US Prison Abuse Abroad

The insurgency in Iraq (and around the world for that matter) may have started as a retaliation to the US presence in the middle-east, or because of the treatment of prisoners, or because there isn’t a McDonalds on every corner in Baghdad… but the simple fact is it has changed and gone far past that. The “resistance”, as they call themselves in Iraq, is calling this war a Jhihad. This has nothing to do with America’s presence there anymore.

[quote]
“The honorable resistance is the one that makes its jihad an international jihad not based on color, race, or land, for the believers are all one nation whose blood is of equal worth…” [/quote]

If you want to read more about this, here’s the link… by they way, that quote was from Al-Zarqawi himself (so claims the article posted).

-Alex

Good thread.

You guys who advocate a tough stance on terrorism, are going to get a ton of resistance from the left.

Remember: If we just threw money/love at the problem it would go away.

Remember: If we just minded our own business—Poof!!! No more war.

Hey lumpy, are the terrorists more of a threat to world peace than the Administration.

Be sure to include a yes or no in your answer.

Thanks!!!

JeffR

[quote]Remember: If we just threw money/love at the problem it would go away.

Remember: If we just minded our own business—Poof!!! No more war.[/quote]

Jerffy, you are such a clueless dork. Too bad this is NOT what the left actually says.

Why don’t you look at what peopel actually say and address that, isntead of picking a stance that you’d like them to adopt because it would be easy to knock down.

Do you actually read these threads, or just look for little words that you can spell out and then draw your own conclusions based on who posted.

If you aren’t actually an idiot, maybe it would behoove you to stop acting like one?

vroom,

You talk about being “over the line,” but what is the line? Is it not the legal restraints of the international and U.S. laws which are applicable? And if those standards are met, what line is being crossed?

And if it’s a matter of perception, whose fault is that? Is it the fault of those who are acting legally?

I don’t fully agee with what happened at Abu Ghraib only because of the fact that it was done by people with no training and was done only for fun, not intelligence gathering. I also agree that yes the abuse there is leading to new recruits.

However “forceful coercion” in the hands of trained interrogators and for intelligence purposes is needed. WTF do these terrorists have to complain about our techniques. They attacked us, remember. They started this and we are going to finish this and you know what? War is hell, especially for those that would murder innocents. What also might be nice is if people, if they really value their safety, would just get out of the way.

I still want to know where the international outcry is for crimes committed against us? Oh that’s right, we’re the bad guys. In regard to anti-muslim, dang straight I am, look at terrorism almost (the only thing I can think of that isn’t is the Oklahoma city bombing) all is planned and carried out by muslims. That’s the cold hard fact and until these “peaceful” muslims rise up and put their “radical” brothers out of bussiness I will continue to keep an eye on any muslim I see.

Boston,

As a lawyer, you know full well that you can hide behind the letter of the law while acting in a dishonest or immoral way or even against the intent of a law.

I do see your point, but I’m also hoping you can see mine.

The law says I can wave my fist and make a funny face at your wife, especially if I don’t actually intend malice. However, the effect on someone that something like that may have can be dramatic, in terms of reducing their quality of life.

It wouldn’t be appropriate of me to potentially intimidate someone in this way, and I would never do it.

There are many ways, within the law, to heap abuse or intimidation on another. It doesn’t mean they are appropriate just because the law is toothless with respect to those actions.

vroom,

I see what you’re trying to say, but in that case we need to discuss why you think the U.S. is crossing the line, not just assert that a line is being crossed.

I personally believe that what we’re doing now, like what the British did with the IRA, is both proper and necessary. I can’t seen giving the kid-glove treatment to these people, and I have no problem, given the stakes, with our doing everything in our power, up to the legal limits, to get information and hopefully save the lives of our troops and citizens.

SOunds like some of you are condoning want went on here. “These people would kill your family”

Therefore it is ok to humiliate them? WHilst I doubt it creates that many more terrorists in itself it just adds fuel to the fire of hatred don’t you think? Toturing and humiliating these people makes you animals not men. For shame.

