Iraqi Prisoners Abused, Humiliated, Tortured.

[michaeledward]

I think my posts spell that out in great detail. I will try to summarize here.

Interrogations should be conducted by those who are skilled in completing them. Since 9/11, the CIA has been charged with interrogating anyone believed to be associated with 'terrorism'. It is important to note, that interrogations are not what the CIA does best. In the US Government, the FBI has traditionally handled interrogations.

Allowing the CIA, the professional military, and the National Guard to undertake the task of interrogating detainees is a fools errand. The task should have fallen to the FBI, where they know that abusive techniques do not provide quality information.

Mike

 

[rmcrobertson]

For anybody who thinks that torturing prisoners is just nifty when necessary: tell ya what, let's have this gang of clowns come to YOUR neighborhood, start yanking your friends and classmates and family off the street, holding people you care about without bail or lawyers or clergy visits or even notification, throwing them naked in a cellar with a hood over their heads, sticking them into what these morons are getting away with calling, "stress positions," and using dogs to terrify. And oh yeah, let's beat a couple to death, "by accident."

Let's keep this up for, say, six months to a year--not based on any hard evidence, either, just pretty much on the whims of the occupying military authorities--then let 'em out, and y'all can have a good solid discussion about whether or not this was torture, kinda over the meat loaf and mashed potatoes.

It astonishes me, the amount of rationalization on this thread. It disturbs me that so many students of martial arts would be seemingly incapable of applying the simplest, most-basic moral principles taught to six-year-old kids in all the arts I'm aware of, to such matters.

And sorry, "Old Sempai," but your attempt to divide Judeo-Christian values from those of the "primitives," in African, Middle eastern and Far eastern cultures--your terms, not mine--is, to say the least, altogether wrong. I suggest that you consult the Old Testament (see the lex talionis; eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth ring a bell?), or the history of lynching in this country, or the facts of the My Lai massacre, or some of the statements on this very thread.

 

[old_sempai]

I made observations, nothing more!


But feel free to artyon:

 

[michaeledward]

I made observations, nothing more!

Gee ... it sure looked like you were making some pretty strong observations....

Well if we're really nice to the Terrorists then they will see the error of their ways and stop killing Infidels..... :idunno: seems logical to me... along with all of the other naive types that truly believe that we should just be nice.... or have they forgotten all the people murdered over the past 30 years.......... from Lockerbie, to the Achillie Lauro, to the Cole, Khobar Towers, The World Trade Center [both 93 and 9/11] along with the Pentagon and the flight that went down in Pennsylvania........... the bombing in Spain, the Red Brigade murderers, the Tel Aviv airport massacre by the Japanese Terrorists in the 80's and lets not forget the killing going on in Western Sudan even now... or how they've destroyed Somalia as a country.............

I don't know there is much to party about in this statement. Do you have a point?

Mike

 

[PeachMonkey]

I made observations, nothing more!

It seems rather disingenous to make a snide comment about "let's just be nice to the terrorists", then claim that you weren't make a statement about whether or not torture is just. It's similarly disingenous to make a barely-comprehensible statement about revenge in Middle Eastern cultures and then respond to someone who calls you on it by saying "I'm just making observations!"

I think it would servethe discussion much better if you more clearly state what it is you're getting at.

 

[MisterMike]

For anybody who thinks that torturing prisoners is just nifty when necessary: tell ya what, let's have this gang of clowns come to YOUR neighborhood, start yanking your friends and classmates and family off the street, holding people you care about without bail or lawyers or clergy visits or even notification, throwing them naked in a cellar with a hood over their heads, sticking them into what these morons are getting away with calling, "stress positions," and using dogs to terrify. And oh yeah, let's beat a couple to death, "by accident."

But is that all really "necessary?" If you were making an analogous comparison, it would have to be the Iraqi's who come here, detain our citizens, and then beat them. I'm not sure who you mean by "this gang of clowns." If you meant the Iraqi's, then I agree. Somehow it's not who I think you meant.

Something should be set in place as to who does it, when, why, to whom, what kind, etc. Not "Hey Tony, make dis guy sing for me."

If we catch Osama, we need to know everything that's in his head. Everything he ever planned. What are we going to do, sit him beside Johnny Cochrane with a coffee and ask him nicely?

I think we are over the hump of what happened at Abu Ghraib. I'm curious to know why we sholdn't torture at all. Even when American lives are at stake. Obviously Rumsfeld feels it has application. Why is that?

 

[heretic888]

If we catch Osama, we need to know everything that's in his head. Everything he ever planned. What are we going to do, sit him beside Johnny Cochrane with a coffee and ask him nicely?

No. But, then again, contrary to what you have implied here, that is not the only alternative to torture.

People, particularly extremists, have this tendency to see policy decisions in extremely black-and-white terms. Either you declare war on Iraq, or your a "weak pacifist". Either you support gay marriage, or you're a "homophobe". Either you support affirmative action, or you're a "racist". Either you're with the Bush Administration's policies, or you're a "terrorist supporter". Either you believe in "our God", or you're an "atheist" (I can speak from personal experience on this one!).

The truth is --- you don't have to wage war on Iraq to demonstrate "strength", you don't have to support the typical "liberal" interpretation of sexual deviation to be exempt from homophobia, you don't have to support affirmative action to support civil rights, you don't have to support Bush to fight terrorism, and you don't have to believe in anyone's particular religion to be a "believer".

Likewise, you don't have to believe in torture in support of tough-minded interrogation. There are more than two options.

Laterz.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Mike: Well, since you asked...

1. The basic mechanisms that allow, even encourage torture, have nothing to do with the desire to gather information or the necessity of protecting the good guys--that's just the excuse, the cover-up, the, "ruse of reason."

2. Fundamentally, people torture because a) they're frustrated and frightened; b) they've dehumanized their subjects; c) they've got--like all of us--a cruel, sadistic streak of enjoyment in causing pain and suffering to others.

3. The dehumanizing is a hallmark of such behavior; note the comment from--was it "Marathon Man?"--where Szell says that this old rabbi was right about how the Nazis justified themselves: "We were not for them the same," we were not human to them. Or, see the depressing and famous Milgram experiments written up as, "Obedience to Authority." The Crusades, slavery, the death camps, My Lai, torture--the basic mechanism is the same. It's sadism, covered up by appeals to patriotism or nationalism or national security or religion, justified by turning your victims into what Simone deBeauvoir and Edward said called, "the Other."

 

[PeachMonkey]

If you meant the Iraqi's, then I agree. Somehow it's not who I think you meant.

Does it matter who he meant? I don't want to be treated like that by *anyone*. No one should be treated that way.

If we catch Osama, we need to know everything that's in his head. Everything he ever planned. What are we going to do, sit him beside Johnny Cochrane with a coffee and ask him nicely?

Your implication is that torture is more effective than interrogation without torture. Do you know that? I don't... I know I've heard, anecdotally, that interrogation experts have shown that torture is actually counterproductive, since people will tell you whatever you want to hear if sufficiently tortured. See US prisoners in Korea and Vietnam who confessed to "war crimes" that they never committed.

I think we are over the hump of what happened at Abu Ghraib.

What do you mean by that?

I'm curious to know why we sholdn't torture at all. Even when American lives are at stake.

Well, there are a few reasons:

1) It's wrong. The ends don't justify the means.
2) It's wrong because we signed international treaties and enacted US laws that *make it illegal*.
3) It's counterproductive.
4) We don't want people to torture *our guys*. How can you *ever* claim that it's wrong to torture our soldiers, operatives, even civilians if you maintain carte blanche to torture others?

 

[michaeledward]

There are FOUR lights!


