far holding hands and wishing really hard hasn’t got us any useful information, but it could…
The argument, though, is more addressed to Sebastian and others citing the Belmont Club post as a “reasonable” discussion of torture. As I’ve argued over on my blog, the entire discussion is based on a false premise, i.e. that we are trading off between “moral standards” and “security,” when nobody really believes that. At least, nobody worth listening to.
Jadegold,
Yours is the best counterargument to my position that I had thought of. But given the apparent predisposition of our enemies to blow themselves up etc, I’m not sure about the willingness to surrender idea.
Must_do_more_thinking.
John Thullen,
I don’t drink…but I carry. Tough enough smart guy?
It’s worth noting that mock executions are something that the US government complains about when other countries do it. Notably, the Japanese used this technique against Americans in WWII, and it really pissed us off.
But not as much, as when they beheaded American servicemen.
Timmy asks: “Do mock executions cause prolonged mental harm?”
Another question: Does being a torturer cause prolonged mental harm to the torturer? Can they be safely integrated back into society? Would you want to live next to one? How does the conscious use of brutality affect the society that uses it?
This whole conversation makes me think of the movie Brazil. Gee, I had a drill just like Michael Palin used. Perhaps I could qualify for a an exciting career in Information Retrieval.
sigh
SPC just ignore JT, he is not worth the structuring of a drip.
How does the conscious use of brutality affect the society that uses it?
Interesting question, one wonders how we, as a nation, progressed from a society which relied on slavery, speaking of brutality.
I enjoyed the movie, Brazil, reminds of the current regime in Iran, only the Iranian fascists are less suttle.
from “John Thullen‘s Garage”
His eyes, they are obsidian,
His eyebrows, raven’s wings,
On singed and crooked fingers
He wears tweleve decoder rings.
He likes to spend his Sundays
In a place that’s always dark:
A room fool of sharp instruments
And twelve bottles of Maker’s Mark.
…
You know he tried to warn us
But we didn’t want to know.
We turned our backs and hoped
And let the awful horror grow.
Something from the nightmare
Of a tripping Richard Clarke:
A room fool of frayed power cords
And six bottles of Maker’s Mark.
…
Some bad nights you awaken
From another troubled dream.
Was that peals of manic laughter
Or a sort of strangled scream?
Go back to sleep. It’s only
Old John Thullen on a lark
In a room fool of 8k modems
And a bottle of Maker’s Mark.
I enjoyed the movie, Brazil, reminds of the current regime in Iran,
Then you really missed the point. I mean, really missed the point.
Then you really missed the point. I mean, really missed the point.
Trepanning is the point. But as many do here, you continue confuse aggresive interogation with torture.
Put the issue to a public debate, see what happens.
Well I think Timmy missed the point too. I don’t recall the theocratic references. However, given there are some many versions of the movie floating around perhaps there was a special made for republicans version that Timmy is referring to. I guess I’ll have to get the DVD when it comes out. He does raise an interesting question about subtlety. Are our methods of torturing and killing better because we are more subtle about it, if indeed we are?
Since we aren’t, the point is moot. With respect to waging war, well of course we are far more constrained than the fascists in Iran, as we don’t target civilians. You already knew that of course.
Trepanning is the point.
According to Terry Gilliam, you’re wrong. Though feel free to correct me if you can find a cite to justify your claim.
But as many do here, you continue confuse aggresive interogation with torture.
1) Where?
2) This is a vacuous assertion. You’re implicitly claiming that “aggresive interogation” and “torture” exist extrinsic to our definitions of same. They don’t. They’re labels applied to certain actions; and labels which the Bush Administration decided to alter or, if you’re so inclined, subvert. The proper question is whether the labels were altered in a manner we see fit.
3) You continue to ignore the fact that many, perhaps most, of the people we “aggresively interogated” were innocent and deprived due process. Any calculus that fails to take this into consideration is, almost by definition, amoral and unethical.
Put the issue to a public debate, see what happens.
What the hell are we doing here, then?
Put the issue to a public debate, see what happens.
Some of us have been. But you’ve been remarkably reticent to discuss the issue in more than vague generalities. I asked you a couple of questions the last time you suggested that people talk about torture; did you ever respond?
Since we aren’t, the point is moot.
What was going on at Abu Ghraib?
What was going on at Abu Ghraib?
Misconduct by Americans, which is far different from a formal policy on the issue. And again I will assume you were fully aware of that and that Iraqis were not to be treated as terrorists, per se, there was a carve out for Baathists though.
What the hell are we doing here, then?
I’m not what you are doing other than repeating yourselves but a public debate would encompass the Congress making new laws, such as, “should terrorists be treated as POWs” just for starters.
I’m not what you are doing other than repeating yourselves…
Cute. Dumb, but cute.
…but a public debate would encompass the Congress making new laws…
Encompassing doesn’t encompass necessity, so that’s irrelevant. Furthermore, last I checked no-one here was a member of Congress. I’d rail against my senators but hey, they’re doing a decent enough job already and it’s not like they’re up for reelection any time soon. I’d threaten not to vote for the Administration but hey, did that already and my guy lost. About the only recourse I have left at this juncture is to try and convince the people who did vote for those in power — and who therefore might actually be listened to — to come to their senses and try to put the brakes on this thing.
I don’t have a whole lot of hope for that eventuality, of course, but it’s worth a shot. Better than letting the US blithely waltz down a road paved in good intentions, at least.
Timmy says WRT to torture: Since we aren’t, the point is moot.
There is a report at Human Rights Watch about Iranian torture. Of relevance is the page
here that gives some details of what they are doing that constitutes torture. This seems remarkably similar to what we are allegedly doing. I suspect (hope) that there is a difference in that matter of degree. but it would seem there is at least a correspondence in techniques.
Misconduct by Americans, which is far different from a formal policy on the issue.
The defense in the ongoing trial for these Americans accused of misconduct is that it was a policy from above. And given the fact such misconduct was widespread throughout Afghanistan, Iraq, and Gitmo–it’s really hard to view this as anything but systemic.
Moreover, if one looks at the genesis of the so-called “torture memos,” one sees they were commissioned to allay intelligence/military concerns over potential prosecution when Rumsfeld ordered “the gloves be taken off.”
Rilkefan:
Thanks for the Rilke recommendations and thanks for the Rilkefan poem. Umm … it was brandy. But Maker’s Mark scans better.
spc67: I know you’re tough, and I knew you’d tell me how tough. It’s just that I like the testosterone and the “manic laughter” to surge for everyone during uplifting discussions about the finer points of torture. My garage is really not a bad place and the pointiest object out there is a bottle opener. I just wanted to open a beer for you. Ignore the cat o’ nine tails and the leather hood hanging on the wall. Halloween costume.
Timmy: “ilk” as in kindred spirit and worthy foe. What I like about recent events in the blogosphere is that occasionally over at Tacitus someone would counsel the thread to ignore Timmy the Wonder Dog for whatever reason and, now at Obsidian Wings, none other than Timmy the Wonder Dog is counseling folks to ignore me. I love it when circles close like that. I hope you don’t mind that you remind me of me.
Plus, I want to rescue the meaning of “ilk” from folks like Michelle Malkin and others of her ilk, who spit the word out dripping with conservative bile.
Also, when I write that Moe, Sebastian, and Slartibartfast are “not ilk”, I mean to say that they are not ilk in the Malkin sense, but also that they argue their points on a different plane than you and I do. I know what they are saying. Nobody knows what the heck you and I are talking about … sometimes … and we like it that way.
It’s almost tea time.
