So, Just What *Is* Torture?
POSTED BY: perfessergee
UPDATED: Monday, August 29, 2005 10:55
VIEWED: 11212
PAGE 9 of 10
Quote:
A friend of mine, who fought in the first Iraq war, made this point to me in no uncertain terms. A soldier is duty bound to disobey insane orders, and remove the negligent officer from any position of authority. The problem is, you have to prove your action was justified, or the repurcussions are very severe.
In other words, if at least someone up the chain of command doesn't agree with your actions, you're screwed. Especially if it's the Commander in Chieft giving the orders.
I'll assume, for the same of this discussion, that if his commander ordered him to rape a 12 year old girl, he would decline the order as illegal. Somewhere in between "rape that little girl" and "take a picture of your comrade holding the end of this leash attached to the dog collar on that prisoner" there's a line. We, as a society, have to draw that line somewhere since arguably, the military works for us.
I always thought the Geneva Conventions delineated the line, and I was happy with it there.
Apparently I'm also quaint and irrelevant.
To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer,
Coming in late ... there are roughly 137 military personnel total in some stage of investigation for prisoner abuse for GITMO, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram. They were all using similar techniques - chaining up, hooding, peroneal strikes ( http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/9211.htm), sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, and threatening with dogs. It stretches credulity to think that all these people stretched over half the globe independently came up with the same techniques and put together the same equipment (hoods, overhead shackles) out of similar perversions.
Further, there is ample record that people were actively seeking guidance on - out of the things they had been taught - what was and was not allowable treatment of 'terrorists'.
The creation of a separate category not subject to the Geneva Conventions, Constitutional rights or the Treaty on Torture, and documents on 'allowed' torture techniques, both schemes cooked up by the DoD civilians and Office of the President, clearly created confusion and led to torture. As they was meant to.
Quote:
Nor were the rules of engagement very clear. The platoon had the standard interrogations guide, Army Field Manual 34-52, and an order from the secretary of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, to treat prisoners "humanely," and when possible, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. But with President Bush's final determination in February 2002 that the Conventions did not apply to the conflict with Al Qaeda and that Taliban fighters would not be accorded the rights of prisoners of war, the interrogators believed they "could deviate slightly from the rules," said one of the Utah reservists, Sgt. James A. Leahy.
"There was the Geneva Conventions for enemy prisoners of war, but nothing for terrorists," Sergeant Leahy told Army investigators. And the detainees, senior intelligence officers said, were to be considered terrorists until proved otherwise.
Quote:
"I just don't understand how, if we were given training to do this, you can say that we were wrong and should have known better," said the soldier, Pvt. Willie V. Brand, 26, of Cincinnati, a father of four who volunteered for tours in Afghanistan and Kosovo.
Quote:
In their final report, the investigators recommended that prosecutors charge the junior officer who led the interrogation group, Capt. Carolyn A. Wood, with dereliction of duty, saying "she was clearly informed the techniques documented within F.M. 34-52 were the only approved interrogation techniques to be used at Bagram."
But in a statement given in the commander's inquiry, Captain Wood asked for "additional legal guidance" about techniques like stress positions and sleep deprivation.
In interviews, other former interrogators said she and the staff sergeant who was her deputy had for months been seeking clarification from their superiors about the interrogation methods they could use.
"They asked many, many times," said one former Bagram interrogator who agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity because of the continuing investigation. "The lack of guidance was a source of frustration for them. My own feeling is that it was never given because nobody wanted to put themselves on the line."
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"They asked many, many times," said one former Bagram interrogator who agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity because of the continuing investigation. "The lack of guidance was a source of frustration for them. My own feeling is that it was never given because nobody wanted to put themselves on the line."
And yet we've never heard of anyone thrown out of the military for saying, "No, I'm not comfortable going ahead with this behavior we've asked for guidance on."
"I was just following orders" as an excuse was debunked at the Nuremburg Tribunals.
I'd like to think that if I were there I would have the guts and moral fortitude to say to my commanders that, no matter what my orders, forcing people to masturbate for my amusement is wrong. Chaining people to a bed in a standing position is wrong. And certainly, attaching electrodes to the genitals of a hooded man is wrong.
To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I try to live my life by my own judgement. Despite that, I'm not sure I would have done any better than the soldiers who were taught to do certain things, were trying to fulfill their mission (make prisoners ready to talk), and in situations where the administration deliberately created confusion.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK, Maybe it's because I'm old.
Robert Heinlein once said that age does not bring wisdom, but it does give perspective.
I'll spell it out for you. You may want to write this down on a post-it and carry it in your wallet:
Forcing people to masturbate for your amusement is wrong. Raping anyone at any time is wrong. Chaining people to a bed in a standing position is wrong. And certainly, attaching electrodes to the genitals of a hooded man is wrong.
