Camp Mercury
Human Rights Watch has the latest reports of torture in Iraq:
Three U.S. army personnel--two sergeants and a captain--describe routine, severe beatings of prisoners and other cruel and inhumane treatment. In one incident, a soldier is alleged to have broken a detainee's leg with a baseball bat. Detainees were also forced to hold five-gallon jugs of water with their arms outstretched and perform other acts until they passed out. Soldiers also applied chemical substances to detainees' skin and eyes, and subjected detainees to forced stress positions, sleep deprivation, and extremes of hot and cold. Detainees were also stacked into human pyramids and denied food and water. The soldiers also described abuses they witnessed or participated in at another base in Iraq and during earlier deployments in Afghanistan.
According to the soldiers' accounts, U.S. personnel abused detainees as part of the military interrogation process or merely to "relieve stress." In numerous cases, they said that abuse was specifically ordered by Military Intelligence personnel before interrogations, and that superior officers within and outside of Military Intelligence knew about the widespread abuse. The accounts show that abuses resulted from civilian and military failures of leadership and confusion about interrogation standards and the application of the Geneva Conventions. They contradict claims by the Bush administration that detainee abuses by U.S. forces abroad have been infrequent, exceptional and unrelated to policy….
The officer who spoke to Human Rights Watch made persistent efforts over 17 months to raise concerns about detainee abuse with his chain of command and to obtain clearer rules on the proper treatment of detainees, but was consistently told to ignore abuses and to "consider your career." He believes he was not taken seriously until he approached members of Congress to raise his concerns. When the officer made an appointment this month with Senate staff members of Senators John McCain and John Warner, he says his commanding officer denied him a pass to leave his base. The officer was interviewed several days later by investigators with the Army Criminal Investigative Division and Inspector General's office, and there were reports that the military has launched a formal investigation.
The soldiers' statements are here.
Update: The officer in question is Captain Ian Fishback. You can read more about his experience here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
You must break a few suspected insurgent eggs to make a democratic omelette.
Seems to contradict the "few bad apples" line of the administration, doesn't it?
By the way, I read a story on this yesterday, though I don't remember exactly where. But one line of it really stuck with me, where the guys admitted that "if you needed to blow off some steam, you went to the interrogation room."
So you can't even use the excuse that this is about trying to get intelligence. Girlfriend dumps you via e-mail? Go break some haji legs! Pissed off about getting KP duty? Chain a brownskin to the ceiling for a few hours!
Oh, Christ, what has become of my country?
Well, it's still true, Jennifer. It's just that they turned out to be the President, SecDef and AG.
Worse than this story is evidence the US Navy was transporting prisoners to certain foreign countries for some REAL torture.
Anybody else see that?
Since we all know where this thread is going, maybe it would be better if Tom Crick and rob just go somewhere private with dueling pistols.
It was on the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4278734.stm
"Everyone in camp knew if you wanted to work out your frustration you show up at the [interrogation] tent," he reportedly said.
"As long as no PUCs [prisoners under control] came up dead, it happened," he said.
"We kept it to broken arms and legs."
Fuck! Dubya and Rummy need to stand trial for war crimes. The fact that they never will, is so fucking depressing the even heroin can't make me forget.
If the evidence isn't strong enough to force the military to act, it never happened.
If the evidence is strong enough, and the military can no longer deny that the torture happened, it just shows that the system works.
Roughing up captured enemies for fun has been going on forever. One of the purposes of having officers is to make sure that there is somebody who will put a stop to such behavior. Except now, the officers are condoning and even orderring such treatment - and that goes all the way to the top.
Joe- I agree, except that I'd replace 'officers' with 'NCOs and SNCOs.'
>>Worse than this story is evidence the US Navy was transporting prisoners to certain foreign countries for some REAL torture.
Anybody else see that?
Well, I certainly hope a couple low-ranking reservists are yelled at in order to show the world we are dedicated to preventing this type of behavior.
Oh, Christ, what has become of my country?
I have to agree with you there, Jennifer. But take some solace in the fact that there is not a country on earth (including ours) that hasn't bloodied its hands in this manner at some point in its history.
And redemption is not impossible; Germany seems to have recovered in a relatively short period of time from perhaps the greatest atrocities in human history.
But of course, we need to make sure this nonsense stops ASAP.
But take some solace in the fact that there is not a country on earth (including ours) that hasn't bloodied its hands in this manner at some point in its history.
This is true, and many countries are even worse. But THOSE countries aren't supposedly based upon noble ideals like "justice" and "liberty."
I could stand this if it were an improvement over what we've done in the past, but it isn't--it's a serious step backward. I've said before, we never fully lived up to our ideal of "liberty and justice for all," but for a long time we were closer than any cuntry on Earth, and getting closer all the time. But now we're just regressing, and now we are NOT the closest on earth to those ideals. And that's why I find this so depressing.
This is true, and many countries are even worse. But THOSE countries aren't supposedly based upon noble ideals like "justice" and "liberty."