This seems remarkably similar to what we are allegedly doing
You really have no understanding on what is going on in Iran do you. Either that or you are comfortable with public executions.
JT, I figured you were playing with the sharp instruments in your garage, now please don’t hurt yourself.
Actually, Moe in his prime over at Tac, was more than happy to engage in tit for tat, course he did it with a smile and his trademark, VRWC. I miss Moe in his prime.
Sebastian and Slartibartfast do an excellent job of dealing with the obsessions at Wings. I prefer to engage in the macro rather than the micro. A bigger (yes a fuller) picture rather than minutiae which is so prevalent here.
JT please carry on, I hope you have your safety glasses on. 🙂
TtWD: You really have no understanding on what is going on in Iran do you.
Telling someone who has provided you with an informative link about torture in Iran that they “really have no understanding on what is going on in Iran” seems a little foolish to me.
If that informative link is their only information, they have to expand their horizons. Notwithstanding their anlysis remains deeply flawed regarding equivalence.
But Jes, I appreciate the observation I should have provided more information on the subject.
Pasdaran very similar to the SS but they are engaged in World Terror and ancillary profits.
Just a start in the information flow.
Timmy: You really have no understanding on what is going on in Iran do you. Either that or you are comfortable with public executions.
Theo/thugocracies are not to my liking, nor is the suppression of human rights in Iran, nor are the methods they employ. I am saddened that we seem to share at least some of the same methods, if not the same motivations.
As to public executions, I don’t think civilized societies need to execute their (supposed) malefactors, but I’m not sure that having them be public wouldn’t be better, so as a society we could be more directly participants in this noble endeavor.
Timmy: If that informative link is their only information,
So you jumped to the conclusion that because 243 had provided only one link on that comment, that was their only source of information about circumstances inside Iraq? Stumping for a Karnak Award, are you?
Notwithstanding their anlysis remains deeply flawed regarding equivalence.
Since you have yet to provide any analysis at all of why the torture methods in an Iranian jail, which resemble the torture methods in Abu Ghraib, are not equivalent, I think you are in a glass house throwing stones.
But Jes, I appreciate the observation I should have provided more information on the subject.
Timmy, generally speaking, when you post here, you post briefly, cryptically/elliptically, and add nothing to the information content at ObWing. Fair enough: that’s your style. But it ill behooves you, who prefers not to contribute information, to criticise other people for not providing enough information.
If you’re not prepared to do something yourself, you shouldn’t complain that other people do less than you want them to.
Shutting up now.
about circumstances inside Iraq?
…inside Iran. Sorry.
Don’t we have public executions in the US? I seem to remember Timothy McVeigh on TV. I’m not a huge fan of the death penalty, but it seems to me like the crucial distinction here is that the US has an independent judiciary and a just legal system generally, whereas Iran does not and executes people for having sex or being baha’i or being a dissident. Then there is the whole cruel and unusual thing. But the publicness of the executions isn’t really the issue here — it’s everything else.
I am saddened that we seem to share at least some of the same methods, if not the same motivations.
But we don’t and therein lies the problem with your comment.
whereas Iran does not and executes people for having sex
No praktike, the Iranian fascists try to execute people who don’t have sex with certain people (yes, it really sick inside Iran). Then see Pasdaran and understand they (the Pasdaran) are a law in and unto themselves, just to put the picture into an overall perspective.
Jes, when you want to truely discuss the bigger picture, more than happy to oblige.
TtWD:
I’m sorry, I’m just not getting your point here, beyond IRAN IS BAD. OK. I get it. No arguments here.
So?
Iran tortures people to oppress them. Army Interrogators in the USA argue that torturing people does not help us get any additional information out of them, and in fact gets us worse information, thus harming our tropps with inaccurate intelligence. Since the only use for which torture actually works is the threatening and oppression of the populace in a totalitarian regime, why would you be willing to grant the your government permission to use it in any circumstances?
As for conflating “aggressive interrogation techniques” with torture, I would point out, again, that the line is already clearly drawn in FM 34-52. I’m fine sticking with the line where it’s drawn, as are the people who would get their hands dirty if the line were changed. Why do you think we need to change the line? If you don’t think we need to change the line, to reiterate, what the hell is your point?
Jes, when you want to truely discuss the bigger picture, more than happy to oblige.
Well, there is a debate challenge floating around here somewhere. But I guess that’s too narrow for a renaissance guy like Timmy. Torture can’t be limited to a single country or a single time, he strides across the landscape to talk about torture in Iran, China, under Castro, under Stalin. Idi Amin Dada, I imagine, is just around the corner.
I suggest we just thank him for his insights and move on, If some of the more honest commentators (who are more than welcome to police their own) wish to pick up something that he throws out, then we can have a discussion, but as it is, he’s just pulling people’s chains.
What is cool about Moe is that we both miss him, Timmy.
Jes, when you want to truely discuss the bigger picture, more than happy to oblige.
In the end, we’re all dead.
That’s the biggest picture there is.
And with this picture, you may now justify anything at all.
I suspect LJ is right, but I’ll give it one more shot.
I said: I am saddened that we seem to share at least some of the same methods, if not the same motivations.
Timmy said: But we don’t and therein lies the problem with your comment.
So I’m confused. Which is it that “we don’t”? Use the same methods of torture, have the same motivations, or both?
I’ll grant you (sort of) the motivations argument. I’m sure our use of torture is more noble than the Iranian’s which seems to be used on clearly innocent people, whereas we at least think that we are using it against “terrorists”.
But, if you are arguing the methods point, then which of the methods that the Iranians are using don’t we also use? The article I linked shows sensory deprivation, threats of more or worse, and withholding of medical attention. We reputedly are doing the first and second. I think there have been reported cases of the third, but I think these have been mostly related to the early periods of detention, and we seem to attend to the medical needs of our long term detainees. We have also been accused of doing things which go beyond what Human Rights Watch reports that the Iranians have done, although perhaps their report is not complete. If you want to make this point, then please do so, but provide some relevant information.
So LJ, you missed this memo, which summarizes the position.
Just looking to expand your horizons, the truth is always such good medicine. Someday you will view the world as a whole and we can have a good conversation.
243, the article you linked to failed to mention the Iranian SS, the biggest part of the Iranian equation of terror in their own homeland.
Timmy: 243, the article you linked to failed to mention the Iranian SS, the biggest part of the Iranian equation of terror in their own homeland.
Hey, the article you linked doesn’t mention torture either. Terror is not per se torture, however thank you for conceding the methods argument.
Timmy, don’t look now, but you dropped your moral compass somewhere.
Naw, I’m just of the opinion that terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention.
This is not a bad summary of my position. You ought to read it Praktike.
243, the Pasdaran practice of torture is just part of their SOP.
Thanks, Timmy for your insights. I appreciate that it only took you 14 posts to provide that first link. Though I am confused when you say:
So LJ, you missed this memo, which summarizes the position
means that this is the only position possible or your position. I appreciate that on your _very_next_ post, you link to MacDonald’s essay and identify it as your position. Given that Abu Grahib was ‘Gitmo-ized’, I am assuming that your position for the actions there is basically the same and you believe that all those people (including women and children) were following the same AQ SOP when being questioned and saying that they didn’t know.
Also, given that McDonald says
The most controversial technique approved was “mild, non-injurious physical contact such as grabbing, poking in the chest with the finger, and light pushing,” to be reserved only for a “very small percentage of the most uncooperative detainees” believed to possess critical intelligence.
and
So what were these cruel and degrading practices? For one, providing a detainee an incentive for cooperation—such as a cigarette or, especially favored in Cuba, a McDonald’s Filet-O-Fish sandwich or a Twinkie unless specifically approved by the secretary of defense.
I have to assume that you believe that this is the extent of the practices. Thanks, knowing that makes me more secure in my recommendations on how to deal with you. The Truth is good medicine.
More insight LJ, simply reflecting my long held position on terrorists and the Geneva Convention.
And thus the saga continues.
I have to assume that you believe that this is the extent of the practices
If you are going to cut and paste, at the very least read the whole article. The following is the interrogators most powerful tool.
Naw, I’m just of the opinion that terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention.
What about people we imprison with benefit of charge or trial on suspicion of terrorism?
Timmy–that is not a new concession. I have never heard an expert dispute it. The question is whether the convention applies in Iraq and to Taliban fighters, and whether the detainees are Al Qaeda, Taliban or civilians. The Geneva Convention requires that there be a hearing by an independent tribunal if there is a doubt as to a detainee’s status. Until this hearing occurs the detainee is supposed to be treated as if he is a POW.
Some people dispute this, but that is and always has been the mainstream liberal position. It has been my position for as long as I’ve had a position.
One more thing Timmy–this:
“none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world”
is not the same thing as this:
“Geneva POW privileges and protections DO NOT APPLY to al Qaeda fighters”
Do you see the difference?
Thanks Timmy for your insights. Perhaps some others might pick up your point about total control.
All this dancing around over which types of prisoners are considered POWS and, if not, which laws (if any) regulate the way they’re treated, misses what I still consider the main issue: the efficacy of torture as a means of gaining information to prevent a terrorist attack.
I’ve asked, repeatedly, for an advocate of torture to give a verifiable instance of when torture succeeded in preventing a terrorist attack.
No one has done so.
What they’ve said, instead, is that they neither know nor care if torture produces useful information. (Just as they neither know nor care if the prisoners being tortured are, in fact, suspected terrorists.)
The only conclusion I can draw from the torture advocates’ refusal to address the ostensible reason for torturing people is that the ostensible reason is, indeed, irrelevant.
The correllary conclusion I draw from that is that torture advocates believe torture is a legitimate expression of anger and hatred, and/or a show of power for power’s sake, and is justifiable on those grounds alone.
(Just as they neither know nor care if the prisoners being tortured are, in fact, suspected terrorists.)
Now, now CaseyL, that’s not altogether fair. I’m sure that they “know” they are terrorists, because if they were picked up, if they weren’t guilty of one thing, they must have been guilty of another. That hazy figure over there, could it be, perhaps, the ghost of Ed Meese?
I’ve asked, repeatedly, for an advocate of torture to give a verifiable instance of when torture succeeded in preventing a terrorist attack.
Playing the part of devil’s advocate above, I made the point that during the Algerian War, it is generally accepted in the histories I have read that torture was effective as a means of extracting information. I haven’t read anything that disputes this, but let’s take it as a given for the sake of argument. How would this change your stance towards torture if it was true?
Well, arguing with you as a devil’s advocate, I would point out that if we look at the ‘big picture’, we can see that it did not work because Algeria is no longer a colony of France. But I’m just one of those liberals overly parsing these techniques and therefore am not concerned with the big picture (or so I’m told)
felixrayman:
A cited instance would not change my mind about torture. It was a challenge to the torture advocates, pure and simple.
“Torture as efficacious way of getting information that could prevent a terrorist attack” is the reason they offer for its legitimacy, so it seems reasonable to say “OK, show me an instance.”
Without an instance, without proof, the fig leaf of justifiable tactic is gone, which then begs the question of why torture advocates think torture is OK.
For the record, I don’t particularly mind the use of drugs that make a suspect more likely to talk and tell the truth – precisely because drugs don’t involve agony, rape, maiming, possible death, and so on. IIRC, sodium pentothal is no longer considered useful; I thought it had been replaced by drugs that cause euphoria and, well, chattiness.
I was amazed, frankly, to find out that use of drugs is no longer considered an legitimate interrogation technique – though I don’t know if that’s because drugs are considered ‘mental torture’ or because they don’t work, either.
I’d be interested to hear if anyone knows anything about veridicals.
Well, arguing with you as a devil’s advocate, I would point out that if we look at the ‘big picture’, we can see that it did not work because Algeria is no longer a colony of France.
But that was not because torture did not work…if torture was involved in the outcome at all, it was that the French public was outraged by the accounts of torture, leading to a lack of support among the public for the war in Algeria.
So if the relevant authorities in the US have been reading their history, they would know that in order to be able to use torture as a weapon, they will need a first-rate propaganda effort in order to teach the public that torture is acceptable under certain circumstances (or that torture is not torture).
Reading some of the above, I think they either have done or could do that job quite easily.
So if the relevant authorities in the US have been reading their history, they would know that in order to be able to use torture as a weapon, they will need a first-rate propaganda effort in order to teach the public that torture is acceptable under certain circumstances (or that torture is not torture).
Yes, it’s interesting the lurching back and forth on this. From the link Timmy thoughtfully provided,(and I should apologize for complaining about his lack of linking, he provided the same very same link to Edward earlier in the thread, so I will assume that he missed the opportunity to suggest that I improve my clicking ability and thank him for that)the underlying notion is that the ability to strongly interrogate was hampered by idiotic rules about process (like getting Rummy to approve whether a Cadbury’s could be offered to an interogee (is that a word?) (as a side note, I am amazed that no one in the army has ever seen those cop shows where they get the confession out of the guy.)
On the other hand, there seems to be a groundswell of noting that it was Clinton who approved of rendition so he started us down the slippery slope. I suppose the question becomes who are they trying to propagandize, the Muslim world or the US?
[T]here seems to be a groundswell of noting that it was Clinton who approved of rendition so he started us down the slippery slope.
Oh, fer chrissakes: Blaming Bill yet again? Why don’t the righties just start a church and outright worship the man?
Felixrayman:
Playing the part of devil’s advocate above, I made the point that during the Algerian War, it is generally accepted in the histories I have read that torture was effective as a means of extracting information. I haven’t read anything that disputes this, but let’s take it as a given for the sake of argument.
This piece in salon (daypass after viewing ad) goes in more detail and concludes differently:
You skip over the part in that article where they claim, “Here were professional torturers who produced consistently reliable information in a short time”.
But that is not my point. Suppose the claim is true – that torture is an efficient tool for extracting information from enemies. If you believed this to be true, would it change your mind about torture? Let’s consider the corner case – suppose that torture is 100% effective at extracting all militarily useful information from suspects. Would you support its use in that case?
Oh, fer chrissakes: Blaming Bill yet again? Why don’t the righties just start a church and outright worship the man?
Hmmm, the Church of the Eternal Scapegoat?
Just so I’m not accused of simply making stuff up, here is Ledeen
I doubt anyone in this administration — which, remember, already retreated from its earlier positions on interrogation methods permitted against captured terrorist suspects — is going to point out that the most controversial and ethically questionable method of all was developed during the Clinton administration in direct response to orders that came directly from the White House. “Rendition” was a Clinton creation, and was approved by Clinton’s lawyers, with no apparent cries of pain either from the Justice Department or from anyone in Congressional “oversight” committees. Gonzales might quietly make that point if anyone yells at him. It won’t register with the Democrats, but it might help the public understand the real world a little better.
So this asserts that rather than having their hands tied, they were just following in the footsteps of the Clinton and the Dems. Now, Katherine has pointed out that rendition is not just a Republican thing, but this is pretty slippery.
