The 5th estate: Abu Ghraib and Torture in Iraq
- Thread starter GO!!!
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
DBA said:
No they didn't execute 100s, but they have rounded up some that were just average dumbies, in the wrong place at the wrong time. And yes Resistance fighters did blowup their own. Many French were killed during the attempt to kill a german or two.
I read a book, written by a resistance fighter. I'll dig it up. But at one point, they were picking to blowup their own to get more anti German on their side. For in Paris, many were getting rich off the Germans. They charged double of what was the actual price.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I think it IS the same issue as Somalia. It is lower ranks doing what they think they can get away with given highers 'intent'.
Kyle Brown thought that what he was doing at the time was justified given the intent of his COC. So did those at the prison that were charged. As testosterone filled killing machines we need strict discipline and guidelines to make sure we don't go overboard. This is exactly why 'hard-core' units have higher levels of discipline, because if they dont then the shit hits the fan and the testosterone takes over. Next thing you know the boys are out of control.
Kyle Brown thought that what he was doing at the time was justified given the intent of his COC. So did those at the prison that were charged. As testosterone filled killing machines we need strict discipline and guidelines to make sure we don't go overboard. This is exactly why 'hard-core' units have higher levels of discipline, because if they dont then the shit hits the fan and the testosterone takes over. Next thing you know the boys are out of control.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
They are examples of poor leadership, training and lack of supervision.
Whatever spin you want to apply to it, Abu Ghraib was a monumental error in judgement. Was it an error by the nameless "intelligence personnel" that allegedly encouraged it? Or was it a failure of command by Karpinski? Or maybe it was a case of a combination of things that caused it. The fact is, it was a breach of the laws we are compelled to follow (and the Americans as well), and worse, much worse, it handed a propaganda coup to the insurgency on a gift-wrapped platter.
Trying to justify it by comparing atrocities of the opposition is absurd. Do you want to win the war, you would you rather remain employed as a soldier for the remainder of your years?
I think UberCree summed it up well, testosterone or "will to power" aside.
Whatever spin you want to apply to it, Abu Ghraib was a monumental error in judgement. Was it an error by the nameless "intelligence personnel" that allegedly encouraged it? Or was it a failure of command by Karpinski? Or maybe it was a case of a combination of things that caused it. The fact is, it was a breach of the laws we are compelled to follow (and the Americans as well), and worse, much worse, it handed a propaganda coup to the insurgency on a gift-wrapped platter.
Trying to justify it by comparing atrocities of the opposition is absurd. Do you want to win the war, you would you rather remain employed as a soldier for the remainder of your years?
I think UberCree summed it up well, testosterone or "will to power" aside.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Recce41 said:
Again a $10 and $100 bill are allmost the same if you compare just attributes and not scale or extent. In Iraq the resistance abuses and kills Iraqi civilians to an extent well beyond the French resistance's actions in WW2. Also the occupation troops did far more atrocities in France than what is happening in present day Iraq. The US isn't shipping any specific population groups to death camps.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
"Chimo, you can't compare what happened in Somalia with what is currently being discussed. What happened in Somalia was individuals at various ranks exercising or promoting vigilante justice with the tacit (and sometimes not so tacit) support from the local chain of command to deter intrusion into and theft from the camp, it was hardly national policy. " MP 00161
I respectfully disagree. What we have are soldiers abusing prisioners under their control. The extent of abuse and the results vary somewhat but do not take away from the point that it is wrong. As for the argument of using the same morale judgement as in WWII, I.E. shooting spies and fifth columnist...who among us think that we would see the fire bombing of Dresden in this "modern" age. I think, as unusual as it sounds that, we may have grown in our morale consciousness so those acts will not be repeated. We as a nation and a military must always place ourselves on the morale high ground. Sometimes we will fail. We are after all human. This does not make the action right or excusable.
Can NCO effect National policies and outcomes? Have a read of this quote...
As Lieutenant General William M. Steele stated, "In today's operational environment, tactical actions by Lieutenants, Sergeants and Corporals and their commanders can have strategic consequences with lasting impact on the national policy" (FM 7-22.7 p.3-17).
Few would argue the negative impact, a group of several renegade Non-Commissioned Officers had on the United States Army and the US government, when the pictures and stories of naked and abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib broke across the networks of the world.
I respectfully disagree. What we have are soldiers abusing prisioners under their control. The extent of abuse and the results vary somewhat but do not take away from the point that it is wrong. As for the argument of using the same morale judgement as in WWII, I.E. shooting spies and fifth columnist...who among us think that we would see the fire bombing of Dresden in this "modern" age. I think, as unusual as it sounds that, we may have grown in our morale consciousness so those acts will not be repeated. We as a nation and a military must always place ourselves on the morale high ground. Sometimes we will fail. We are after all human. This does not make the action right or excusable.
Can NCO effect National policies and outcomes? Have a read of this quote...
As Lieutenant General William M. Steele stated, "In today's operational environment, tactical actions by Lieutenants, Sergeants and Corporals and their commanders can have strategic consequences with lasting impact on the national policy" (FM 7-22.7 p.3-17).
Few would argue the negative impact, a group of several renegade Non-Commissioned Officers had on the United States Army and the US government, when the pictures and stories of naked and abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib broke across the networks of the world.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
On torture and why we don't use it:
1) It is immoral.
2) If doesn't work and is, in fact, counter-productive. A torture victim does not tell you what you want to know. He tells you anything he thinks will stop the pain. His intelligence is entirely unreliable.
3) Rumours of torture at the hands of the enemy will cause your opponent to fight to the death, resulting in more friendly and non-combatant casualties, longer fighting, more expenditure, more damage to the infrastructure of the nation you are attempting to re-build, more expenditure, loss of the moral high ground, and wasted time. (Kinda makes a feller wonder why certain media-types insist on running with these sorts of stories. I ain't sayin' they're all Fifth Columnists, but they have historically proven themselves willing Useful Idiots.)
Rumours of kind treatment at the hands of the enemy will cause the opponent to surrender more easily, thus preventing friendly casualties, etc. The nations of the West have known this for decades.
4) It is illegal by our own Laws, never mind that jumble of useless crap called International Law.
The tactics employed at PW and Detainee facilities to obtain information is simple sensory deprivation, sensory over-load, sleep deprivation, and embarrassment. Interrogators then employ simple psychology to get into the heads of the PW or detainee, and "trick" (for lack of a better word) the PW/detainee into wanting to tell them everything, including things the PW/detainee may not realize they know. This is not abuse or torture, anymore than spanking a misbehaving child is child abuse. These are, in fact, training tactics employed by all of the armies of the Western nations on our own soldiers. (Yes, I said "our".) Anyone who claims that this is torture has to then insist that we are torturing our own soldiers. And I have a hard time imagining any Canadian soldier tolerating being tortured without demanding compensation. Since torture is illegal in Canada, I have a hard time imagining any Canadian soldier submitting to being tortured, as he then has complied with an Unlawful Command, as has the "torturer". And nobody in the Infantry is going to torture his buddy.
If you thin this sort of thing is torture and against your moral principles, I recommend you not enlist to become Infantry, as you will undergo similar training, and you will have to employ similar tactics. Once you do either, however, you will quickly come to realize that while unpleasant at the time, it is not torture.
1) It is immoral.
2) If doesn't work and is, in fact, counter-productive. A torture victim does not tell you what you want to know. He tells you anything he thinks will stop the pain. His intelligence is entirely unreliable.