Jennifer, you of all people ought to know that marketing fluff went out the window when FDR created his own damn bill of rights. I don't know if we were ever really headed in the right direction, either. Burdening the electorate with higher taxes, more free speech restrictions, property seizures and self-defense curbs, while passing legislation that makes it harder to remove the bastards from office, never really sounded like "progress" to me.
Since when does the Bill of Rights apply in Afghanistan and Iraq?
I would have more confidence in the story if Human Rights Watch hadn't quoted this bit:
"The Geneva Conventions is questionable and we didn't know we were supposed to be following it. . . . [W]e were never briefed on the Geneva Conventions. "
Of course, as any one who has actually studied the matter knows, and I presume that Human Rights Watch has, the U.S. Military Code provides much, much stronger protections for all individuals in the control of the US military than does the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention only protects those who follow the convention itself. Virtually, no one taken into custody in Iraq since the end of major operations would be covered by the GC.
All soldiers are trained in military code regarding the treatment of prisoners. Anyone who claims that they engaged in abuses because they didn't know whether they were covered by the GC is lying. Most of the "abuses" listed such a forced standing, uncomfortable positioning, extremes of heat and cold etc are allowed forms of interrogation. Beatings aren't, however. Intentionally breaking a detainees leg would be crime and every soldier would know that.
Isn't it interesting that you can read dozens of stories about alleged abuses by the U.S. military without reading one would about the dozens of U.S. military personnel who have been disciplined and imprisoned due purely to internal investigations by the military? If the impetus for this behavior is coming from the very top were is the motivation for these internal investigations coming from?
To date, external actors have never uncovered any abuses on their own. All the information on abuses has come from the military itself. That strongly suggest that the government is on top of the matter.
Blame FDR? Sure.... yeah, FDR.
Fact is, if enough people got loud about this, it wouldn't matter. People bitching gets shit done. Look at how many local gov's reacted against eminent domain after the Kelo junk.
If your mad about it, tell someone, get it out there. Tell your congressman to get shit on trial.
Instead of spitting on soldiers like they did back in the Vietnam era, maybe people should spit on civilian political appointees of the Defense Dept. who are responsible for oversight of the Army.
Jennifer,
Monday's a good day to break this to you. For a different take on the "liberty and justice" stuff, read "Jefferson's Vendetta" by Joseph Wheelan.
One more reason why Reason can only hope to be the Temple of the Vestal Virgins, keepers of the flame.
All the information on abuses has come from the military itself
After other, higher-ranking members of the military said things ike "Ignore the abuses. Focus on your career."
I'm curious, for those of you who say that the Bill of Rights or Geneva Conventions don't apply here: are you saying you don't care if the US Military makes a habit of torturing people, so long as they're not violating any treaties by doing it?
"To date, external actors have never uncovered any abuses on their own. All the information on abuses has come from the military itself. That strongly suggest that the government is on top of the matter."
Exactly ninety minutes to "this just shows that the system is working."
Just like the system was working last time. And the time before. And just like it will be working when the next story of American soldiers torturing people hits the papers. And the one after than. And the one after that. And the one after that.
I predict that system works so well, that we will be seeing examples of the system working again and again and again, for years. Because it just works so damn well.
If the impetus for this behavior is coming from the very top were is the motivation for these internal investigations coming from?
Ancient history question: If the Spartans encouraged their soldiers-in-training to kill Spartan healots, why did they execute those who were caught doing so?
The most important rule has always been: don't get caught. That much hasn't changed in 2500 years.
joe,
Your comments reveal they utopianist thinking that underlies you entire political wordview. You believe that in any particular circumstance, their is some magical combination of policies that would result in a system of zero failures. You think that if only we had the right glorious leader/s, we could create a zero defect world.
Reality doesn't work that way.
Any real-world organization will have abuses whether that organization is the military, the police, the fire department or a nursery school. The real question is, how good is the organization at detecting and correcting the inevitable abuses?
I think the US military does a good job of uncovering actual abuses and crimes when compared any real world standard. Like I said, to date all reports of abuses have been made first by the military. Given this is the internet age, it seems that if widespread crimes were being committed we would see numerous confirmable reports but we don't.
If you have some concrete information to back up your assertions I would love to read them.
All soldiers are trained in military code regarding the treatment of prisoners. Anyone who claims that they engaged in abuses because they didn't know whether they were covered by the GC is lying.
Or he's forgetful. Or he didn't pay close attention while being briefed on military guidelines for detainee treatment. Or, most likely, he's looking for an excuse to cover his own ass.
Since these allegations are still based on hearsay, it probably makes sense to wait before casting a final verdict. That said, I think most cops and judges are pretty familiar with the "I didn't know it was illegal" excuse.
You believe that in any particular circumstance, their is some magical combination of policies that would result in a system of zero failures. You think that if only we had the right glorious leader/s, we could create a zero defect world.
Not to speak for Joe here, but I don't think he's looking for a "zero defect world;" I think he's looking for a world where what he considers defects (like say, the US military torturing peole) isn't condoned by the fucking leadership of said military.
If you think the military is doing such a bang-up job of uncovering abuses, then why is it always the low-ranking guys who come forth, AFTER the higher-ups tried to discourage them from doing so?