Also, Ledeen suggests (I can’t really say ‘gives’) some examples of successful torture.
But there are phases of gray in between the blackness of torture and the whiteness of gentle inquiry, and many of the gray methods have been effective. So say experts from, say, the Chicago police force in the glory days, or the British questioners of the IRA over the years, or the Spanish judges who have dealt with ETA, or the Israelis who interrogate Arab terrorists.
I toss that out for anyone who is searching for examples of successful torture, with my compliments. I look forward to the countless examples of how our world was made better through torture.
I’ve been trying to find an article I read about a Israeli interrogator saying that the problem is that severe interrogation has to go hand in hand with good information and gave the example (I think) that Israeli forces have 1 person on the ground working the intelligence beat for every 100 people, which the Americans have 1 for every 1,000. Does that observation sound familiar to anyone?
I don’t know if this was missed or judged to be not important, but a poster named Detlef in an earlier thread posted a link to Fistful of Euros post, an example of a kidnapper who claimed that the boy he kidnapped was still alive, but refused to tell police where he was kept (he was lying, the boy was dead). If you missed it, take a look, some interesting things there.
The Geneva Convention requires that there be a hearing by an independent tribunal if there is a doubt as to a detainee’s status.
Very good Katherine (and you are the first to make that point in this go around)so the question revolves around doubt and I suspect who should decide. I suspect we will differ in whom the decision maker(s) should be.
So let me summarize.
-Terrorists are not POWs
-Interrogation methods — which are not allowed in interrogation of suspects in domestic criminal proceedings — are perfectly permissible in dealing with terrorists.
-U.S. law defines torture as an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering, other than the pain or suffering that is incidental to lawful sanctions. Further, that the prohibition of severe mental pain or suffering includes only those practices that impose mental damage that extends for a prolonged period.
Katherine, I’m more than happy to pursue a discussion on the above issues further. I believe it is my second or third in narrowing the discussion to the critical issues involved.
second or third effort
Katherine, if my request is to unwieldly, a different tact would be to discuss what protections you want to give to the terrorists. That is, it is very easy to pick and choose but difficult to detail the rights you wish to afford terrorists.
Let me note, that Felix as devil’s advocate, wanted to establish similar parameters to my 8:46 post for a discussion.
Timmy, what I think you’re saying at [January 9, 2005 08:46 AM] is “It is acceptable to torture terrorists”.
Would that be a fair statement of your position?
Some googling to give 2 links to consider Felixrayman‘s work as devil’s advocate, specifically about Gen. Paul Aussaresses’ memoir, available in English as The Battle of the Casbah
This link points out one of the problems with adopting a policy of torture that the French seemed to have, which is that they had to execute those who they tortured
“Those we brought to Tourelles [a torture center run by the French army’s intelligence service] were sufficiently implicated in terrorist activity that there was no way we were going to release them alive. On busy days, when all the regiments were overwhelmed with prisoners, they would send me everybody they had no time to interrogate. At Tourelles, as at the regimental headquarters, torture was always used if a prisoner refused to talk….When the suspects had talked and seemed to have nothing more to say…my men would take a batch of them out in the bush, 20 kilometers or so from Algiers, shoot them down with a machine-gun burst, then bury them.”
An Adam Shatz article from the NY Review of Books. I thought the following was interesting
lghilahriz did not hesitate to name the officers in attendance during her ordeal, most notably Jacques Massu, the head of the 10th division of paratroopers and a trusted ally of De Gaulle. Her charges provoked an uproar. A distinguished ninety-four-year- old retired general, Massu has long acknowledged the use of torture by the French army, and his reply to lghilahriz was remarkably temperate….”Torture,” he told Le Monde, “isn’t indispensable in times of war, and one can very well do without it. When l look back on Algeria, it saddens me… One could have done things differently.”
The article gives some background to the conflict, so I’m wondering if it is an appropriate example. From the article
In Philippeville and in other cities throughout the Constantine province, Algerians brandishing knives descended on people in their cars, killing seventy-one Europeans and fifty-two Muslim “traitors.”…But the cruel repression that followed Philippeville only stiffened Algerian résistance, following a pattern established by earlier French reprisals. Aussaresses and his men arrested one hundred suspects and shot them on the spot. By the end of the week, well over a thousand Algerians, mostly civilians, lay dead, marking what Frantz Fanon later called “the point of no return.”
The French-Algerian war began early in the morning of November 1, 1954, when the FLN led a series of assaults that killed nine people, and ended on March 19, 1962, with the signing of the Évian Accords between France and the Provisional Government of the Republic of Algeria (GPRA), the FLN’s government-in-exile. Even by the bloody standards of colonial war-fare, the war was astonishingly brutal. About 300,000 Algerians died, and hundreds of thousands were tortured. More than two million Algerian civilians were forcibly relocated, many of them concentrated in “accommodation centers” surrounded by barbed wire. The French “pacification” campaign resulted in the destruction of 8,000 villages. Approximately 24,000 French soldiers never returned home, and several thousand French Algerians were killed in acts of terrorism. When the war was over, the FLN slaughtered tens of thousands of harkis, Algerian soldiers who fought in mobile auxiliary units alongside the French. (Harka means “mobile” in Arabic.)
The article’s conclusion mirrors mine, which is
Was torture effective? As Branche and Thenault both acknowledge, torture enabled the French to gather information about future terrorist strikes and to destroy the infrastructure of terror in Algiers. General Aussaresses is not wrong to claim that he won the “battle of the Casbah” precisely by abandoning any pretense of legal norms in dealing with the FLN. But to present the battle as a triumph of counterinsurgency betrays a remarkable lack of historical perspective. Torture not only failed to repress the yearnings for independence among Algerians; it increased popular support for the FLN, contributing to the transformation of a small vanguard into a revolutionary party with mass support, and rendering impossible the emergence of the interlocuteur valable with which the French government claimed to be seeking a dialogue. Indeed. France’s tactics helped the FLN to win over Algerian moderates like Ferhat Abbas, who became the president of the FLN ‘s government-in-exile.
When I lived in France and taught at a lycee, I remember the students making jokes about Mitterand and ‘la bicyclette’ which was a reference to torturing Algerians using electricity (it was 86 when the conservatives were about to take back parliament), but I didn’t realize the human cost. On this background (100 summarily shot as punishment?!), I wonder if torture worked only because the French authorities had levels above torture to turn to.
Interrogation methods — which are not allowed in interrogation of suspects in domestic criminal proceedings — are perfectly permissible in dealing with terrorists.
Cite?
There’s additional confusion here in that “terrorists” can be both in the US and its territories (G-bay) or outside them (Abu Ghraib). Are tehre differences in what is allowed based on that as well?
This is so much worse than a slippery slope when you realise some eager beaver Prosecutors are now charging drug dealers and gang members with “terrorism” charges. Doe that then mean they’re allowed to be tortured too?
Abu Ghraib had actually nothing to do with terrorists or Baathists. Edward, once you understand that, you can move on to the issues at hand. BTA, you misconstrue the Patriot Act with the subject at hand, so maybe my optimism is misplaced.
Cite?
“It is acceptable to torture terrorists”.
Well Jes, no, with the caveat, what do you consider “torture”? This simply reflects that I’m of the opinion that “torture” doesn’t work whereas “agressive interogation” may work from time to time.
So Jes and Edward, what protections you want to give to the terrorists just a different tact to the overall conversation.
Anything disallowed in the Army Field Manual on interrogation.
Well Jes, no, with the caveat, what do you consider “torture”?