Oh yeah and Boston Barrister I cannot believe you thought what the british did to the IRA was proper in any way! Whilst I do not agree with what the IRA did during the 70’s etc to come up with a blanket statement like that regarding british dealings in ireland is shameful. What about Bloody Sunday was that warranted? (sorry for the off topic)

[quote]ConorM wrote:
Oh yeah and Boston Barrister I cannot believe you thought what the british did to the IRA was proper in any way! Whilst I do not agree with what the IRA did during the 70’s etc to come up with a blanket statement like that regarding british dealings in ireland is shameful. What about Bloody Sunday was that warranted? (sorry for the off topic)[/quote]

Perhaps I wasn’t being specific enough. I was referencing their general interrogation techniques of IRA terrorists, not giving a blanket approval for each and every action taken. I wouldn’t know enough about it to even think of making a blanket approval or a blanket condemnation.

If we can’t get information out of them by means of forceful coercion. Then what do you suggest as a replacement? It’s all well and good to say it’s wrong (but effective) but why not suggest something that will satisfy you and improve on our intelligence gathering? Don’t just say what’s wrong (in your opinion), make it better.

[quote]ConorM wrote:
“These people would kill your family.” etc.
[/quote]

Interesting statement. Especially the use of “these people”. Who exactly are “these people”? Muslims? Iraqi citizens? Might I remind you that many of the people held at Abu Ghraib were women, children and innocent civilians that were later released! I’m sure the patriots on this board would love to see their families sexually exploited and abused, and subjected to other forms of torture. Yeah, I’m sure that would go over real well.

I think this piece by Mark Steyn is appropriate to this general discussion - of course it’s a humorous take, but I think there’s an excellent point there:

MARK STEYN

A Weird Stockholm Syndrome

A few years back in London, I caught a delightfully bad lounge act who, in contrast with the overwrought tremulous chanteuses one finds in the Oak Room and such these days, specialized in a blithely bouncy cheerfulness when it came to even the most lugubrious lyric. He sang the theme from MAS*H ? you remember, the TV show about the Korean War that was really about the Vietnam War and ran longer than the Hundred Years War. Johnny Mandel’s theme music was wistful and ambiguous on the sitcom, and accompanied by landing choppers. But in that little bo?te in Knightsbridge, our singer was entirely unperturbed by the dark lessons of war. He shrugged off Mike Altman’s lyric with a careless finger-snappy breeziness:

Suicide is painless,
It brings on many changes,
And I can take or leave it if I please . . .
Yeah, baby.

Since 9/11, confronted by the smug indestructible conventional wisdom of the multiculti counter-tribalists in America and Europe, I’ve often found that loopily swingin’ “Suicide is painless” swimming up from the recesses of my memory. “Civilizations die from suicide, not murder,” wrote Arnold Toynbee in his now mostly forgotten work on the subject. But surely it?s never been embraced quite so insouciantly as by our present-day elites. Guantanamo is denounced around the world as the gulag to end all gulags because of shocking torture revelations such as this:

“A female interrogator took an unusual approach to wear down a detainee, reading a Harry Potter book aloud for hours. He turned his back and put his hands over his ears.”

Good grief, what next? Will they force detainees to sit through PBS pledge-drive weeks, watching the same Peter, Paul & Mary reunion specials over and over, punctuated only by local announcers touting the complimentary Bill Moyers mug you receive for a $200 “level of membership”?

If J. K. Rowling is the Torquemada de nos jours, nothing should surprise us. Nonetheless, even in my jaded state, I was taken aback by the remarks of Andrew Jaspan, editor of the Melbourne Age, one of Australia’s biggest newspapers. You’ll recall that Douglas Wood, an Aussie taken hostage in Iraq, was recently rescued, and immediately apologized to John Howard and President Bush for a video statement he’d made during his capture calling for the withdrawal of coalition forces. No apology necessary: Obviously such demands are made under duress, and it’s only the media?s insistence on treating them as a serious contribution to foreign-policy analysis that gives them any currency whatsoever. He then went on to describe his captors as “aholes," or, if you prefer, "assh*s.”

The Age’s editor didn?t care for this brusque mean-spirited judgmentalism. As Mr. Jaspan told Australia’s ABC network, “I was, I have to say, shocked by Douglas Wood?s use of the a**hole word, if I can put it like that, which I just thought was coarse and very ill-thought-through and I think demeans the man and is one of the reasons why people are slightly skeptical of his motives and everything else. The issue really is largely, speaking as I understand it, he was treated well there. He says he was fed every day, and as such to turn around and use that kind of language I think is just insensitive.”