You believe that in any particular circumstance, their is some magical combination of policies that would result in a system of zero failures. You think that if only we had the right glorious leader/s, we could create a zero defect world.
Not to speak for Joe here, but I don't think he's looking for a "zero defect world;" I think he's looking for a world where what he considers defects (like say, the US military torturing peole) isn't condoned by the fucking leadership of said military.
If you think the military is doing such a bang-up job of uncovering abuses, then why is it always the low-ranking guys who come forth, AFTER the higher-ups tried to discourage them from doing so?
One of the "interrogator" was refered to as a sergeant. My speculation is that the "interrogator" is not really a qualified "interrogator" but rather a garden variety military intelligence personnel who does interrogation. Real interrogators do not wear rank, they wear sanitized uniform (no name and rank).
My guess is the issue with detainee abuse is caused by the lack of qualified interrogators. There are only more than 500 in the entire US Army, and only 1/3 of them are deployed at a time. This means 150+ interrogators for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gitmo. This means that there are no interrogators (qualified ones) in the lower echelon.
"The accounts show that abuses resulted from civilian and military failures of leadership and confusion about interrogation standards and the application of the Geneva Conventions."
Fascinating! I think I've heard that somewhere before...
...I think it was from me! ...No, wait, I think it was me quoting the Schlesinger Report.
...Be careful though! ...Showing people that leadership failures at the top--think Rumsfeld applying the advice of the Gonzales Torture Memo--caused confusion about interrogation standards really rattles some people's cages.
I've seen it happen!
http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/dod/abughraibrpt.pdf
Jennifer,
"why is it always the low-ranking guys who come forth, AFTER the higher-ups tried to discourage them from doing so?"
That is not the pattern. That is the pattern you imagine happens because you've seen it in so many movies. This is in fact the first instance were a report appeared in public before the military itself announced it. It is even quite possible that the military has already announced an investigation but that the media ignored it just as they did with the initial announcement of Abu Ghabi.
So I'm curious Jennifer, since your so realistic, perhaps you can tell me how to interrogate martyrdom obsessed religious fanatics with the morals of Nazis without placing them under physical or psychological pressure of some kind? Should all these guys, whom the Geneva Convention places under a sentence of death, be treated like civil criminals in the American system? Should we reject the GC's core idea of reciprocity and just give everyone the conventions protection no matter how vile their conduct?
I really want to here your "realistic" ideas but given your track record I predict you won't answer the question.
This story seems thinly sourced. Why are our soldiers constantly stacking prisoners in cheerleading pyramids? Or is this recycled or made up? Is there anything out there on this other than the Human Rights Watch anonymous soldiers?
Damn, Shannon, straw much?
Zero defect world? C'mon, get your wits about you, man! You're better than that.
As far as glorious leaders go, I'd be perfectly happy that the officer corp we have could do a perfectly adequate job, if the civilians above them in the chain of command weren't giving them criminal marching orders.
"If you have some concrete information to back up your assertions I would love to read them." Which assertions would that be? The predicitons I made about the future? OK, you got me, I don't have any. Or are you seriously asking me to provide evidence that torture scandals have been breaking out in the recent past?
So I'm curious Jennifer, since your so realistic, perhaps you can tell me how to interrogate martyrdom obsessed religious fanatics with the morals of Nazis without placing them under physical or psychological pressure of some kind?
BIG fucking assumption there, Shannon, considering that our own military has admitted that a LOT of our prisoners are not hard-core Al-qaeda types but just ordinary fighters or even innocent people in the wrong place at th wrong time. How does "letting guys go to the interrogation tent to blow off frustration" equate with "gathering serious intelligence" in your world?
"Should we reject the GC's core idea of reciprocity and just give everyone the conventions protection no matter how vile their conduct?"
I think we should base our policies regarding the treatment of prisoners on what's best for the people of the United States, among other things, rather than on the supposedly vile conduct of prisoners. (Is there no provision for POW war crimes tribunals?)
...Weren't we forced to release prisoners reluctantly? We wouldn't have had to do that if those prisoners had been treated as full POWs with full protections.
"The naked human pyramid, or 'dogpile', has been empirically shown to be the second best method of elicitation," said Rumsfeld, "It is a known, known."
When asked what the best method of elicitation was, the Secretary of Defense immediately replied, "By a wide margin, the anally inserted chemlight combined with an appropriate stress position applied while the detainee has panties on his head. I think it's something like 65% more effective than the naked dogpile or pyramid."
from Rumsfeld, Off the Record by Jason Blair
That's great spiked NYT Report.
...Are you suggesting that Rumsfeld had no role to play in this?
Do me a favor and take a look at .pdf page 112 of 126 of the report I linked above; it lists all the techniques Rumsfeld allowed in his revised interrogation policies, policies that had been previously prohibited as tortuous.
...It lists things like hooding, removal of clothing, exploiting individual phobias e.g. dogs, and think about the Abu Gharib photos you may have seen.
I'm not saying that Rumsfeld ordered the photographed acts. But if you look at his changes in interrogation policies, and you buy the reports that:
"The accounts show that abuses resulted from civilian and military failures of leadership and confusion about interrogation standards and the application of the Geneva Conventions."
...it's easy to see how such a policy, incompetently implemented, could devolve into such brutality, isn't it? ...even if that wasn't the intend--although I'm not saying it wasn't.
P.S. Please note that I think it's possible for an incompetent policy to be competently administered, but in this case I believe that the policy implementation was incompetent and that the policy itself was profoundly foolish.
"perhaps you can tell me how to interrogate martyrdom obsessed religious fanatics with the morals of Nazis without placing them under physical or psychological pressure of some kind?"
Jumping in here, but here goes. From a utilitarian view, first, you would have the burden of establishing that torture would produce useful results. Second, you would have to establish that the long-term detrimental effects of having the knowledge that you torture these people get out don't outweigh any short-term benefits. Finally, you'd have to establish that allowing the government to treat anyone, anywhere, in contravention of the founding principles of the government (you, that tripe about all men being endowed with certain inalienable rights - darn inconvenient that they didn't say that all men of European decent) without due process of law is a good thing.
From a moral view, you are violating a large number of moral strictures on personal behaviour. For a libertarian, who acknowledges that personal responsibility is the flip side of the liberty coin, you can't use Macchiavellian logic to justify acting immorally. You are personally responsible for any evil act you commit - no one forced you to act evilly, and no amount of ad hoc justification changes the fact that torturing a person is evil. Torture under such conditions is an aggressive act, not condoned by self-defense against an imminent threat. Even if you argue that it is somehow self-defense of others, you must take personal responsibility if you torture an innocent - i.e. the torturer and anyone who approved the torture, no matter how far up the line (including those that approved the use of torture as a broad policy) are responsible for a felony crime, and should be held accountable.
It is possible to justify a death penalty based upon the likelihood of a recurring threat. However, it should be beyond the pale that torturing an innocent is a capital crime against natural rights equivalent to rape and murder. I would further posit, though clearly this is somewhat more debated by some, that torture is an inherently evil act, and anyone who claims otherwise makes a mockery of themselves if they claim to be "Christian" or claim to value "Western values". Nothing in either of these traditions provides for human beings to assume the role of a God and act in such a manner.
Something I asked in a previous torture thread, but never did get an answer:
Even if it turns out that torture IS a useful way of getting information, so useful in fact that it's worth the immoraliyy of it, what happens to the innocent people who are tortured? How can a torturer determine whether the guy saying "I don't know the answer to your question" is telling the truth or not? He probably can't.
So, if you accept the notion that sometimes innocent people will have to be tortured for the greater good, just how many innocents CAN we torture before we stop being the good guys?
Shannon, do you think every single person we've tortured was someone who deserved it? If not, how many innocents have to suffer before you stop making excuses for the military?
To extend quasibill's point, the problem of encouraging enemy forces to fight to the death rather than surrender is just as important, if not moreso, when dealing with people who aren't covered by the Geneva Convention.
We didn't sign that thing because we were feeling sentimental after watching "It's a Wonderful Life," you know.
Something I asked in a previous torture thread, but never did get an answer:
Even if it turns out that torture IS a useful way of getting information, so useful in fact that it's worth the immoraliyy of it, what happens to the innocent people who are tortured? How can a torturer determine whether the guy saying "I don't know the answer to your question" is telling the truth or not? He probably can't.
So, if you accept the notion that sometimes innocent people will have to be tortured for the greater good, just how many innocents CAN we torture before we stop being the good guys?
Shannon, do you think every single person we've tortured was someone who deserved it? If not, how many innocents have to suffer before you stop making excuses for the military?
Jennifer said: "why is it always the low-ranking guys who come forth, AFTER the higher-ups tried to discourage them from doing so?"
And Shannon Love replied: "That is not the pattern. That is the pattern you imagine happens because you've seen it in so many movies."
I don't post much (though I read H&R compulsively) but I've gotta chime in on this one. As an ex-soldier (I got out about the time we went into Afghanistan, and narrowly missed being stop-lossed), I can assure you that Jennifer's scenario is indeed "the pattern."
In fact, I ran afoul of a version of that pattern several times (though for less weighty reasons than the ones in question). I'm not unhappy to be out of the Army.
The reciprocity argument is disengenous, at best; plenty of Allied prisoners were treated very badly in WWII, but the Anglo-Americans continued to treat their own prisoners in accord with the laws of war... and afterwards shot and hanged a whole mess of war criminals. For an example of the other side of the coin - where atrocity begets atrocity until both sides are barbarians - just consider the Eastern Front.
In a larger sense, the argument points to a critical difference in opinion - some people believe bad things can be justified by good intentions (the old "ends" and "means" trope), and others believe the act cannot be separated from the intent. (We'll leave aside those who consider torture etc a good thing.) I am firmly of the latter belief - a victory bought at the price of our ethics is a defeat.
Rest assured, Jake, Shannon will tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about.
I'd still like to know how many innocent people she thinks we can torture before we stop being the good guys.
That some military personnel do wrong or evil things is not proof that they were ordered to do so. Until someone can show the documentation, or at least produce an unbiased witness who claims that such orders were given, there is no proof that abuses or torture were ordered, as has been claimed "from the top down."
That military personnel who do evil things are nearly always punished for those things, DOES show that the system works. It's not perfect, because people aren't perfect and no justice system is infallible. But it's a damn sight better than Tom Crick and Jennifer make it out to be.
For the record, I have frequently stated that the UCMJ provides punishment for those who abuse/torture prisoners that is more stringent than that allowed for by Geneva. I've also stated that people who commit abuse/torture are acting in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. (The acronym has kind of come to be the equivalent for "military justice" in public usage, but the reality is that is a CODE of CONDUCT - it governs military conduct much more strictly than Geneva.)
Shannon is right: anyone who claims that they deployed without receiving Law Of Armed Conflict training and that they have no idea that the UCMJ prohibits torture is lying for CYA purposes (and can usually be found being punished for their crimes).
Anyone who claims that bad actions by soldiers on the ground who were (KNOWINGLY) acting in contravention to the UCMJ is part of a conspiracy that goes to the top, but can provide no proof of this is full of BS (and can usually be found posting as Tom Crick/Ken Schultz).
thoreau may have a point here: "Since we all know where this thread is going, maybe it would be better if Tom Crick and rob just go somewhere private with dueling pistols."
But the problem with the plan is that as much as Tom Crick might like to burn me under a magnifying glass like an ant, in reality he'd be on the other side of the berm faster than the speediest auctioneer could count off 10 paces.
Even faster than he's capable of linking to documents that don't support his claims, in fact.
Jennifer,
"I'd still like to know how many innocent people she thinks we can torture before we stop being the good guys."
I know of no instances of real torture carried out under the orders of the U.S. military.
Making people to hot or to cold is not torture. Scaring people with dogs and bugs is not torture. Making people sit or stand in uncomfortable positions is not torture. Sleep deprivation is not torture. Listening to Metallica is not torture.
People who call such pressure techniques torture are simply not honest critics. Conflating a lack of sleep with having one's fingernails pulled out is just vile.
As I predicted, you refused to answer my question but I will answer yours. I would support the actual torture of anybody regardless of how critical the information. If its a choice between yanking out Bin Ladin's fingernails out and preventing a bombing that could claim hundreds of lives then I wouldn't do it. Crossing some lines is just to dangerous. But if its a choice between making dozens of innocent people uncomfortable, exhausted and scared to save a single life then I will.
You stance angers me because I believe it is a shallow one born of need for self-rightousness and not the result of any intellectual or moral examination of the inevitable tradeoffs. Your stance could easily lead to more suffering and death than mine, yet you will never acknowledge this.
"For the record, I have frequently stated that the UCMJ provides punishment for those who abuse/torture prisoners that is more stringent than that allowed for by Geneva."
Just to clarify... What I intended to say here is that the UCMJ is far more restrictive than the Geneva Convention regarding what can and can't be done to captives. (On second read, it doesn't really convey that, but when I typed it I thought it did!)
"I would [not] support the actual torture of anybody regardless of how critical the information. If its a choice between yanking out Bin Ladin's fingernails out and preventing a bombing that could claim hundreds of lives then I wouldn't do it.
I threw in the "[not]" 'cause I think you meant to put it there.
I think we all--at least you, Jennifer and I--agree with this.
"Crossing some lines is just to dangerous. But if its a choice between making dozens of innocent people uncomfortable, exhausted and scared to save a single life then I will."
...and I think we all agree that "crossing some lines is just to dangerous". I think I'm so afraid of crossing that line that I'm not willing to go as close to it as you are.
...I'm also not sure you'll know that you've saved innocent people with torture until after you've already tortured someone. Logistically, that's a problem.
As Jennifer pointed out, there are a couple of assumptions one has to make for torture to be an effective tool, even in the ticking time bomb scenario... 1) You have to assume that the intended victim has information and 2) you have to assume that the information he gives you is accurate.
What if the victim gives you bad information? Do you keep torturing him until he gives you good information? What if he doesn't have any information?
...and, besides, you're always going to have those logistical problems--you have to torture people before you know whether or not torture saved someone's life.
Also, you're always going to run up against people like me who say that resisting the urge to torture people--as a function of policy--is something we just don't do; that it speaks to our national character. That not torturing people is one of the things that makes our country worth fighting for.
...and you're also going to run up against Americans like me that say--with all seriousness--that I'd rather take my chances with a terrorist attack than have anyone tortured to protect me.
...and I think you're underplaying the damage that the kinds of--I'm trying to think of a word other than torture out of respect for your argument--interrogation methods that Rumsfeld approved can do. Would you approve of these methods if they were used to say...break a white slavery ring here in the states or find a missing child?
Are you familiar with the term "waterboarding"?
...and let me ask you this Shannon:
Even if I thought that repealing the Second Amendment would lower the probability of me being shot by a criminal, I'd still choose to keep the Second Amendment and take my chances.
...Would you?
I know of no instances of real torture carried out under the orders of the U.S. military.