For those fans of Star Trek The Next Generation, there was a truly terrifying episode where Captian Jean-luc Picard was tortured for information. These are his words at the end of the episode as he stood defiantly before his torturer.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Mike - nice! I got it right away. That was a good 'un.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

If I am going to say something, it will be in print. I've never said anything about anybody on these forums unles it was directly to them. Don't try and read into or distort my posts "when the going gets rough." I'm sure Hrretic and MichaelEdwards are very adept at standing up for themselves if I ever insulted them.

-------

Must have me mixed up with the latest political cartoon from Ted Rall. Go back to your comics.

-------

Honestly, when you want to lay into me for something you think I've said go ahead, but at least back it up with something substantial enough for a 5th grader to debate. I'm sure I'd whether your insults and anything else just fine.

Well, lessee...I posted this to which you refer on the 19th. It only took you a little while to get back to it. Nine days.

Okay. I allegedly read comics and apparently can't provide substantial debate for a fifth grader. I have issues. My patriotism is in question All these your words...your assessment...from this and other posts.

I have yet to resort to calling someone a communist, nor have I used a childish tu quoque argument (take another nine days off to look that one up if you like), nor have I thrown what can best be described as a prissy hissy fit by snapping at someone telling them to go back to their "comics".

If I'm working at the fifth grade level as you seem to think I am, it should be easy for you to attack my arguments. So far you seem to be struggling with them and whipping out the old attacks against the person instead. Frustrated?

And you know, you're right about one thing. Heretic and Michael and the others are more than capable of defending themselves against your snippy little assaults. I didn't mean to imply they weren't up to it, and certainly hope they didn't take it that way.

I used them as an example of how you work an attack against the person. The quote of yours above and at the head of this post contains other good examples.


Regards,



Steve

 

[MisterMike]

Heretic: I agree nothing is black and white but what do you do when tough interrogations fail? Obviously there are many levels. You don't have to use the car battery, but it would be nice to put one one the table to let them know where you're coming from.

PeachMonkey: I don't know that torture is more effective for everyone. But for some it surely would be. I think the choice should be based on a psychological profile of the individual.

I also think it would only be counter productive if you were doing it wrong.

As for the Abu Ghraib thing, I meant we're over the discussion of torture there, and are talking in general now. Just so no-one shoots me for going too far off-topic.

Robert: While the act of commiting the torture would require qualities of a person whom shall we say, is not your local spiritual leader, I think the decision from the top to allow such activities is not driven by those types of fear or frustration.

What you describe is what we saw in the Iraqi prison, but not who is far away back in the US, who gave the orders, who is detached from the actual events.

It seems the biggest blockade to allowing torture is that we don't want our image tarnished. We want to be the knight in shining armour. OK - and someone threw in there some psycho-babble about our evil mean streaks that we should stay away from. But it all seems to come back to humanity.

All that weighed, I think a few closed door beatings of a few that might save the lives of thousands (talk about humanity) is worth the tradeoff. Obvioulsy we'll never get there, what with people screamin bloody murder about shelters euthanizing animals after 3 days instead of 6.

Thanks for the discussion,

 

[PeachMonkey]

I agree nothing is black and white but what do you do when tough interrogations fail? Obviously there are many levels. You don't have to use the car battery, but it would be nice to put one one the table to let them know where you're coming from.

I don't know how to handle tough interrogations, but I do know evil when I see it, and I do know illegal when I see it. Torture is both.

I think the choice should be based on a psychological profile of the individual. I also think it would only be counter productive if you were doing it wrong.

From a practical perspective, you may well be right, that there are ways to torture certain people that will work. Regardless of that, I find it deeply chilling that you're willing to think that way, particularly when it's not at all clear that torture is *ever* the *only* way to get information out of someone.

Besides, intelligence relies on many, many different techniques... interrogation of prisoners is just one of them.

I think the decision from the top to allow such activities is not driven by those types of fear or frustration.

The "psycho-babble" that you refer to from Robert points out that people authorize and perform torture have been shown to do it primarily out of sadism and sickness.

It seems the biggest blockade to allowing torture is that we don't want our image tarnished.

Actually, for me, the blockades are that it's *wrong*, it's *illegal*, and it will lead to *torture of US citizens and soldiers and operatives*. Are you able to address these issues?

 

[MisterMike]

Well, lessee...I posted this to which you refer on the 19th. It only took you a little while to get back to it. Nine days.

Okay. I allegedly read comics and apparently can't provide substantial debate for a fifth grader. I have issues. My patriotism is in question All these your words...your assessment...from this and other posts.

No your assessment. Albeit partly incorrect, but still yours.

I have yet to resort to calling someone a communist, nor have I used a childish tu quoque argument (take another nine days off to look that one up if you like), nor have I thrown what can best be described as a prissy hissy fit by snapping at someone telling them to go back to their "comics".

If I'm working at the fifth grade level as you seem to think I am, it should be easy for you to attack my arguments. So far you seem to be struggling with them and whipping out the old attacks against the person instead. Frustrated?

Well, see, even your best description can still be wrong. Haven't had a dose of humility in a while I take? What's it like to always be right? I guess if I can have a fit in 5 words or less, ya got me there, shucks.

And you know, you're right about one thing. Heretic and Michael and the others are more than capable of defending themselves against your snippy little assaults. I didn't mean to imply they weren't up to it, and certainly hope they didn't take it that way.

I used them as an example of how you work an attack against the person. The quote of yours above and at the head of this post contains other good examples.


Regards,



Steve

Hey, whatever man. If I said something, call me on it when I do it. Whatever you are referring to is a LOT older than 9 days.

 

[MisterMike]

I don't know how to handle tough interrogations, but I do know evil when I see it, and I do know illegal when I see it. Torture is both.


From a practical perspective, you may well be right, that there are ways to torture certain people that will work. Regardless of that, I find it deeply chilling that you're willing to think that way, particularly when it's not at all clear that torture is *ever* the *only* way to get information out of someone.

Besides, intelligence relies on many, many different techniques... interrogation of prisoners is just one of them.


The "psycho-babble" that you refer to from Robert points out that people authorize and perform torture have been shown to do it primarily out of sadism and sickness.


Actually, for me, the blockades are that it's *wrong*, it's *illegal*, and it will lead to *torture of US citizens and soldiers and operatives*. Are you able to address these issues?

OK, I'll take a stab at it

As for being evil and illegal, I think the first is based on your morals (which are good for you, but shouldnt be imposed on anyone else) and the second, well, my first rant was related to the fact I don't believe in international law. It preempts soverignity. I say, us first, them second. (I know that's short, but we'll get way off track if I go into it more)

As for sadism and sickness, well that may be the past, but maybe it's time we use it more intelligently and effectively. We spend money looking for the "gay" gene (LOL) why not spend a few bucks on effective information gathering (with torture).

As for it leading to torture of our guys, well, it can't lead, it can only follow. It is already being done. To me, getting your head cut off = torture before you die. Try getting arrested in China. See how well they treat people. Or in a majority of African countries. See if they care about international law. Again, this isn't 2 wrongs make a right, its saying they already do it and will not stop. There's nothing to lead to. It's already being done.

Address or rationalize. That's a close one. I know that's what Robert's thinking now. I've just rationalized the destruction of a race of people..LOL.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh really. Well, I see I haven't been rude enough to anyone actually proposing that we blow off every religious code I've ever heard of (except, perhaps, for Satanism), ignore what we know about the history of torture (it doesn't work, and has a corrupting influence), flip a big finger in the direction of silly little things like the Geneva Convention, and--just incidentally--forget about the fact that using torture associates us with a) Stalinist Russia, b) Nazi Germany, c) Pinochet's Chile, d) Saddam Hussein, e) the North Korean and North Vietnamese treatment of our fliers, f) who knows how many tinpot dictators and drug lords, all of whom make the very same arguments advanced here.

Oh yes--it also means turning two blind eyes to what we know about the psychology of torture from studies like Stanley Milgram's and accounts of the delight taken in suffering by your average psychopath.