I’ll go with McDuff’s definition.
So Jes and Edward, what protections you want to give to the terrorists just a different tact to the overall conversation.
Say rather a complete redefinition of it. We are talking about whether or not torture is ever acceptable. You want to talk about “giving protections to the terrorists”? Find a more appropriate thread.
Edward a suggest read
McDuff, I was thinking more in line with those techniques we don’t allow in the training of our own servicemen and women.
Find a more appropriate thread.
So Jes, you really don’t want to discuss the issue at the end of the day.
Jes, just a reminder here are the issues.
-Terrorists are not POWs
-Interrogation methods — which are not allowed in interrogation of suspects in domestic criminal proceedings — are perfectly permissible in dealing with terrorists.
-U.S. law defines torture as an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering, other than the pain or suffering that is incidental to lawful sanctions. Further, that the prohibition of severe mental pain or suffering includes only those practices that impose mental damage that extends for a prolonged period.
Just in case you change your mind.
Katherine @ 5:10am, January 9th: The Geneva Convention requires that there be a hearing by an independent tribunal if there is a doubt as to a detainee’s status.
Timmy @ 1:46pm, January 9th: Very good Katherine (and you are the first to make that point in this go around)
Jonas Cord @ 2:08pm, January 7th (13th post in this thread): The heart of my disagreement with administration policy was the fact that they did not convene tribunals to make sure they had actual Al-Queda or Taliban members on their hands.
You’re not much for reading, are you Timmy?
On which note:
Jes, just a reminder here are the issues.
You’re wrong: those aren’t the issues. Which you’d know if you’d been reading people’s responses. But hey, thanks for playing.
You’re not much for reading, are you Timmy?
I missed the context with respect to the Geneva Convention.
And you missed this.
Very good Katherine (and you are the first to make that point in this go around)so the question revolves around doubt and I suspect who should decide. I suspect we will differ in whom the decision maker(s) should be.
Who should decide, in a war setting, a Tribunal hardly. Here is the policy in general.
Interrogation methods — which are not allowed in interrogation of suspects in domestic criminal proceedings — are perfectly permissible in dealing with terrorists.
But Timmy, the Heather MacDonald link you gave that you said was your position claims that the US couldn’t do things that could be done to suspects in domestic criminal proceedings, if the stories that one sees on true crime dramas are any guide. What specific interrogation methods are you talking about?
Just for reference, the AFM on Interrogation is here
I would also suggest that MacDonald’s article you cited is inaccurate, given the fact that the manual authorizes the following:
Depending on the situation, circumstances, and any requests the source may have made, the following can also be used to develop rapport:
* Offering realistic incentives: such as immediate (coffee, cigarettes, and so forth), short?term (a meal, shower, send a letter home, and so forth), and long?term (repatriation, political asylum, and so forth).
While the MacDonald article says
So what were these cruel and degrading practices? For one, providing a detainee an incentive for cooperation—such as a cigarette or, especially favored in Cuba, a McDonald’s Filet-O-Fish sandwich or a Twinkie unless specifically approved by the secretary of defense.
Also the MacDonald article cites the Mackey book you recommdned to Edward and says
Army doctrine gives interrogators 16 “approaches” to induce prisoners of war to divulge critical information. Sporting names like “Pride and Ego Down” and “Fear Up Harsh,” these approaches aim to exploit a detainee’s self-love, allegiance to or resentment of comrades, or sense of futility. Applied in the right combination, they will work on nearly everyone, the intelligence soldiers had learned in their training.
While the AFM has this
The number of approaches used is limited only by the interrogator’s imagination and skill. Almost any ruse or deception is usable as long as the provisions of the Geneva Conventions are not violated. The Geneva Conventions do not permit an interrogator to pass himself off as a medic, chaplain, or as a member of the Red Cross (Red Crescent or Red Lion). To every approach technique, there are literally hundreds of possible variations, each of which can be developed for a specific situation or source. The variations are limited only by the interrogator’s personality, experience, ingenuity, and imagination.
As I’m sure you are familiar with both the AFM (This is AFM 34-52, which, according to this CSM article has not been superceded)and the McDonald article, can you explain the discrepancy?
MacDonald’s article you cited is inaccurate, given the fact that the manual authorizes
Is it and how do you know? Apparently, you’ve missed all the players, State, FBI, CIA, IRC and others, who are not constrained by the manual, but who have critiqued the situation.
Now the techniques we use to train our own soldiers should not be constituted as torture per se and be acceptable in the interrogation of terrorists. You should understand the logic.
Oh, and Timmy,
from what I am reading in the Mackey book, I think you are misrepresenting what he says. For example, on page 44, he says
American training was clinical, performed almost in the abstract. Even the Gulf War was rarely mentioned, though some of the instructors had just returned form that campaign. We trainees were taught how to break prisoners…a typically given all of twenty or so minutes to accomplish the task before it was on to the next thing. The thinking at Huachuca [training facility for interrogators] was that 95 percent of the prisoners would break on the direct approach, and if one wouldn’t, there would be a thousand other Iron Curtain comrades behind him with essentially the same information. So instead of working on approaches, far more time was spent rehearsing clunky Cold War questions to ask an already cooperating prisoner.
The next two pages is spent singing the praises of the British approach to interrogation, which eschews physical coercion. This experience led Mackey to urge every interrogator in his unit to be sent to train in it.
Oh, and Timmy,
from what I am reading in the Mackey book, I think you are misrepresenting what he says. For example, on page 44, he says
Actually, I haven’t represented anything from Mackey. I just thought Eddie should expand his horizons by reading it, moving from post war Europe to the Middle East.
I’ve only suggested that the methods that we use to train our own servicemen shouldn’t constitute torture in the following context.
-U.S. law defines torture as an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering, other than the pain or suffering that is incidental to lawful sanctions. Further, that the prohibition of severe mental pain or suffering includes only those practices that impose mental damage that extends for a prolonged period.
I don’t know if the MacDonald article is inaccurate, I merely suggested it. Why would you make such an elision in what I wrote when anyone could look at it and see you doing it?
At any rate, are you arguing that the CIA, State, IRC were able to force the Army interrogators to stop fully utilizing the techniques given in the Army Field Manual? From the discussions of at least these three people who have been released from Gitmo, this is apparently not true. In fact, Mackey, in the chapter For me, The war is over, relates the following:
Their work was textbook. The interrogators had mapped out detailed translator scheduls and questioning plans. They used other detainees in the cages to spread rumors that unsettled the prisoners, planing information that Iranians and Afghans long their countries’ common border were selling out the Arabs. Finally, one of them broke, the Mauritius man with the fair skin and funny lips. Using information garnered from that interrogation, Davis broke a second prisoner with a We Know All approach. A third surrendered upon learning that two of his comrades had capitulated.
Contrary to McDonald (and your) assertion, approaches were used and they did work. Did you really read the book you recommended?
I did. But while it may have influenced my thinking, my position on the parameters of “agressive interrogation” and the methods used, rely on the techniques used to train our own servicemen and women, as it provides a “safe harbour” (certainly the DoD isn’t torturing its own members) while using aggresive methods.
Are you of the opinion that the following is torture.
I’m just curious.
Timmy: rely on the techniques used to train our own servicemen and women
So, it’s okay to use the methods used to train US servicemen/servicewomen about torture, because somehow this doesn’t count as “torture”?
I’m not following your logic. (Unless you’re talking about something else completely. Are you? What “methods” did you have in mind?)
Jes, what is your definition of torture, I given you the current definition, you seem to have something else in mind, so what is it.