In general, treating anyone else in a manner you would find objectionable if directed toward you is WRONG.
Feel free to ask if you have any more questions.
To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Peroneal strikes were taught as a way to control prisoners. Nothing was said about them causing permanent disability, the lore was that they could temporarily disable a person and cause a lot of pain for no (or little) physical damage. Stress positions which cause great pain but were reputed to cause little physical damage were also on the 'to-do' list. So were sleep deprivation, loud noises, the use of dogs ('fear up'), and anything which caused humilitation ('pride down'). The idea (I gather) was that anything which didn't cause obvious physical injury was OK. So, for example, if you made a hooded man stand on a box with electrodes attached to his genitals, it was OK as long as you never intended to physically shock him.
Understand, I'm not excusing this. But once some forms of inhumane treatment are allowed by policy and the line that defines 'acceptable' is deliberately blurred, a culture can come to exist where that's just 'the way things are done'.
I've held many unpopular opinions and taken a lot of heat. As I said, I'd like to think I'd do better in the same situation the soldiers faced.
But with the full weight of the President's order, the expectations of your superiors that you'll get the job done without a fuss, and coming into a situation where 'things are just done this way', I can see how people could bow to the weight of the situation and themselves be coerced into doing things they felt were wrong.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"You and Anthony enjoy disconnecting torture from its real context and refit it to some PG-rated, everyday passtime."
When you define something, Cavalier, it is best to define it as simply as possible. Torture has been rated X and PG and all grades between, and it IS an everyday occurance, and to some, a pasttime.
But yet I don't think you and I disagree on the validity of torture, so I wonder at the comment.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Finally, my definition of torture: Discomfort applied to a subject in an effort to obtain a desired result.
This makes the schoolyard bully, who twists your arm in order to get you to cough up your lunch money, a torturer.
It also makes a wrestler a torturer.
The schoolyard bully is a criminal torturer. He inflicts torture on an innocent victim for his own pleasure or benefit.
The wrestler is a sportsman torturer. His opponent and he agreed to enter into a friendly game of mutual torture to see who could torture whom to the greatest effect.
I find your definition too broad, not too simple. The "to obtain a desired result" part is meaningless; that includes any act of will you can name. So your definition boils down to "applying discomfort." How's that for simple? According to you, if I just succeeded in making you feel uncomfortable, I'm a torturer.
Equating wrestling to torture is like equating kidnapping to a road trip and rape to hot sex. The crucially missing element is the power differential and the absolute lack of consent by the victim. Your definition denies the importance of the victim's violation; glosses over it; erases it. It also denies the sadism of the torturer who violates another person who is wholly in their power. Whether you mean it or not, your definition of torture is right in line with the idea that what went on at Abu Graib was the equivalent of frat hazing. Same actions (at least the actions that have been widely circulated in the media are the same), but very different power differential.
Have you yourself ever wrestled? It's really not about inflicting pain or coercing a person; it's about physically maneuvering another body into an inescapable position. Sometimes that hurts, but not necessarily. And there are weight classes to keep the contest even. Of course, when your big brother pins you to the ground and tickles you unmercifully, it's humiliating and torturous. The crucial piece there is that your brother is bigger than you and you have no recourse. Torture requires that you have someone at your mercy, that you have complete control over them. That's what's wrong with torture and that's my simplest definition: taking a helpless victim and hurting them. Schoolyard torture is wrong, but it isn't criminal; I wouldn't go bothering Amnesty International about it.
Quote:
So, what is the soldier who tortures another soldier for information? It depends on the unlikely presence of a ticking nuke somewhere.
This part is confusing to me. It sure looks like you're trying to say that if there's a ticking nuke somewhere the soldier who tortures another soldier is akin to your "sportsman torturer" rather than a "criminal torturer?" Please tell me my inference is wrong and you aren't trying to say that torture for the right reason isn't really torture.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The idea (I gather) was that anything which didn't cause obvious physical injury was OK.
Why does this sound like the admonition that you should never punch your wife in the face, because people will see the bruises and ask questions? Much better to kidney punch her so people won't see the evidence.
Of course, it's impossible to say how anyone would would react in a situation they've never been in. It's all conjecture, but I'd still like to think that I'd serve out my term in the stockade rather than follow orders to humiliate (pride down)or torture fellow human beings.
But then, I come from a generation with a lot of practice at distrusting what the government says. If my draft number hadn't been 285, I'd probably be typing this in Canada.
To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Didn't read much of this thread, so sorry if this is old news...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4180692.stm
" A soldier from a US military intelligence unit has been sentenced to two months in prison for abusing an Afghan detainee who later died. "
So.... say if I wind up in a position where I was fighting the US ( seems more likely everyday )
Is that two months for getting caught beating prisoners to death, or two months for each prisoner ???
Just want to get it straight for when the time comes
When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you
http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME