Torture Techniques Revealed at Gitmo

[Watchman]

Did you know, both the Nazis and Soviets could be real sticklers about laws too ? Resulted in some quite absurd scenarios too.

Just pointing out.

[ShadeHonestus]

Did you know, both the Nazis and Soviets could be real sticklers about laws too ? Resulted in some quite absurd scenarios too.

Just pointing out.

Oh absolutely and intereting introduction by you, the laws for the protection of german blood and honor while interesting as a study are outweighed in their cold sinister intent.

While the introduction for comparison is well received, I'm sure you wouldn't be comparing legal frameworks for classification of detainees, providing them rights and giving legal standards and accountability to our intelligence community to the laws of Nazi Germany..would you?

[ajaxfetish]

I think his point is that moral rectitude > legal justification. Codifying torture doesn't make it right. Especially since we already have it legally coded as wrong in all situations with no exceptions.

Ajax

[ShadeHonestus]

I think his point is that moral rectitude > legal justification. Codifying torture doesn't make it right. Especially since we already have it legally coded as wrong in all situations with no exceptions.

Ajax

I considered this, but that would mean one assumes legal justification would be made absent of morality.

[Watchman]

Oh absolutely and intereting introduction by you, the laws for the protection of german blood and honor while interesting as a study are outweighed in their cold sinister intent.

While the introduction for comparison is well received, I'm sure you wouldn't be comparing legal frameworks for classification of detainees, providing them rights and giving legal standards and accountability to our intelligence community to the laws of Nazi Germany..would you?

I wasn't talking about that. For example Die Reich was a proper Rechtstaat and took it quite seriously; if they for example located in the camps someone wanted for a crime or with outstanding prison sentences, they duly properly plucked the fellow out and put him through the proper judicial procedures. It would not do for someone to not suffer his due legal punishement merely because he was some dirty Jew or Gypsy sent into the death camps, after all.

The Soviets could also be strangely legalistic, given their usual arbitrary style. There were cases where a person sought by the secret police in one member-state of the USSR (it was a federation, remember) fled to another where there was no warrant for him, and in some cases could rise quite high in the local power structure...

Just some examples I remember from the top of my head. The point is, mere legal code and suchlike doesn't really amount to much if the ethics and morals are missing.

[ShadeHonestus]

Just some examples I remember from the top of my head. The point is, mere legal code and suchlike doesn't really amount to much if the ethics and morals are missing.

As stated before what assumption is given that legal code here will be in the absence of morality? Currently here despite ratifying empty resolutions it isn't clear cut outside of the domestic sphere. Currently torture of any shape and size can take place outside our borders and under information privealage it can be classified. In fact this is what is happening and has happened for quite some time, occasional cases making it into courts, but its been a long time since this has been allowed to happen. None of this is subject to the public or the public's courts.

[Watchman]

You don't exactly see me applauding the practice, do you ? But it remains a fact they have to do it covertly; that already keeps a stigma of moral illegitimacy attached to the whole business, or in any case should; I rather worry over how much some people seem willing to gloss over for their own moral convenience these days...

[ajaxfetish]

I'm getting a little confused, Shades. For most of this thread, you've seemed to be advocating the use of torture, albeit in a limited and controlled fashion, but your latest few posts sound almost more like we need to clearly define torture so that we can more effectively prohibit it. Could you clarify your intentions when you say we need a clearer legal framework for torture?

Ajax

[ShadeHonestus]

You don't exactly see me applauding the practice, do you ?

Never said you did.

But it remains a fact they have to do it covertly; that already keeps a stigma of moral illegitimacy attached to the whole business,

The whole business meaning a lot more than simply interrogation techniques.

If it is as valuable as deemed necessary to the extent that it has been practiced, move it out of the shadows, legistlate it and as I've said before if our taste for these matters proves wanting the argument for it cannot be maintained. But dismissing it outright and keeping it where it is, does nothing to further anyone's moral highground as that itself is exhibiting neglect and is itself illegitimate.

I rather worry over how much some people seem willing to gloss over for their own moral convenience these days...

Such as...

[Lemur]

If it is as valuable as deemed necessary to the extent that it has been practiced,

Yes, well, that's a wide-open question, now isn't it? And I don't see any attempt being made by anyone in the administration to engage in a meaningful debate about whether torture is, in fact, valuable, and to what extent it is being practiced. The entire thing is a black hole, with only little snippets of information worming their way out.

move it out of the shadows, legistlate it and as I've said before if our taste for these matters proves wanting the argument for it cannot be maintained.

In this lemur's opinion, the torture debacle will only be ended when George W. Bush retires from office. Nothing less will accomplish this. And heaven help us if Mitt ("I'd like to double Gitmo!") Romney follows in his footsteps.

But dismissing it outright and keeping it where it is, does nothing to further anyone's moral highground as that itself is exhibiting neglect and is itself illegitimate.

The moral high ground is neglected and illegitimate? Speak for yourself, buddy ...

[ShadeHonestus]

I'm getting a little confused, Shades. For most of this thread, you've seemed to be advocating the use of torture, albeit in a limited and controlled fashion, but your latest few posts sound almost more like we need to clearly define torture so that we can more effectively prohibit it. Could you clarify your intentions when you say we need a clearer legal framework for torture?

I believe I've said it in previous post, but if you missed it or if I'm just imagining things I'll clarify again. Strict definitions are needed on what techniques we use for many reasons. First its as any good legal code it outlines matters in a fairly unambiguous fashion so that operating within and under that legal code can be done with appropriate jurisdiction for public review. Second, its important simply so people know exactly what is going on, education, the law can't operate free from the principle of education. Third, by defining what we do, we also define what we do not do, there aren't the gray areas outside the law which we can manipulate and if attempted, see public review. Not to mention the need for independant oversight, answerable to civilian authority, of the actual interrogations and this should be in place regardless of whether we "toture" or not.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

One mans torture is another mans pleasure

Some actually like it.. It takes all kinds

[ajaxfetish]

I believe I've said it in previous post, but if you missed it or if I'm just imagining things I'll clarify again. Strict definitions are needed on what techniques we use for many reasons. First its as any good legal code it outlines matters in a fairly unambiguous fashion so that operating within and under that legal code can be done with appropriate jurisdiction for public review. Second, its important simply so people know exactly what is going on, education, the law can't operate free from the principle of education. Third, by defining what we do, we also define what we do not do, there aren't the gray areas outside the law which we can manipulate and if attempted, see public review. Not to mention the need for independant oversight, answerable to civilian authority, of the actual interrogations and this should be in place regardless of whether we "toture" or not.

All of that I agree with completely.

Ajax

[Lemur]

Strict definitions are needed on what techniques we use for many reasons. First its as any good legal code it outlines matters in a fairly unambiguous fashion so that operating within and under that legal code can be done with appropriate jurisdiction for public review.

I hate to re-post, but there is already a Federal definition of torture:

18 U.S. Code § 2340 (Definitions):

As used in this chapter— (1) 'torture' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(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

(3) 'United States' means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

Not the exact thing you're talking about, namely, a law that describes which techniques are allowable with which enemy combatants, but still, it's not as though the law has been silent on the subject.

Not to mention the need for independant oversight, answerable to civilian authority, of the actual interrogations and this should be in place regardless of whether we "toture" or not.

I am not aware of any meaningful, unified oversight being applied at Bagram Air Base, Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay. It's an entirely in-house operation. In fact, when the F.B.I. was allowed to see what was being done at Gitmo, they filed complaints, which went nowhere.

If our current system isn't out of control, it's not because there's any sort of judicial review.

[ShadeHonestus]

Yes, well, that's a wide-open question, now isn't it? And I don't see any attempt being made by anyone in the administration to engage in a meaningful debate about whether torture is, in fact, valuable, and to what extent it is being practiced. The entire thing is a black hole, with only little snippets of information worming their way out.