And heaven forbid we?re insensitive about “insurgents.” True, a blindfolded Mr. Wood had to listen to his captors murder two of his colleagues a few inches away, but how crude and boorish would one have to be to hold that against one’s hosts? The liberation of Douglas Wood is surely a first: He didn?t get Stockholm Syndrome, but everyone back home did. What?s with this guy, anyway? They fed him every day and if they’d ever got around to sawing his head off they’d have got out the nice sharp scimitar, not the old rusty thing they used for Nick Berg. Like, why?s he so totally insensitive? Is he a Bush supporter or something?

The other fellow in this story who hasn’t got Stockholm Syndrome is, in fact, from Stockholm. Mr. Wood’s fellow hostage, Ulf Hjertstrom, has decided to operate on that even more “insensitive” and “coarse” principle ? don’t get mad, get even. “I have now put some people to work to find these bastards,” he told Australian TV. “I invested about $50,000 so far, and we will get them one by one.”

“The sooner the better,” agreed Wood.

“These scum should be put out of business,” added Mr. Hjertstrom, evidently some Sylvester Stockholm-type Nordic Rambo insufficiently grateful for his couple of months on the Halal diet.

I?d be happy to chip in to his get-the-bastards fund. It?ll do more good than most tsunami donations. The head-hackers have murdered dopey peaceniks and female aid workers and, of course, hundreds of Iraqi Muslims ? and Ted Kennedy says, “Our military and the insurgents are fighting for the same thing: the hearts and minds of the people.” Detonating the hearts, minds, and organs over a shopping market seems an odd way of doing it.

Karl Rove is right and the point is unarguable: Those whom we erroneously call “liberal” have no stomach for the defense of liberalism ? not if it involves reading Harry Potter to terrorists or calling them “a**holes,” a term properly reserved for disparaging Bush and Cheney, but only if the guys before you did all the best Hitler cracks first. The Islamists can?t win, but we can certainly lose ? all by ourselves, and, as the Europeans are discovering in this first stage of their demographic death-spiral, civilizational suicide is never painless.

[quote]aburke22 wrote:
The insurgency in Iraq (and around the world for that matter) may have started as a retaliation to the US presence in the middle-east, or because of the treatment of prisoners, or because there isn’t a McDonalds on every corner in Baghdad… but the simple fact is it has changed and gone far past that. The “resistance”, as they call themselves in Iraq, is calling this war a Jhihad. This has nothing to do with America’s presence there anymore.
-Alex[/quote]
They have always viewed it as Jihad against the infidel athiest Americans. Nothing has changed. The ones that can find reason to have will always hate whether we think them good reasons or not.

In the context of this thread, it would be really interesting to know, how and to what extent (forceful) interrogation at Gitmo has actually averted any further danger by the alleged terrorists incarcerated.

Also, how about news from the tribunals to be conducted - how many detainees have been properly tried and found guilty. I’ve been looking a lot for that lately, but I don’t seem to be able to find something, besides all those Brits they sent home and who where released without any further charges in the UK.

Does anyone have a few figures and facts on that? I would have to point out that in absence of any evidence (in case none can be shown), how do we know that these treatments (legal or not) actually hit the right people?

Makkun

[quote]Nu-Naiy wrote:
If we can’t get information out of them by means of forceful coercion. Then what do you suggest as a replacement? It’s all well and good to say it’s wrong (but effective) but why not suggest something that will satisfy you and improve on our intelligence gathering? Don’t just say what’s wrong (in your opinion), make it better.
[/quote]

No infact forceful coercion is not effective any field operative will tell you this. IF you intimidate you will get nothing but forced facts just to stop the torture. There are tactics that are psychological in nature that are employed to gain trust–for example starvation folloewed by subsequent feeding.

But you can see that if you starve a prisoner too long it will get ugly…you can’t even be sure the person will be in their right minds when they are talking. I also know methods such as “Good Cop, Bad Cop” are used to intimidate; but to my knowledge there is only minimal force supposed to be used to throw the detainee “off balance”.

Every man has his breaking point and will tell both lies and facts in order to get out of “torture.” See the thing is that we have good enough agents and SOF that we can easily (if politicians get out of the way) see if the info is true or not. God help those who lie.

In regard to if it’s effective or not, may I remind you of Lt. Col. Allen West. West was the soldier that was going to be tried for firing a pistol next to the head of a terrorist who held info of an ambush set for West’s men. Guess what! American lives were saved. WOW.

I don’t think we should be sticking bamboo shoots under their nails or shaving their balls (literally, that’s the Chinese for you). But we shouldn’t coddle them. If we want to rip up a Koran, let’s do it. Keep them from praying, heck yeah. Tear their close off with a trained dog, definitely. I don’t think physical torture is completely wrong but psychological pressure can be even more effective.