And yes, I would be of the opinion that our training techniques (used on our own servicemen and woman) don’t constitute torture.
Timmy, are you even slightly interested in gaining information from prisoners, or are you all about using torture to ‘show them we hate them and we have total control of them’ ?
Timmy: And yes, I would be of the opinion that our training techniques (used on our own servicemen and woman) don’t constitute torture.
What training methods? Did you have something else in mind than the training methods used to acquaint US servicemen/women with torture?
Timmy, are you even slightly interested in gaining information from prisoners
Absolutely gaining information is the first priority. The second priority is not allowing the terrorist to back to his or her previous past time.
Jes, you keep confusing torture with “aggressive interrogation”, do you understand the difference?
Timmy, do you want to answer my question? Do you have in mind the training methods used to acquaint US servicemen/women with torture, when you assert that “our training techniques (used on our own servicemen and woman) don’t constitute torture”.
Timmy: Further, that the prohibition of severe mental pain or suffering includes only those practices that impose mental damage that extends for a prolonged period.
Don’t know what is meant by prolonged, but these likely qualify. However the good news is that our interrogation techniques seem to have been remarkably successful in proving
It should be noted that these statements came from low value and presumably innocent “terrorists” that we weren’t torturing.
Timmy, do you want to answer my question?
I can’t because you haven’t defined torture.
I can’t because you haven’t defined torture.
Why would that prevent you from answering a question about which set of training methods for US servicemen/women you’re thinking of? You presumably know which set of training methods you were thinking of.
Timmy, stop begging the question.
You’ve made it abundantly clear torture bothers you not one whit, that you approve of its use, and you don’t much care whether it reveals useful information or not, and whether the prisoners being tortured are terrorists or not.
Don’t get me wrong: your postings are invaluable. I have no doubt that your attitude is, as you’ve indicated elsewhere, that of “many Americans,” and your take on the matter is probably that of the Bush Admin as well.
You’ve made it abundantly clear torture bothers you not one whit, that you approve of its use, and you don’t much care whether it reveals useful information or not, and whether the prisoners being tortured are terrorists or not.
Actually, I don’t approve of its use and care very much that the proper use of aggresive interrogation reveals useful information. But I don’t confuse aggresive interrogation with torture, which I believe separates me from the other commentors here. And I have never been of the opinion that terrorists were covered under the Geneva Convention.
And I have never been of the opinion that terrorists were covered under the Geneva Convention.
What guidelines, if any, would you advocate for the interrogation of terrorists, and what process would you use to define someone as a “terrorist” though?
What guidelines, well any interrogation vehicle which isn’t torture.
What process, well it depends on the situation, but as an example, a Syrian found in a bomb factory in say Iraq would be a terrorist.
Timmy, do you want to answer my question? Do you have in mind the training methods used to acquaint US servicemen/women with torture, when you assert that “our training techniques (used on our own servicemen and woman) don’t constitute torture”.
Jes, as torture is illegal, the techniques (employed) pre se can’t be.
Jes, as torture is illegal, the techniques (employed) per se can’t be.
Jes, as torture is illegal, the techniques (employed) per se can’t be.
O.M.F.G.
What process, well it depends on the situation, but as an example, a Syrian found in a bomb factory in say Iraq would be a terrorist.
One step away from moral oblivion.
Jes, as torture is illegal, the techniques (employed) per se can’t be.
And there’s the step.
Wish I could say I hadn’t seen this coming. As it stands, well, this conversation has achieved its apotheosis and has thus ceased to have any utility. Thanks to all (Jes, Jadegold, Katherine, CaseyL, 243, Edward) who’ve made this possible.
Anarch, for a conversation to have utility it has to have a purpose. Your purpose apparently, all “aggressive interogation” is torture and terrorists either you want them treated as POWS or you want a judicial proceeding to make the determination if an individual is a terrorist (before what I’m not sure of).
Shorter, the war on terror is a police action, a 9/10 mindset.
Shorter, the war on terror is a police action, a 9/10 mindset.
And yours is that the war on terror is a license for, well, anything. A fascist mindset.
No Anarch the fascists are on your side, the Baathist and the Pasdaran.
I haven’t been called a fascist in such a long time, thanks for the reminder.
Timmy
I’ve shown you that Mackey book contradicts MacDonald’s article. Either you are purposely pretending you don’t understand or, more sadly, you really think that there is no difference.
But while it may have influenced my thinking, my position on the parameters of “agressive interrogation” and the methods used, rely on the techniques used to train our own servicemen and women, as it provides a “safe harbour” (certainly the DoD isn’t torturing its own members) while using aggresive methods.
You know, for SEAL training, they put candidates in full combat gear, truss them up, strap on a back pack filled with weights, and put them in a pool. The candidates then have to kick off the floor of the pool so as to catch a breath and have to keep this up for an hour. Those that panic, fail.
These are the kinds of methods that are used to train our troops. Do they form a ‘safe harbor’ for things that we can do to people who we have captured and ‘think’ are terrorists?
You quote precisely the same paragraph that I quote (which makes me think that you don’t actually read responses) and ask
Are you of the opinion that the following is torture.
You’ve demanded that we make the distinction that we are talking about (alleged) ‘terrorists’ (so as to try and get Abu Ghrahib out of the picture, I would suggest). So no, I do not think that what Mackey describes doing is ‘torture’ and what’s more, I don’t think anyone else does because there was no uproar when his book came out and he wasn’t brought up on charges. But I notice you have reverted to form and are trying to misdirect the conversation. So I thank you for your insights and look forward to having a real exchange that would illuminate these issues.
Fascism: 1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
***********************************************************************************
Admittedly, this defintion does not include “Advocates torture for its own sake.” Nomally we’d just call such a person a sadist and be done with it.
But ‘sadist’ refers mostly to private appetites, not to getting one’s nationalistic jollies from advocating the torture of people from other nations.*
Moreover, most sadists don’t feel self-righteous about their sadism, nor do they contend that purposeless torture is patriotic and opposing it unpatriotic, nor do they contend that purposeless torture enhances a nation’s strength, resolve and power.
It’s that ‘torture = national (triumph of the) will’ that puts the fascist gloss on ordinary sadism.
But if ‘fascism’ is too deeply distressing a word to its closet adherents, perhaps a new term is called for.
I’m thinking of a small yet dangerous man who ruled a powerful nation; a man whose own appetite for depravity was reflected in the appointments he made to high office. He was known to watch torture sessions with great delight, and particularly liked watching people die. He was very popular with the people of his nation, too; because they, like he, felt vicariously strengthened by other peoples’ suffering.
I therefore offer ‘Caligulism’ as a new name for people who are offended by the word ‘fascist’ even as they advocate fascistic policies.
*Timothy McVeigh wasn’t tortured. Nor did the RW commentariat demand that everyone he was ever known to have associated with, however casually, be rounded up, tortured, imprisoned without charges or recourse to counsel, and held for the rest of their natural lives.
I’ve shown you that Mackey book contradicts MacDonald’s article
Does it, I believe they are on different time lines, the here and now versus history.
You’ve demanded that we make the distinction that we are talking about (alleged) ‘terrorists’ (so as to try and get Abu Ghrahib out of the picture, I would suggest).
Actually, by definition Abu Ghrahib housed Iraqis, except for the “wood house” and Iraqis by definition couldn’t be treated at terrorists and yes, you can blaem the WH for this.
But I notice you have reverted to form and are trying to misdirect the conversation. So I thank you for your insights and look forward to having a real exchange that would illuminate these issues.