I guess ya can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. And yet, I'd thought that the very people now arguing for torture, when necessary, were the folks who rail against, "situational ethics," insist that there are universal moral standards, and tell the likes of me that our problem is we'll accept any injustice in the name of the holy goals of Communism.

But I honestly don't know what's worse: letting torture go on haphazardly, or sitting down and pretending to work out calm, logical, professional standards for torture. On balance, I believe I am more revolted by the proceduralists.

And oh yes--yes indeedy, dehumanizing whole "races," to enable torturing the sub-humans does absolutely serve as one of the intellectual bases for genocide.

I also recommend being careful about poking fun at Freud, who does such an elegant job of explaining why "irrelevant," material like, "the gay gene," pops into our head while we're discussing, say, torture.

 

[MisterMike]

Oh really. Well, I see I haven't been rude enough to anyone actually proposing that we blow off every religious code I've ever heard of (except, perhaps, for Satanism), ignore what we know about the history of torture (it doesn't work, and has a corrupting influence), flip a big finger in the direction of silly little things like the Geneva Convention, and--just incidentally--forget about the fact that using torture associates us with a) Stalinist Russia, b) Nazi Germany, c) Pinochet's Chile, d) Saddam Hussein, e) the North Korean and North Vietnamese treatment of our fliers, f) who knows how many tinpot dictators and drug lords, all of whom make the very same arguments advanced here.

Oh yes--it also means turning two blind eyes to what we know about the psychology of torture from studies like Stanley Milgram's and accounts of the delight taken in suffering by your average psychopath.

Yea but torture has no psychology. It's more of a tool, like the internet. (Oh boy, I know I'm going to get reemed for this one). But you can use it for good or bad. Now I know we all need a job we love to do, and this isn't saying much for the people whos job it would be to inflict torture, but there are always aspects of our jobs we don't like. Just like having to shoot people for wearing a different flag on their sleeve.

I guess ya can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. And yet, I'd thought that the very people now arguing for torture, when necessary, were the folks who rail against, "situational ethics," insist that there are universal moral standards, and tell the likes of me that our problem is we'll accept any injustice in the name of the holy goals of Communism.

But I honestly don't know what's worse: letting torture go on haphazardly, or sitting down and pretending to work out calm, logical, professional standards for torture. On balance, I believe I am more revolted by the proceduralists.

And oh yes--yes indeedy, dehumanizing whole "races," to enable torturing the sub-humans does absolutely serve as one of the intellectual bases for genocide.

I also recommend being careful about poking fun at Freud, who does such an elegant job of explaining why "irrelevant," material like, "the gay gene," pops into our head while we're discussing, say, torture.

Haha..I'm almost glad you didn't carry on there, as much as I find the little I know about Freud to be amusing, I laughed pretty hard there.

Ah well, it takes time to change, and again I thank you all for your input.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Yea but torture has no psychology.

I would argue that torture - on both sides, the victim and the perpetrator - does have a very particular psychology.

This famous (infamous) experiment was not established to look at torture, but deals with some of the relevant issues, conducted by Zimbardo and his colleagues

http://www.prisonexp.org/

This link is a summary of the famous Milgram experiments - I haven't read the entire page yet, but a good quick review

http://thunder.prohosting.com/~tlennon/obedience.html

and

http://www.fact-index.com/m/mi/milgram_experiment.html

as examples

There is very much a psychological background or effect of torture.

It is a morally and politically reprehensible act, and is not an effective information-extractor. And it has its own causes and effects on the perpetrator(s).

 

[hardheadjarhead]

And yet, I'd thought that the very people now arguing for torture, when necessary, were the folks who rail against, "situational ethics," insist that there are universal moral standards....

This has to be one of the best observations made all week. It is so good I would modify the adjective with an expletive, but there are children present, so I shall refrain.

Many is the time I've seen people argue the gray areas of a particular argument, only to have the charge of "relativism" leveled...as if it was heresy.

Good job.



Regards,


Steve