Here is a good review of the Army Interrogation manual. If you’ve ever served you will realize how seriously the military takes procedures and manuals.

I have heard rumor that the Al-Queda manual says basically to hold out. The americans are not allow to really hurt you to get you too talk. That’s why threatening to send them to Egypt or another Arab country usually gets them to spill what they know.

If you are terrorists it seems to me that under the laws of war and man you have given up your right to sanctuary, but I am a little more hard edged about that since these pricks blew up two buildings less then 1/2 mile from my home.

U.S. Army Intelligence and Interrogation Handbook; The Official Guide to Prisoner Interrogation , by the Department of the Army

Guilford, Ct.: The Lyons Press, 2005. 208pp. Illus, append., index. $18.95 paper. ISBN:1-59228-717-4.

What exactly are American interrogators allowed to do? What lines exist? Given recent events, these are questions that matter a lot. Some misinformation about what is allowed and what is not allowed has emerged through a combination of statements by certain individuals and organizations that can only be described as grossly irresponsible, the irresponsible dissemination of these statements by press outlets that have been unable or who have simply not bothered to check the facts, and the deplorable actions of those who have crossed the line and done the unacceptable. To put it in a simple sentence so that there can be no misunderstanding: Torture, threats, insults, and inhumane treatment are not authorized, and the United States military does not and will not condone them.

The U.S. Army has a manual for their interrogators, which discusses a lot of these questions in detail. It explains the purpose behind interrogations (usually to get information about future offensive or defensive military operations). It should be noted that these techniques also work when getting information for the purpose of preventing terrorist attacks (not a small consideration in light of 9/11). Among things covered are some of the approaches used. Some are designed to get people to give up information. It is something that is necessary to preserve not only the lives of soldiers, but those of innocent civilians as well. How this gets done is a fine line, and interrogators go through a lengthy course at Fort Huachuca in Arizona where they learn not only what to ask, but how to ask it without crossing the line. The problems that have occurred at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere have not occurred because guidelines do not exist, but because these guidelines were not followed. It is undeniable that in some cases, interrogators (and others) have done what is not allowed, but those aberrations do not warrant tarring all of those defending this country with a broad brush.

This handbook also goes into something just as important as questioning prisoners: Gaining intelligence from captured enemy documents. Enemy documents can be a source of vital intelligence ? just ask Robert E. Lee, who ended up losing at Antietam because a copy of his operations order got lost and fell into Union hands (the reviewer wonders if the subordinate responsible ever owned up to losing the documents). Or, there?s the attempt by Benedict Arnold to sell out West Point ? an operation blown when the courier was captured with the documents. It explains the need to keep track of the captured documents, and which documents are to be translated first.

A large part of this book (well over 100 pages) is in a series of appendices. Appendix A reprints portions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (military law). This shows what people can be charged with if they carry out physical or mental torture or do anything to coerce someone ? or when the guidelines are not followed. Among the possible charges are assault (Article 128), maiming (Article 124), or communicating a threat (Article 134). Another entire appendix (Appendix D) covers the Geneva Conventions, including the specific articles relating to the task of interrogating prisoners. A third appendix (Appendix B) provides guides to questioning the various types of personnel in an opposing military and the kinds of questions to be asked.

This book is an excellent resource for those who wish to get the straight scoop from the United States Army in detail, unfiltered by the media and not distorted for political gain by politicians and organizations. The reviewer is somewhat uncomfortable that this book is available to the general public, but at this point, the benefit in dispelling scurrilous smears of a despicable nature outweighs the risks.

combatmedic, i am also a combat medic. What units have you been in? Just wondering?

[quote]Gleemonex wrote:
These prisoners come from a goverment (regime?) that routinely tortures it’s people for thier beliefs, much less thier actions. These prisoners support the beheading of captured American civilians.

It would have been nice if the C.I.A. had considered this before helping them (the Taliban, in my example) overthrow a legitimate and progressive government two decades ago.

-Glee[/quote]

The CIA didn’t help install the Taliban.

The CIA essentially backed out of Afghanistan when the Russians did.

The Soviets installed a Communist government. They were overthrown and the “Islamic State of Afghanistan” took power in 1992.

The Islamic State of Afghanistan was overthown by the Taliban.

These are very key issues and are obviously poorly understood by many that post here.

Blaming the US for the rise of the Taliban is foolish. Afghanistan has been a mess for hundreds of years.