Actually what I pointed out, maybe you missed it, is that several US agencies and the IRC were commenting on Gitmo. The IRC believes that indefinite incarceration is deemed as torture. I defined my definition of torture, I missed yours.
Casey, I’m thinking of that small man’s sister, Drusilla who countenanced beastiality and incest, rather than offended her brother.
So I’m thinking of those who countenance fascists, terrorists, baathists because they don’t want to get their hands dirty, I’m going to refer to them as Drusillies and then give them numbers
Such that CaseyL is Drusillies #1.
I have a serious suggestion. A challenge, different from Von’s but quite similar in nature. (If any of the five OW musketeers want to make this in a post that would be just great.)
Since the general response to allegations of torture tends to be, “it depends on what the meaning of ‘torture’ is,” since so many conservative bloggers accuse liberals of “politicizing the issue” instead of having a “serious debate about the hard questions” about what interrogation tactics ought to and ought not to be legal….let’s not make blanket assertions about “coercive interrogation” versus “torture”. Instead, I would suggest this: let blogs, individual or conservative, take individual paragraphs from the government reports on things that have actually happened or are alleged to have happened to actual suspects and Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram, and elsewhere. And ask two questions:
1. is this torture or not?
2. should it be legal or not?
It will be incredibly time consuming. But I think it would be useful.
I’d offer to do it, but there’s a family situation I have to deal with, and a paper draft I have to do, that would make it irresponsible for me to give it this much effort. And I think it may actually be too draining, and too time consuming, for any one person. There’s no reason it has to be one person, either; the more the merrier.
What I will do is post a few examples now, to show what I mean.
“individual or conservative”
uh, liberal or conservative.
Onward…
Take Abu Ghraib out of the equation and it would be an interesting exercise.
In a parallel exercise, I would like liberals to detail the process of determining if an individual is a terrorist or not, timing, who decides, parameters et al.
What individuals are protected by Geneva as well as if indefinite incarceration is torture.
I defined my definition of torture, I missed yours.
Sorry, mine is the Army Field Manual 32-54, which I linked to. Yours seems to be any technique that is done on an American soldier (with his or her consent) can be done to anyone who is suspected of being a terrorist (w/o their consent, natch). As the Army keeps these techniques secret so as to increase the anxiety of the future trainees, unless you have experience with it, we can’t really discuss it. I recommend you sign up for this and get back to us.
I would note that the Army says that all of it’s SERE training conforms to Geneva Prisoner of War conventions, so if you are suggesting that GPW not apply, then you are not using SERE limitations as your guideline. (cf. army regulation 350-50 2-9.5)
I also recommend this paper detailing the technical problems with setting up a workable system that incorporates torture.
But if it is state policy to torture the terrorist, then the policy should be rational and the torture interrogation proceed with a reasonable chance of success.
Terrorists selected for such a role—like most American POWs in North Vietnam—can probably stand up to commonplace tortures from untrained staff for a long time. The use of sophisticated techniques by a trained staff entails the problematic institutional arrangements I have laid out: physician assistance; cutting edge, secret biomedical research for torture techniques unknown to the terrorist organization and tailored to the individual captive for swift effect; well trained torturers, quickly accessible at major locations; pre-arranged permission from the courts because of the urgency; rejection of independent monitoring due to security issues; and so on. These institutional arrangements will have to be in place, with all their unintended and accumulating consequences. Then the terrorists themselves must be detected while letting pass without torture a thousand other criminal suspects or dissidents, that is, avoiding a dragnet interrogation policy.
The moral error in reasoning from in the ticking bomb scenario arises from weighing the harm to the guilty terrorist against the harm to the prospective innocent victims. Instead, the harm to innocent terrorist victims should be weighed against the breakdown of key social institutions and the state-sponsored torture of many innocents. Stated most starkly, the damaging social consequences of a program of torture interrogation evolve from institutional dynamics that are independent of the original moral rationale.
And CaseyL, however apt the Caligula example may be, it simply permits Timmy to howl at how his honor has been besmirched or play tu quoque (I think he goes more for the latter rather than the former. I think his own words indict him well enough.
(N.B. I think it is a distraction to argue whether policies do or do not violate a U.S. law or treaty. Those arguments tend to be either incomplete and misleading, or too boring for words, to non-lawyers. Therefore, when I say an interrogation praction “should be legal”, that does not mean it is now illegal. Likewise, when I say it “should be illegal”, that does not mean it is currently legal.)
Technique: Holding “Ghost Detainees”: This refers to the practice of holding detainees in secret, without giving them serial numbers or reporting their detention to the international red cross.
Highest known order or authorization: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has admitted that he authorized hiding at least one detainee from the Red Cross, and not issuing the prisoner an identification number.
Examples
1. Manadel al-Jamadi
(source)
2. Two detainees of unknown identity at Bagram Air Base.
(source)
3.Syrian Detainee at Abu Ghraib
(source)
4. Hiwa Abdul Rahman Rashul. This man, also nicknamed “Triple X” for some reason, is the one whom Rumsfeld ordered held as a ghost detainee. There are also some reports that Alberto Gonzales was involved in his case:
(source)
5. 11 High level Al Qaeda suspects held in secret. Human Rights Watch has reported that the following detainees are being held in secret in undisclosed locations:
Ibn al-Shaikh al-Libi
Abu Zubayda
Omar al-Faruq
Abu Zubair al-Haili
Ramzi bin al-Shibh
Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri
Abdul Rahman Husain al-Nashari
Mustafa al-Hawsawi
Khalid Shaikh Muhammad
Waleed Muhammad bin Attash
Adil al-Jazeeri
Hambali
(source)
Preliminary Conclusion:
While not torture per se, holding detainees for an extended period without identification clearly creates an unacceptable risk of abuse, torture, and even of death. It should be illegal. All prisoners should receive an identification number immediately, and the Red Cross should be given access to them within a reasonable period. (I don’t know exactly how soon is customary or reasonable, but the deadline should be short and it should be specific.)
I can conceive of isolated situations where interrogating a detainee in secret & without Red Cross access for a longer period might be necessary for national security reasons, but the risk of torture seems to be so high that it should be very carefully restricted. Here is an example of how this might be done; I am open to others:
Emergency deviations from this policy should be approved by the President or the Secretary of Defense, in writing, with notification of the detainee’s name and location to the chairman and ranking minority member of the intelligence committees of the House and Senate. (This is a common device for ensuring legislative oversight and secrecy at the same time–if it leaks it is very easy to figure out who is responsible.) Interrogation sessions of such detainees should be videotaped and those tapes should be available to the members of Congress. The 4 members of Congress should receive written notification if the detainee is moved or dies in custody.
Katherine : And ask two questions:
1. is this torture or not?
2. should it be legal or not?
Perhaps one should rephrase it to be if this were being done to Americans whether it would be torture/legal?
Also what does the US government consider torture/legal when done by other governments? A useful site for this latter is: Dept. of State’s report on human rights by country A sort of highlight of this can be found here, but this is obviously done to make a point, and does not clearly distinguish between torture and lesser forms of abuse.
O-kay. That took longer than I thought, so that’ll be the only example from me. But I hope someone else will do this.
“Take Abu Ghraib out of the equation and it would be an interesting exercise.”
Why exclude Abu Ghraib?
I think that would be an enormous mistake, as
1) some people have defended at least some of the techniques used at Abu Ghraib. Others have said they were immoral but not as serious as the press made them out to be. (Not only Rush Limbaugh–also at least one Senator, and many staff writers at the National Review if you read the Corner the day of the Gonzales testimony.) Others have said they are “abuse” but not “torture”–and according to the old OLC memo’s interpretation some of those techniques would certainly not have been torture.