Big surprise. So here's one, first reported in the New York Times, and you you do not choose to believe me you can check it out yourself by Googling the words Dilawar, Afghanistan and torture: a man named Dilawar was tortured to dfeath, by the US military, in Afghanistan. He was a taxi driver picked up as he drove past, and though he had no information, he was hung by his arms from the ceiling and beaten for several days, and died after three or four days' custody .
Now to repeat my question: how many innocents can we torture to death before we are no longer the good guys? I'll settle for either a raw number (i.e. "It's okay if we torture X number of innocent people") or a percentage (i.e., "It's okay if X percent of the people we torture turn out to be innocent.") I'd like to know your where you'd be willing to draw the line.
You stance angers me because I believe it is a shallow one born of need for self-rightousness and not the result of any intellectual or moral examination of the inevitable tradeoffs.
Cute coincidence--you think my refusal to condone torture is due to a need for self-righteousness on my part; I think your willingness to excuse torture is based on an assumption of self-righteousness on yours.
And a false assumption at that.
At least they didn't pull out Dilawar's fingernails, though. SO it wasn't really torture. He was just left standing in one hell of an uncomfortable position for several days. And a few smacks. No one thing any big deal, really; they just added up to his dying.
Fingernails intact.
It's so stupid too.
It gets worse.
After hearing about the latest torture allegations, Republican Armed Services Committee members John McCain, John W. Warner, and Lindsey Graham are seeking legislation to require the military to abide by the Geneva Convention... but Bush has threatened to veto it.
Yes, that's right. Bush is willing to veto legislation that prevents the U.S. from torturing people.
Everyone say that one out loud, and repeat it often... and watch the neocons cringe when they try to defend it.
That military personnel who do evil things are nearly always punished for those things, DOES show that the system works.
What does "nearly always" mean? If my water faucet "nearly always" gives me water, then my water system most certainly is NOT working.
And how, exactly, do you know that military personnel who do evil things are nearly always punished? I think that requires a leap of faith (in a branch of government, like most others, with a long history of dishonesty) on your part.
Les,
It means that sometimes people don't get convicted, even tho they are guilty, because no justice system is infallible. Are you arguing that because OJ was found not guilty we should scrap the American justice system?
I guarantee that there are times when your water faucet doesn't give you water, but you aren't advocating getting rid of all your modern plumbing, are you?
Just because some of the things that come out of a democratic gov't don't suit you, are you willing to scrap the entire system of gov't, despite the fact that it's better than anything else thus far?
C'mon... "nearly always" means that within a fallible system, operated by fallible human beings, things don't always operate 100% the way they are intended to. If that surprises you, you'll be REALLY mad if anyone ever tells you the truth about Santa Claus.
Are you arguing that because OJ was found not guilty we should scrap the American justice system?
No, but if it turned out that OJ was found not guilty because of explicit orders (or future-Attorney-General-crafted memos) from above, then that justice system would be in need of a serious overhaul.
Back in the days when Southern cops and judges turned a blind eye to lynchings, that wasn't cause to get rid of the system of law, but it did show that the law needed changing.
"No, but if it turned out that OJ was found not guilty because of explicit orders (or future-Attorney-General-crafted memos) from above, then that justice system would be in need of a serious overhaul." - Jennifer
Sure - if that's what it turned out to be. But that wasn't the case with the OJ trial, and that isn't the case here.
If there were actual evidence of a conspiracy to torture that goes all the way to the top, then I'd agree with you. But that's not what has happened in regard to torture/abuse of prisoners. There's a lot of noise being made that this IS the case, but there's not a single shred of evidence to back that claim up. The evidence that such is NOT the case is pretty clear, not to mention overwhelming.
The thing that no one has figured out yet is that I'd be the first to bay for blood if that WERE the case, but it simply isn't...
The Gonzalez memo specifically said that those detained who weren't legal combatants weren't entitled to the protections of Geneva. That's a correct legal interpretation of Geneva. But the oft-maligned Gonzalez memo goes on to conclude "the argument based on military culture fails to recognize that our military remain bound to apply the principles of GPW because that is what you [the President] have directed them to do."
Rob--
Since you insist that the military brass and administration members are NOT condoning torture, what's your take on Mark Kraft's 11:50 post, wherein McCain proposed a bill that would outlaw torture by members of the military and Bush wants to veto it?
The purpose of anti-torture policies in our military is NOT to make sure people get convicted on a regular basis. Their purpose is make sure our military personnel are not torturing people.
It's not working. It used to work, George Bush's administration wrote up a bunch of memos and executive orders about the treatment of prisoners, and now we keep getting hit with torture scandals.
Jennifer - I really don't know what to think of that, at this point. I don't have both sides, so I'm hesitant to make a call on it. ON the face, it seems odd, but LOAC does allow for reciprocity, so that might have somehting to do with the threatened veto.
"The purpose of anti-torture policies in our military is NOT to make sure people get convicted on a regular basis." - joe
Who said it was? Are you arguing with someone else and thinking it's me again, joe? Although I WOULD say that the purpose of the UCMJ is to establish a code of conduct and punish those who fail to adhere to it.
"Their purpose is make sure our military personnel are not torturing people." - joe
True. And for the vast majority of military personnel it works. Just like for the vast majority of people, laws against murder, robbery and rape work. For those who ignore those laws, the purpose of the justice system is to deter and punish them.
"It's not working. It used to work, George Bush's administration wrote up a bunch of memos and executive orders about the treatment of prisoners, and now we keep getting hit with torture scandals." - joe
Yeah, and there has never been bad behavior among military troops prior to the current administration. Frankly, I expect better from you than that, joe.
You realize that one of the biggest tragedies of war is that every time a nation goes to war atrocities occur - it's not limited to this particular administration, don't you? Or do you think that My Lai happened during the current president's watch?
"Republican Armed Services Committee members John McCain, John W. Warner, and Lindsey Graham are seeking legislation to require the military to abide by the Geneva Convention... but Bush has threatened to veto it.
Yes, that's right. Bush is willing to veto legislation that prevents the U.S. from torturing people."
Thank God there's no more to this law, or the Geneva convention than that. Otherwise, the decision wouldn't be so black and white.
rob, of course I know that no system works 100%, but how close to 100% do you mean by "nearly always"? How close to 100% means the system works? 95%? 85%? 75%? And again, how do you KNOW that military personnel who break the law are nearly always punished? Where does your information come from?
rob, also I'd like to note that I never suggested scrapping the whole system. I only argued that a system that fails frequently is not "working." When something isn't working, throwing it away isn't all you can do. You also have the option of fixing it. But first, you have to admit that it's broken.
rob, "Who said it was?"
All of the posters who keep pointing to the ongoing trials as proof that the system is working. You know, like you did, when you wrote, "That military personnel who do evil things are nearly always punished for those things, DOES show that the system works." Perhaps I should point to the number of murder trials in 1989-1992 to show what a good job the anti-crime policies of that period were doing?
"Yeah, and there has never been bad behavior among military troops prior to the current administration." Is it strawing in here, or is it just me?
Interesting example of Mai Lai, rob, because then, as now, the particular flavor of the criminal acts bore a striking resemblance to the goals and policies laid down by the administration.
joe,
I wrote "Who said it was?" in response to your statement "that the purpose of anti-torture policies in our military is NOT to make sure people get convicted on a regular basis." If that was confusing, I apologize.
"Interesting example of Mai Lai, rob, because then, as now, the particular flavor of the criminal acts bore a striking resemblance to the goals and policies laid down by the administration." - joe
I'd certainly appreciate some tangible proof of that, either in regards to My Lai or the current policies regarding captives. There isn't any mostly for the simple reason that it does not exist. Then (My Lai) as now (Abu Ghraib), neither massacre nor torture were sanctioned much less ordered.
Of course, if you could provide such evidence, I'm sure there's a heckuva book deal in it for you on the level of Woodward & Bernstein's work.
"Is it strawing in here, or is it just me?" - joe
It's just you. When you claim something is worse than ever because of a specific action, then I think it's perfectly fair to point out that bad things happen in all wars and that there is nothing that shows that curent policy is the root cause of clearly illegal actions by individual military personnel.
"rob, of course I know that no system works 100%, but how close to 100% do you mean by "nearly always"? How close to 100% means the system works? 95%? 85%? 75%? And again, how do you KNOW that military personnel who break the law are nearly always punished? Where does your information come from?"
You say the system is broken, I say that it's not. Do you have a means of showing that it is? No. I can point to the fact that the military justice system has a higher conviction rate than the civilian system, therefore, I'm guessing that if you get caught doing something wrong, you're more likely to get punished for it under military law than standard US law. That's pretty funtional, wouldn't you agree?
I can point to the fact that the military justice system has a higher conviction rate than the civilian system, therefore, I'm guessing that if you get caught doing something wrong, you're more likely to get punished for it under military law than standard US law. That's pretty funtional, wouldn't you agree?
Not really, no. In order to get convicted, you have to be prosecuted. In order to be prosecuted, charges have to be brought against you. How many cases of accused misconduct in which no charges were brought are enough to demonstrate a dysfunctional military justice system? How many examples of the military trying to cover up mistakes with lies are necessary to justify distrust? Should we trust the military to report on itself? Do you really think the military is less corrupt or inept than say, the education system?
"How many cases of accused misconduct in which no charges were brought are enough to demonstrate a dysfunctional military justice system?" - Les
I'm sure we're all eagerly awaiting your research on the subject. I also think that since the policy/requirement of the inspector general's office is to conduct fair and impartial investigations into valid allegations of wrongdoing certainly speaks volumes to that.
"How many examples of the military trying to cover up mistakes with lies are necessary to justify distrust?" - Les
See my earlier response. You're the one asserting that there's a significant problem. Evidence might help you make some sort of a point here.
"Should we trust the military to report on itself?" - Les
Who would you also like to task with reporting on the military? There's already a series of internal (military) and external (civilian) checks in place.
External checks range from mainstream media as the Fourth Estate, to various non-governmental organizations (Red Cross, Amnesty Internat'l, etc) in addition to governmental oversight organizations (Senate and House Armed Services Committees, DoJ, etc).