3) Rumours of torture at the hands of the enemy will cause your opponent to fight to the death, resulting in more friendly and non-combatant casualties, longer fighting, more expenditure, more damage to the infrastructure of the nation you are attempting to re-build, more expenditure, loss of the moral high ground, and wasted time. (Kinda makes a feller wonder why certain media-types insist on running with these sorts of stories. I ain't sayin' they're all Fifth Columnists, but they have historically proven themselves willing Useful Idiots.)
Rumours of kind treatment at the hands of the enemy will cause the opponent to surrender more easily, thus preventing friendly casualties, etc. The nations of the West have known this for decades.
4) It is illegal by our own Laws, never mind that jumble of useless crap called International Law.
The tactics employed at PW and Detainee facilities to obtain information is simple sensory deprivation, sensory over-load, sleep deprivation, and embarrassment. Interrogators then employ simple psychology to get into the heads of the PW or detainee, and "trick" (for lack of a better word) the PW/detainee into wanting to tell them everything, including things the PW/detainee may not realize they know. This is not abuse or torture, anymore than spanking a misbehaving child is child abuse. These are, in fact, training tactics employed by all of the armies of the Western nations on our own soldiers. (Yes, I said "our".) Anyone who claims that this is torture has to then insist that we are torturing our own soldiers. And I have a hard time imagining any Canadian soldier tolerating being tortured without demanding compensation. Since torture is illegal in Canada, I have a hard time imagining any Canadian soldier submitting to being tortured, as he then has complied with an Unlawful Command, as has the "torturer". And nobody in the Infantry is going to torture his buddy.
If you thin this sort of thing is torture and against your moral principles, I recommend you not enlist to become Infantry, as you will undergo similar training, and you will have to employ similar tactics. Once you do either, however, you will quickly come to realize that while unpleasant at the time, it is not torture.
- Reaction score
- 17,957
- Points
- 1,260
Firstly: Lets call these folks PUC's, that is their legal status, and publically it keeps us very clear of the EPW issues of the Geneva Convension.
Secondly: While I abhorre torture, if I thought that a Black and Decker power drill could save some of our soldiers or civilians...
However unless Bin and his buddies have a few low yield suitnukes that I want to inquire about -- I dont think we are at the point where someone has to worry if I have a cordless in my kitbag.
In discussion with people who have taken PUC's they tend to sing - why, they want their buddies helped, and they seem to feel honour bound (Afghan theatre) to co-operate with those who help their injured buddies (even if your the one that put a hole or two in his budd)
I feel the US actions where likley counterproductive - since you now have a whole shitload of PUC's who REALLY don't like the US (and this is just in keeping with the US INT Ops policy - not the POS Turd Burglars that actually abused the prisoners.
Back in the day
I had some guys have an Interogation go at me -- 4 hours and I was unpleasant/pissoff etc. They ran an excellent physical and metal program - but that is NOT torture.
Secondly: While I abhorre torture, if I thought that a Black and Decker power drill could save some of our soldiers or civilians...
However unless Bin and his buddies have a few low yield suitnukes that I want to inquire about -- I dont think we are at the point where someone has to worry if I have a cordless in my kitbag.
In discussion with people who have taken PUC's they tend to sing - why, they want their buddies helped, and they seem to feel honour bound (Afghan theatre) to co-operate with those who help their injured buddies (even if your the one that put a hole or two in his budd)
I feel the US actions where likley counterproductive - since you now have a whole shitload of PUC's who REALLY don't like the US (and this is just in keeping with the US INT Ops policy - not the POS Turd Burglars that actually abused the prisoners.
Back in the day
I had some guys have an Interogation go at me -- 4 hours and I was unpleasant/pissoff etc. They ran an excellent physical and metal program - but that is NOT torture.
- Reaction score
- 9,425
- Points
- 1,260
Another issue that I saw was that Abu Gharaib served as an "idea exchange" for the bad guys - you're Joe Hadji and you get taken in Ramadi. You get a little more hardcore in jail, but you also meet Jimmy Jihad from Fallujah, who's got some ideas on how to do things better the next time you're all released for some political points for the local government....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Stupidity begets stupidity.
I cant figure out why anyone would take battlefield photos of humiliation such as dead EN, torture look at that foolish photo in Somalia what a looser to take a photo of a tied beaten youth cowards the lot.
I cant figure out why anyone would take battlefield photos of humiliation such as dead EN, torture look at that foolish photo in Somalia what a looser to take a photo of a tied beaten youth cowards the lot.
- Reaction score
- 18
- Points
- 530
Well, regardless of everything else, my own opinion is that if this had been, say - an Australian or British-run prison, we wouldn't have nearly the furor that we do now. Granted, it's easy for some to argue that this never would have happened in anything but a US-run prison...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
On what do you base your evaluation?muskrat89 said:
Though the Nazis perfected the concentration camp, it's a British "invention" from the Boer days...
Though there have been statements from the UK MOD about the use of WP only for smoke, there's a new book out by a former CO of the SAS. In it he is quoted as having encouraged his troops to use the "shake & bake" approach to house clearing.
WP to bring em out in the open and Frag grenades to shred what's left...
(oopsie)
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
And I wonder where the Brits learned from......'Black Hole' of Calcutta.......Khartoum........Sudan.......geo said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Those interested in the human condition regarding guarding prisoners and being put into a position of total authority should take a look at the Standford Prison Experiment:
http://www.prisonexp.org/
While they could never get away with running a study like this today, it's an interesing look at how things go wrong, and how quickly it can happen without proper supervision.
In a given population, roughly 1/3 will go "by the book" and enforce the rules and regulations. 1/3 will provide comfort to the prisoners (food, water, blankets, etc) and 1/3 will invent new and creative ways to punish.
What I personally believe happened at Abu Ghraib involved the last 1/3. These fools should have be selected out and sent to guard the latrines from being tipped over. Case in point, as mentioned before, was the camera issue...sure everybody has them, but these pictures were taken as personal trophies. If they were taken for interrogation purposes, you can be pretty sure they'd never see the light of day.
http://www.prisonexp.org/
While they could never get away with running a study like this today, it's an interesing look at how things go wrong, and how quickly it can happen without proper supervision.
In a given population, roughly 1/3 will go "by the book" and enforce the rules and regulations. 1/3 will provide comfort to the prisoners (food, water, blankets, etc) and 1/3 will invent new and creative ways to punish.
What I personally believe happened at Abu Ghraib involved the last 1/3. These fools should have be selected out and sent to guard the latrines from being tipped over. Case in point, as mentioned before, was the camera issue...sure everybody has them, but these pictures were taken as personal trophies. If they were taken for interrogation purposes, you can be pretty sure they'd never see the light of day.
- Reaction score
- 18
- Points
- 530
Well, it's not an evaluation, but an opinion. An opinion formed mostly by reading this board, and reading/watching world news and other commentary. So fervent is the anti-American feeling in many around the world, that I think the Abu Gharaib situation is fueled by it. If the acts of the people running that prison had been by people from a country "less-hated", then I believe that many wouldn't feel as strongly about it, as they do... that was my point
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
First I want to explain in greater detail why the PUCs are not victims of torture (which is my main beef). Then I will get into the numpties who screwed the pooch so thoroughly. My main point is the premise that abuse, or stress isn't torture.
The UN Convention Against Torture:
The Geneva Conventions have been brought up several times, by people who apparently don't have a firm grasp on them, or The Hague Conventions, or the Law Of Armed Conflict in general. The insurgents do not have any protections under the 3rd Geneva Convention. They are not PWs. PW is an exact, legally defined (by the 3rd Geneva Convention) term. The insurgents do not meet the requirements, in that they do not display a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance, in their conduct toward their captives (torture, execution and mutilation), as well as their targeting of random civilians. They are thus not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.
As for the troops in Abu Ghraib: Let me say first, that despite what the tinfoil hat-wearing crowd say, the US military does not teach "torture techniques". US military training stresses ethics, supports the Geneva Convention, and teaches the Laws of Land Warfare, just as we do. The only differences are in the terms used and the accents spoken. I am not saying that abuse never happens, but when it does it is investigated and dealt with. And, I would venture to say, in a more fair and just manner than has been done here. The individuals are punished, along with their applicable Chain of Command, not the entire unit. And certainly not the entire military for a decade and a half. Let's keep in mind that a soldier in the command first reported the abuse at Abu Ghraib. Let's also remember that CENTCOM wrapped up the initial investigation just prior to the story being brought to the public's attention. From my vantage point, I see reports of abuse and torture being immediately dealt with by investigation and courts martial if required.
I don't support torture. I don't support what happened at Abu Ghraib. I don't support it on moral grounds, and I don't support it because it is tactically unsound. What happened at Abu Ghraib and other locations clearly shows lack of proper supervision and knowledge. However, being naked with panties stuck on your head is not torture, that's a drunken Shack Party. There is a bizarre school of thought in the US military, at the lower levels, that since the Middle Eastern nations subscribe to patriarchy, and the more Fundamentalist the individual, the more patriarchal and misogynistic, then humiliation by a female will weaken their will to resist. The school of thought further goes on to say that since the 'Arab culture' (for lack of a better word at the moment) is so firmly based on the concept of honour, both personal and familial, that humiliation in public will cause them to lose prestige and erode their will to fight. This not only flies in the face of basic psychology, it defies simple common sense. By humiliating a prisoner in this manner, it simply strengthens his will to resist. By humiliating someone in public in this manner, it turns what may have been a mildly annoyed xenophobe into a die-hard insurgent. But, the concept is still there, and is taking time to weed out.
If any of the individuals (from Journo-jackals, to student activists, to celebrity experts on all things) who felt moved to comment on the 'torture' took the time to read into this subject they would realize two blatantly obvious facts:
1) All the cases investigated at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo turned up more false accusations than real and those that actually involved misconduct were prosecuted.
2) The second fact is that anyone who bothered to take the time to compare the conditions at any PUC/PW/detainee facility to what our own troops faced in Japanese PW camps, Korea, or any of the thousands of prisons in the Middle East, South-East Asia, South America, or Africa would plainly see that there is a large difference between isolated instances of "abuse" and systemic, state condoned torture. A quick comparison between Abu Ghraib and Saddam's play pens serve to illustrate quite well, I think. I believe that there is a big difference between being put in an uncomfortable or embarrassing position, and being literally beaten so bad that you can't see, or having your entrails pulled from your body, or electrocuted to death over a period of days. Perhaps I am mistaken.
I am very curious, though, as to why there is such an enormous stink made about PUCs we hand over to the US and are then sent to Gitmo, but none is made about those we hand over to the Afghani Authorities and are stuck in Pol-I-Charki. I've been there, and I'd much rather be handed over to the Americans. Perhaps it's because those simple, brown-skinned people aren't expected to have the intellect to treat their prisoners fairly? Or is it just another opportunity to bash the US and provide support to our enemies?
As has been defined, legally, the stressful interrogation methods employed by authorized Army Personnel are manifestly not "torture". So, if a method is used in a SERE school, on an Infantry course, or Exercise it is a teaching technique, but if it is used in the real world it is torture? There is Frat House Hazing that is worse than was seen in Abu Ghraib. What happens with properly trained interrogators is simply 'induced Stockholm syndrome' (I just made that up. Sounds pretty cool, huh?) The methods employed cause the PUC to want to assist their interrogator, and are easily shaken off in time. They are not permanent, and do not cause undue pain or mental anguish. The interrogated receive constant medical supervision and care. (I will not go into further detail, do not ask.)
Let's also keep in mind that if the insurgents capture ANY Soldier, Sailor, or Airman, it's an automatic death sentence. Not by a bullet, but by slowly sawing through your neck until you're beheaded. If you're a woman (or a man in many cases) you'll be raped FIRST, and then beheaded. The insurgents will film this entire session and make sure the world sees your death. And before the beheading, let's not forget the real torture lasting for days. They don't want information, they want to see you suffer because of the power and thrill it gives them.
As the final piece de resistance, they'll convince you after the rape and torture that if you'll give a statement denouncing your country, they'll turn you over to the Red Cross. Just as you finish your statement, out comes the knife and you spend the last 30 seconds of your life feeling that blade ratchet back and forth across your tendons, muscles, trachea, and other parts. That last thing they cut through is your spine, so you can feel yourself drown in your own blood; even as you pass out.
When you go to bed tonight, try to keep that image in your mind. What will be your last thoughts? Will you have enough strength to focus on your family? Your God? Your nation? Or will you be thinking about that knife, how much its hurts, and what did you do wrong that they reneged on their 'promise'? Will you beg for your life as it flows out and soaks the floor?
Compare and contrast that to the naked dog pile in Abu Ghraib. Which is torture?
As for the cameras, the answer there is quite simple: they're morons. In order to behave in the manner they did in the first place, they had to be lacking in intellect. Only an idiot would think that treating someone in that manner would possibly have positive results. Only an idiot would want to have photographic evidence of themselves behaving like idiots.
The UN Convention Against Torture:
(Bold and italics mine.)
The Geneva Conventions have been brought up several times, by people who apparently don't have a firm grasp on them, or The Hague Conventions, or the Law Of Armed Conflict in general. The insurgents do not have any protections under the 3rd Geneva Convention. They are not PWs. PW is an exact, legally defined (by the 3rd Geneva Convention) term. The insurgents do not meet the requirements, in that they do not display a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance, in their conduct toward their captives (torture, execution and mutilation), as well as their targeting of random civilians. They are thus not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.
Bottom line: They are not PWs, or civilian criminals. They are unlawful combatants. (The fact that we accord them the fair treatment we do is testimony to the quality of personnel to be found in the Armies of the West. Wherever possible, they are treated as PWs because it is the right thing to do.) The bad guys we round up, in Afghanistan, don't go to Gitmo unless they are confirmed bad guys. Every one of them is tried by Military Tribunal (which is more than we are obligated to do). Those who are innocent are repatriated.
As for the troops in Abu Ghraib: Let me say first, that despite what the tinfoil hat-wearing crowd say, the US military does not teach "torture techniques". US military training stresses ethics, supports the Geneva Convention, and teaches the Laws of Land Warfare, just as we do. The only differences are in the terms used and the accents spoken. I am not saying that abuse never happens, but when it does it is investigated and dealt with. And, I would venture to say, in a more fair and just manner than has been done here. The individuals are punished, along with their applicable Chain of Command, not the entire unit. And certainly not the entire military for a decade and a half. Let's keep in mind that a soldier in the command first reported the abuse at Abu Ghraib. Let's also remember that CENTCOM wrapped up the initial investigation just prior to the story being brought to the public's attention. From my vantage point, I see reports of abuse and torture being immediately dealt with by investigation and courts martial if required.
I don't support torture. I don't support what happened at Abu Ghraib. I don't support it on moral grounds, and I don't support it because it is tactically unsound. What happened at Abu Ghraib and other locations clearly shows lack of proper supervision and knowledge. However, being naked with panties stuck on your head is not torture, that's a drunken Shack Party. There is a bizarre school of thought in the US military, at the lower levels, that since the Middle Eastern nations subscribe to patriarchy, and the more Fundamentalist the individual, the more patriarchal and misogynistic, then humiliation by a female will weaken their will to resist. The school of thought further goes on to say that since the 'Arab culture' (for lack of a better word at the moment) is so firmly based on the concept of honour, both personal and familial, that humiliation in public will cause them to lose prestige and erode their will to fight. This not only flies in the face of basic psychology, it defies simple common sense. By humiliating a prisoner in this manner, it simply strengthens his will to resist. By humiliating someone in public in this manner, it turns what may have been a mildly annoyed xenophobe into a die-hard insurgent. But, the concept is still there, and is taking time to weed out.
If any of the individuals (from Journo-jackals, to student activists, to celebrity experts on all things) who felt moved to comment on the 'torture' took the time to read into this subject they would realize two blatantly obvious facts:
1) All the cases investigated at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo turned up more false accusations than real and those that actually involved misconduct were prosecuted.
2) The second fact is that anyone who bothered to take the time to compare the conditions at any PUC/PW/detainee facility to what our own troops faced in Japanese PW camps, Korea, or any of the thousands of prisons in the Middle East, South-East Asia, South America, or Africa would plainly see that there is a large difference between isolated instances of "abuse" and systemic, state condoned torture. A quick comparison between Abu Ghraib and Saddam's play pens serve to illustrate quite well, I think. I believe that there is a big difference between being put in an uncomfortable or embarrassing position, and being literally beaten so bad that you can't see, or having your entrails pulled from your body, or electrocuted to death over a period of days. Perhaps I am mistaken.
I am very curious, though, as to why there is such an enormous stink made about PUCs we hand over to the US and are then sent to Gitmo, but none is made about those we hand over to the Afghani Authorities and are stuck in Pol-I-Charki. I've been there, and I'd much rather be handed over to the Americans. Perhaps it's because those simple, brown-skinned people aren't expected to have the intellect to treat their prisoners fairly? Or is it just another opportunity to bash the US and provide support to our enemies?
As has been defined, legally, the stressful interrogation methods employed by authorized Army Personnel are manifestly not "torture". So, if a method is used in a SERE school, on an Infantry course, or Exercise it is a teaching technique, but if it is used in the real world it is torture? There is Frat House Hazing that is worse than was seen in Abu Ghraib. What happens with properly trained interrogators is simply 'induced Stockholm syndrome' (I just made that up. Sounds pretty cool, huh?) The methods employed cause the PUC to want to assist their interrogator, and are easily shaken off in time. They are not permanent, and do not cause undue pain or mental anguish. The interrogated receive constant medical supervision and care. (I will not go into further detail, do not ask.)
Let's also keep in mind that if the insurgents capture ANY Soldier, Sailor, or Airman, it's an automatic death sentence. Not by a bullet, but by slowly sawing through your neck until you're beheaded. If you're a woman (or a man in many cases) you'll be raped FIRST, and then beheaded. The insurgents will film this entire session and make sure the world sees your death. And before the beheading, let's not forget the real torture lasting for days. They don't want information, they want to see you suffer because of the power and thrill it gives them.
As the final piece de resistance, they'll convince you after the rape and torture that if you'll give a statement denouncing your country, they'll turn you over to the Red Cross. Just as you finish your statement, out comes the knife and you spend the last 30 seconds of your life feeling that blade ratchet back and forth across your tendons, muscles, trachea, and other parts. That last thing they cut through is your spine, so you can feel yourself drown in your own blood; even as you pass out.
When you go to bed tonight, try to keep that image in your mind. What will be your last thoughts? Will you have enough strength to focus on your family? Your God? Your nation? Or will you be thinking about that knife, how much its hurts, and what did you do wrong that they reneged on their 'promise'? Will you beg for your life as it flows out and soaks the floor?
Compare and contrast that to the naked dog pile in Abu Ghraib. Which is torture?
As for the cameras, the answer there is quite simple: they're morons. In order to behave in the manner they did in the first place, they had to be lacking in intellect. Only an idiot would think that treating someone in that manner would possibly have positive results. Only an idiot would want to have photographic evidence of themselves behaving like idiots.
Similar threads