The black hole analogy is well met, but without legal change it will remain a black hole.

In this lemur's opinion, the torture debacle will only be ended when George W. Bush retires from office. Nothing less will accomplish this. And heaven help us if Mitt ("I'd like to double Gitmo!") Romney follows in his footsteps.

I honestly don't see it going away, information privilege is not a party favorite. The only candidate I see as changing the status quo would be McCain on a point of integrity as he introduced an amendment amounting to such, but even then when his feet hit the pavement he may be hard pressed to own it.

The moral high ground is neglected and illegitimate? Speak for yourself, buddy ...

It is, as I stated...proved illegitimate by dismissing torture outright and keeping it where it is. That is moral neglect.

[Papewaio]

One mans torture is another mans pleasure

Some actually like it.. It takes all kinds

Thats why I say homosexuals should be allowed to be tortured err married... which reminds me I have to take the Missus shoe shopping today.

[Lemur]

It is, as I stated...proved illegitimate by dismissing torture outright and keeping it where it is. That is moral neglect.

Hm, if someone is utterly offended at the idea of torture, I don't know if I'd call them any names. There are people who are morally outraged by abortion in all instances, and they believe as they do from principle. Likewise, there are pacifists who reject violence. I don't necessarily agree with any of them, but they can certainly be principled, decent people, who are not necessarily subject to any moral decay or neglect.

I think your analysis should take into account people of good faith who arrive at different conclusions.

[ShadeHonestus]

I hate to re-post, but there is already a Federal definition of torture:

18 U.S. Code § 2340 (Definitions):

Not the exact thing you're talking about, namely, a law that describes which techniques are allowable with which enemy combatants, but still, it's not as though the law has been silent on the subject.

It hasn't been silent on the matter in fact, but it hasn't addressed the issue in the light of the ambiguity inherent in the current conflict. Not to mention it doesn't address our cooperation with allies who don't operate under our definitions. The furthest step forward has been the DoD and their revision of the Army FM on what activities it no longer condones. I do not know if the DoD extended like revisions to the Department of the Navy and Air Force. I know for a fact that this in no way affects CIA or paramilitary groups acting in coordination with the DoD.

I am not aware of any meaningful, unified oversight being applied at Bagram Air Base, Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay. It's an entirely in-house operation. In fact, when the F.B.I. was allowed to see what was being done at Gitmo, they filed complaints, which went nowhere.

Well thats part of the problem. There is a need for unified oversight. The idea of breaking down barriers for information flow needs to work for oversight as well as information sharing, maybe a worthwhile cause for the DoHD.

If our current system isn't out of control, it's not because there's any sort of judicial review.

What judicial review is there that is afforded by law? What complaints can be brought to bear that hold weight on the letter of the law and circumvent information privilege? What federal court has a legal outline on which to predicate charges against those committing torture. There aren't any.

[ShadeHonestus]

Hm, if someone is utterly offended at the idea of torture, I don't know if I'd call them any names.

What names? I called that stance as I clearly defined as cheapening that argument which they wish to make.

There are people who are morally outraged by abortion in all instances, and they believe as they do from principle.

But they call for it in reference to the protection of life under the law. Abandoning the need for legal code in a cry against torture makes any moral high ground illegitimate imo. Saying no to torture in the absolute without discussions in an unmocking display does not further anything. Why would you not want this all to be moved under a legal house.

Likewise, there are pacifists who reject violence. I don't necessarily agree with any of them, but they can certainly be principled, decent people, who are not necessarily subject to any moral decay or neglect.

Of course there are, but they don't ignore the need for law. In fact most that I know argue the illegality of almost any violent action.

I think your analysis should take into account people of good faith who arrive at different conclusions.

I believe I have. Going so far as to explicitly state such.

[KukriKhan]

Temporarily closed, pending staff consultation.

[KukriKhan]

Re-opened with caveat: play the ball, not the man.

This is a heated discussion, but we've had those before and managed to remain civil to each other, dispite opposing views. Let's keep it that way.

Further contributions to this subject will be scrupulously parsed, so I strongly urge all to review their input before clicking "submit".

I apologize for the interruption. Kindly carry on.

[Lemur]

The chief military investigator of Abu Ghraib doesn't much like it. I note that none of the torture proponents have commented on the many generals' essays I've reprinted back here, with the exception of Xiahou approving of the letter from Gen. Petraeus.

Regarding "It's Our Cage, Too; Torture Betrays Us and Breeds New Enemies," the commendable May 17 op-ed by retired Marine Corps Gens. Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar:

As the investigator of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib prison, I confronted the outcome of current interrogation policies. We undermine the values that built this country and the credibility of our armed forces when we stoop to the level of some of our enemies. The awful events at Abu Ghraib and their far-reaching consequences could have been prevented if we had adhered to the Geneva Conventions.

The policies that were implemented for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and then revoked found their way into headquarters in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the staffs were contemplating draft policies. When no official direction was given, the interrogators referred to their experience in other situations, such as Guantanamo, or to the drafts they had seen. They acknowledged that they understood the Geneva Conventions and their Army training on this matter, but the pressure to uncover intelligence led them to the "new procedures."

I support the conclusion of Gens. Krulak and Hoar: "The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality."

Captured U.S. service members will face increased risk if torture becomes a tool of our interrogators. Our research showed that torture may produce an answer but that the credibility of the answer will always be in doubt. When our service members become captives, we could pay a high price for questionable intelligence that we extracted through torture.

PAUL J. KERN

The writer, a retired U.S. Army general, is a senior counselor with the Cohen Group.

[ShadeHonestus]

I note that none of the torture proponents have commented on the many generals' essays I've reprinted back here, with the exception of Xiahou approving of the letter from Gen. Petraeus.

I believe I covered most if not all of their content directly within the argument. I know I did so explicitly on a few occasions. What are you trying to insinuate? Or did you want me to shadow box with an editorial directly?

[Lemur]

Lower thy hackles, man. Yes, you have addressed many of their points, but I find it odd that so many generals and ex-generals are opposed to the use of torture. If it were as effective a battlefield tool as you and others suppose, they would be all for it. The messenger is of some importance, especially when there are so many of them, and they're men who have served in the highest ranks of the military.

[Tribesman]

When they recovered the body of Joseph Anzack in Iraq yesterday it showed signs of torture .
Is anyone going to speak up in support of his torture ?
After all he might have had some information that those who captured him thought would be valuable . It might have saved some of their friends of families lives .
Any takers ?
Or is torture clearly unjustifiable .

[Soulforged]

Lower thy hackles, man. Yes, you have addressed many of their points, but I find it odd that so many generals and ex-generals are opposed to the use of torture. If it were as effective a battlefield tool as you and others suppose, they would be all for it. The messenger is of some importance, especially when there are so many of them, and they're men who have served in the highest ranks of the military.

I think that they oppose it out of shame. They saw those man stripped from their dignity in the past, and probably they suffered it too (who knows...) and thus they're not willing to let it happen again.

EDIT: Really now, it's so strange that a man can feel compasion even for his enemies? Why reduce this subject to something low as technique or legal institutions?

[ShadeHonestus]

Yes, you have addressed many of their points,

Well thank you for acknowledging it.

but I find it odd that so many generals and ex-generals are opposed to the use of torture.

I don't find it particularly odd at all. They are in a unique position after all. They look to maintain battlefield superiority which includes troop morale. A wholesale endorsement of torture would lower morale. However very few choose to make the distinction, like that found in the U.S. Army, that although removing torture from their domain in new directives (revising those in place sine 1992) does nothing but remove it from their hands. They still endorse by action the interrogations of the CIA and in fact aid and empower them in doing so. Where is the directive or policy change to change this? It isn't existent.

If it were as effective a battlefield tool as you and others suppose, they would be all for it. The messenger is of some importance, especially when there are so many of them, and they're men who have served in the highest ranks of the military.

As stated the value of morale in deniability. They probably see this deniability in repairing the image of the service in which they were dedicated to. What was your line about Tenet? A lot to make up for slam dunk? There is a lot of ground to be made up for Abu Gharib.

-edit-

When they recovered the body of Joseph Anzack in Iraq yesterday it showed signs of torture .
Is anyone going to speak up in support of his torture ?
After all he might have had some information that those who captured him thought would be valuable . It might have saved some of their friends of families lives .
Any takers ?
Or is torture clearly unjustifiable .

Nothing new from these people now is it? Do they have any type of definitions of what they do or how they do it? Oh wait, I know, they just need to ratify a treaty and they would be up to speed on what's correct, correct? I mean you do know the processes for different nations ratifying treaties do you not?

"When the Senate ratified the treaty, it defined such treatment as violations of the Fifth, Eighth and 14th Amendments. Because of that provision the Justice Department decided that the convention applies only to actions under U.S. jurisdiction, not treatment with respect to aliens overseas."

Who else ratified this, did the UK? What were the UK's ratification provisions? What middle eastern countries ratified it? Iran, Egypt, Iraq under Saddam? Didn't the supposed endorsement of the treaty in total without provision lead to such things as Sweden being held responsible for the torture of an individual they extradited to Egypt? An individual who was a member of Islamic Jihad? This treaty while well meaning on its face is rather like a dog that doesn't hunt, but rather chooses to sniff butts all day. Throw me a factual bone here. In fact this looks a lot like a resolution partly authored in committe by afghanistan years ago.

[Rameusb5]

My glib response: Anyone who is FOR torture should be tortured until they are against it.

[ShadeHonestus]

My glib response: Anyone who is FOR torture should be tortured until they are against it.

Hey, welcome to the discussion. I think you might actually be on to something here.

Now please do not take this personal or as a wish for me to actually do this to you or in fact for you to do this to me, its just a hypothetical exercise.

You can waterboard me, sleep deprive me, put me in cold rooms naked, slap my face and belly.

I get to rip out your fingernails, stretch you on the rack, beat you to near death, behead people detained with you, cut off your thumbs, put electrodes on your genitals, hang you to near death, beat you with reeds, beat you with pipes, beat you with garden hose, cut off your nose, cut off your ears, hang you buy your hands and place a torch under your feet, make you execute fellow prisoners, make you eat your own feces, rape you and anything else sadistic enough to come rolling off my imagination.


Lets then compare notes afterwards to discuss our experiences. Or if you like we can each be submitted to each regime at distinct periods of time and then we can compare whether we noticed a distinct difference.

[doc_bean]

Hey, welcome to the discussion. I think you might actually be on to something here.

Now please do not take this personal or as a wish for me to actually do this to you or in fact for you to do this to me, its just a hypothetical exercise.

You can waterboard me, sleep deprive me, put me in cold rooms naked, slap my face and belly.

I get to rip out your fingernails, stretch you on the rack, beat you to near death, behead people detained with you, cut off your thumbs, put electrodes on your genitals, hang you to near death, beat you with reeds, beat you with pipes, beat you with garden hose, cut off your nose, cut off your ears, hang you buy your hands and place a torch under your feet, make you execute fellow prisoners, make you eat your own feces, rape you and anything else sadistic enough to come rolling off my imagination.


Lets then compare notes afterwards to discuss our experiences. Or if you like we can each be submitted to each regime at distinct periods of time and then we can compare whether we noticed a distinct difference.

So, following that logic, if anal rape is worse than vaginal rape, vaginal rape should be okay since it isn't the worst thing you can think of.

Yeah, right.