2) Abu Ghraib is the place that has been most widely (though still far from completely) investigated so it is the best opportunity to see what some of these techniques mean in practice.
3) As Sebastian has often noted, interrogators often go beyond the technqiues explicitly authorized. Excluding the evidence of that will lead us to uninformed decisions. If, e.g., permission to scare prisoners with dogs widened into allowing naked prisoners to be attacked by dogs while many people looked on and one person took pictures–that’s clearly relevant for evaluating the extent to which dogs should be used in interrogation at all. It might also illustrate the dangers of giving vague instructions to troops–e.g. telling them to “set the conditions” for interrogation, or that “coercive interrogation is permitted but abuse is not” without specifying what that meant and what was forbidden.
After all, if “a few bad apples” were responsible, they were bad apples confident enough that they wouldn’t be caught to pose for pictures. Hopefully the chain of command will never again break down that badly, and there are no other Charles Graners in our armed forces. (Believe me, I am not sympathetic to Graner’s “following orders” defense. If you read the reports, he seems like a miserable human being who took active pleasure in what he did.)
But we don’t know that for certain.
(and other examples need not be that long & detailed, or even half that detailed. In fact I bet more people would read them if they were shorter.)
Anyone else want to try one?
Timmy: No Anarch the fascists are on your side, the Baathist and the Pasdaran.
Uh, no. Not even close. So wrong that I’m actually laughing at you, which means I guess I owe you some kind of thanks.
I haven’t been called a fascist in such a long time, thanks for the reminder.
Based on your remarks in this thread, I’d say it was long overdue.
Katherine
I would also add that if someone wanted to make this a neutral a source as possible, they might add pros and cons. So for Ghost detainees
Pros-damage to terrorist information network is potentially not repaired because the network is not aware of the detainment, detainee considers it a more realistic possibility that he will die and therefore gives up information.
Cons-we would not really know if the damage has been repaired or not, information cannot be adequately checked with other sources because of possibly revealing that the network has been damaged, makes it less likely that non-terrorist contacts would come forward if it is not apparent that the ghost detainee was (and who should be) a high value source. Resistance to torture probably would be increased on the part of the detainee. Protection of information would dictate that no one who had contact with the detainee could be released.
Timmy: In a parallel exercise, I would like liberals to detail the process of determining if an individual is a terrorist or not, timing, who decides, parameters et al.
So far in this thread you’ve grossly insulted Anarch and CaseyL: I’m not going to bother responding to further questions from you until you’ve withdrawn your insulting comments to them and apologised.
And yours is that the war on terror is a license for, well, anything. A fascist mindset.
Hold on. TtWD did not say that the WoT is a “license for anything.” There’s a legitimate debate as to which interrogation techniques are legitimate, and which are not. This is not law enforcemeant; this is war. Miranda rights do not attach, and, outside the U.S. and its justice system, there is no right to remain silent for zealots who take up arms and bombs against a civilian property.
“a civilian property.”
Sorry, I meant to write “civilians.” And I’m out of time today, so any responses will be sporadic.
Timmy said: [A]s torture is illegal, the techniques (employed) per se can’t be.
Purposeless torture, razing entire cities, and now: death squads.
von, what part of ‘license for anything’ does he have to detail point by point before it becomes clear that’s exacty what he means?
There’s a legitimate debate as to which interrogation techniques are legitimate, and which are not.
Yes, but that debate has to take place with people who are reasonable informed about what happens and what does not, and what the effects of various techniques are. TtWD apparently believes the McDonald article, which claims that the interrogators were prevented from offering Filet-o-fish sandwiches and Twinkies in exchange for useful information. Yet, from what I read in the Mackey book that McDonald cites in the article (thanks to Amazon, you can actually read a rather large portion of the book if you choose the appropriate search words), nothing like that is mentioned and Mackey discusses the success of some interrogation techniques. Perhaps some references from the book would refute this, so I would welcome those.
Those arguing for a relaxing of the standards have to argue that what is being used now is not successful. If they are mistaken or worse, misleading people to think that they are not successful, then the debate is not legitimate, as far as I can see.
Defining Torture
A major problem in any discussion on the use of torture is the problem of definition. The idea and practice of a zero tolerance policy is all well and good in theory but the problem of discouraging our enemies’ explicit…
von: There’s a legitimate debate as to which interrogation techniques are legitimate, and which are not.
Yes, there is, which is one reason why I’m so irked that this debate hasn’t been touched. [See, e.g., McDuff and CaseyL’s attempts to identify this supra.] But you’re the lawyer, von; what system of juridical thought does the following statement betoken?
“Jes, as torture is illegal, the techniques (employed) per se can’t be.”
I read that statement something like fifteen times before posting. Simply couldn’t believe it. To me, it’s nothing more or less than an axiomatic assertion that the US government cannot be guilty of torture because, a priori, the government cannot commit an illegal act while engaged in the ?o? and torture is, by definition, illegal. If that’s not one of the core elements of fascism — and, for that matter, if my description is not an exact paraphrase — it’s close enough to make no difference.
This is not law enforcemeant; this is war.
No; as you yourself said some months ago, it’s neither. The true “9/10 mindset” is the attempt to cram this burgeoning ?o? into a preexisting (and, of necessity, ill-fitting) category rather than trying to apprehend it for what it truly is. Part of the problem is that, as a new enterprise*, we need to get our minds around this new conceptual space and deal with the ramifications thereof; part is the Bush Administration’s refusal to clarify what, exactly, we’re supposed to be doing.
There’s certainly a legitimate debate here, von, and one day I hope to see and maybe even participate in it. As long as my interlocutor continues to debate in bad faith, however, this won’t be it.
* I still like “Struggle”. I still fear the German headlines.
Hold on. TtWD did not say that the WoT is a “license for anything.” There’s a legitimate debate as to which interrogation techniques are legitimate, and which are not.
Von, you are really wasting your time here. The response, including Katherine’s, is that terrorist should be treated likew POWs. No surprise in that stance although it was achieved in a circular process.
All is not lost Drusillies #2 is Anarch.
Jes, is really upset, that he is incapable of answering the question. But overall the exercise was useful.
Von, you are really wasting your time here.
I agree, given that no one has accepted your challenge. Unfortunately for TtwD, I think you weren’t challenging Katherine. But he doesn’t realize that, because he thinks that anything that he supports has to be aggressive questioning and can’t be called torture. In fact, if the US does it, he says it can’t be torture because the US doesn’t do torture. That’s what I call circular.
von
(ignoring the fact that you happily ignored most of Western Europe, Australia, Japan etc there…)
Woulsn’t you say, though, that it should be the case that those suspected of terrorist activities should be treated as suspects, rather than terrorists? If not for any reason of respect for human rights, at the very least basic PR concerns should tip the balance.
Indeed, the “it’s not law enforcement, it’s a war” mantra has been repeated so often I wonder if it hasn’t become a point of faith. Iraq is not a traditional, battlefield; soldiers have to fight around civillians whose side they are supposed to be on. It’s a nightmare to implement, but that’s the job they have to do. I don’t see how anything but a “law-enforcement” style approach can possibly hope to work.
I wonder if people have a different idea of what is meant by “law enforcement” than I do, and if that’s where the sticking point lies.
Defining Torture
A major problem in any discussion on the use of torture is the problem of definition. The idea and practice of a zero tolerance policy is all well and good in theory but the problem of discouraging our enemies’ explicit…