Just proclaiming that you think there's a problem, despite what appears to me to be gross ignorance on the subject of oversight and the military justice system, doesn't make for much of a critique, in my opinion. I'd say that the fact that this sort of thing sees the light of day at all pretty well invalidates your concerns about military cover-up efforts - or speaks volumes about incompetent conspirators... Take your pick.
"Do you really think the military is less corrupt or inept than say, the education system?" - Les
Yes. I do.
But then I know something about the calibre of the overwhelming majority of people who choose to serve their country. My experience has taught me that while there are a few bad people in uniform, the vast majority are far more honorable and law-abiding than an equivalent population sample of non-military civilians.
But then I know something about the calibre of the overwhelming majority of people who choose to serve their country. My experience has taught me that while there are a few bad people in uniform, the vast majority are far more honorable and law-abiding than an equivalent population sample of non-military civilians.
If that sounds familiar, it's because there are teachers, cops, reporters, and social workers who regard their professions with the same self-congratulatory elitism. They also have a similar habit of mistaking any criticism of their institutions as an attack on the individuals within them.
I also think that since the policy/requirement of the inspector general's office is to conduct fair and impartial investigations into valid allegations of wrongdoing certainly speaks volumes to that.
Volumes? So you think that because the inspector general's office is supposed to be fair and impartial that it must be that way? Again, I think your trust is misplaced. If there's not a problem, things like this and this shouldn't exist to such a degree, should they?
I admit a great deal of ignorance about the process of military justice, but I know that throughout history, the military has often been dishonest and I know that there are a lot of current and ex-military folks who would agree with me..
That said, I think the military has improved over the years, just as police departments have improved over the years in educating their members in how to behave and taking responsibility when they don't. That doesn't mean there aren't still quite a few scum-bags in uniform who shouldn't be.
My experience has taught me that while there are a few bad people in uniform, the vast majority are far more honorable and law-abiding than an equivalent population sample of non-military civilians.
My experience has taught me that the education system is filled with selfless, honest people and a few bad apples. But the bad apples at the top have helped to create an inept and corrupted system. I have ex-military friends who have had the opposite experience you've had. I don't believe that military folks are worse than average, but that they're quite average, indeed. And they're the ones who suffer the most due to incompetence and corruption.
My feeling is that "the system works" is a way of saying, "no improvement in the system is needed." I think the system needs improvement.
"If that sounds familiar, it's because there are teachers, cops, reporters, and social workers who regard their professions with the same self-congratulatory elitism. They also have a similar habit of mistaking any criticism of their institutions as an attack on the individuals within them."
Jesse,
Don't mistake my statement for something that it's not. I realize that there are people in uniform who do bad things. I also realize that the overwhelming majority serve honorably. (Perhaps you missed that part.)
My observation is hardly "self-congratulatory elitism." I certainly don't view an attack on wrongdoing by individuals in the military as a criticism of the entire military as many here seem to, or that illegal activities that I find reprehensible are indication that this war is any different from any other war (sadly).
Unfortunately, there are folks here who seem to believe that simply condemning the individuals who are guilty of wrong doing isn't enough, they strive to use those examples as an indictment of the entire institution. I find that noxious, but understandable, given a certain set of pre-conceived notions that don't usually bear up under scrutiny... Like your interpretation of my statement.
Les,
I notice that both of the articles in question quote only the accuser(s) and those sympathetic to the accuser's claims. And to what degree do you think this is?
But I think Col Hackworth was awfully good at being the burr in the saddle for some of the "perfumed princes" he so regularly and effectively disparaged. The SFTT remains, I hope it still works as watchdog.
Pardon me for confusing rhetoric like "the military has often been dishonest" with a more plausible (but still unbacked) claim that "the bad apples at the top have helped to create an inept and corrupted system."
"That doesn't mean there aren't still quite a few scum-bags in uniform who shouldn't be." No argument on that. But any organization staffed with human beings is going to have bad apples, and even scumbags.
That doesn't mean that most people would agree that "the education system is full of scum-bags," for example.
I also realize that military personnel have a whole lot more in the way of oversight, and live by a much more restrictive set of rules, than most people in the civilian world. It's simply tougher - not impossible, especially if the system breaks down - to get away with something truly wrong.
Name another institution that comes under so much self-regulatory and extra-regulatory oversight, and you may find that I'm willing to agree that there's room for improvement. (Isn't there always.)
"My feeling is that 'the system works' is a way of saying, 'no improvement in the system is needed.' I think the system needs improvement."
Your feeling and the reality of my statements aren't exactly "in touch," Les. But you think the system needs improvement, I'm open to suggestions on how to improve.
But the statements you make, that I find fault with, are more along the lines of the unsubstantiated claims and unbacked statements I pointed to in my previous post.
You keep saying the system should be improved, but you have no suggestions for improving it?
I've done my best to answer the questions you've raised, two posts in a row. I'd love to see you take a shot at answering the above question. While you're at it, perhaps you can start by answering a smaller piece of that question, which I asked previously:
"Who would you also like to task with reporting on the military?"