# The 5th estate: Abu Ghraib and Torture in Iraq



## GO!!! (17 Nov 2005)

Well, I watched the 5th estate last night, and they interviewed several of the soldiers involved in the Abu Ghraib prison "scandal".

Am I alone in thinking that the treatment that the Iraqi prisoners suffered there was not really torture?

They were badly treated, vigorously interrogated and made uncomfortable for long periods of time in order to facilitate interrogation. This was done under the explicit and implicit order of their chain of command - so, no biggie.

As for the incident in which the three alleged homosexual child rapists were humiliated and beaten up a bit - this was wrong because it did not have official sanction. It was a bunch of angry young men acting stupidly. But was it torture? I don't think so. They (prisoners) were put in uncomfortable conditions and embarrassed.

It seems to me that this documentary is engaging in making a mountain out of a molehill. None of the prisoners in Abu Grhaib died. They were interrogated in methods that the previous Iraqi regime would find laughable, but were still effective. Is pouring water on someone torture? Sandbag over the head was standard in our army until 2002, handcuffing to each other is to prevent injury to the guards, and they were naked because many of them insisted on throwing feces and other bodily fluids, or covering themselves with said.

The documentary reatedly brings up the various Geneva Conventions, and how they were allegedly violated, but makes no provision for the treatment that captured americans have recieved (immolation, genitals cut off and placed in mouth, throat slit etc) and that the enemy in this war does not follow the geneva convention.

Is this documentary an objective account of the events that took place? Or is it another thinly disguised attempt at opposing the US war on terror, the war in iraq, and anti americanism?

Thoughts?


----------



## pbi (17 Nov 2005)

I didn't see it, but I am reasonably sure that a strain of anti-Americanism still runs quite deeply in the Canadian media, as it does in our country as a whole. However, I am not sure I understand this statement:



> This was done under the explicit and implicit order of their chain of command - so, no biggie.



Are you suggesting that because the direction to do something comes down the chain of command, that makes it right? If so, I don't think I could agree. Or are you just mirroring the way the US soldiers probably thought about it? In which case you could be quite accurate.

Cheers.


----------



## teddy49 (17 Nov 2005)

I'd vote for another thinly disguised attack on the GWOT.   That said, stand by for more pics from this scandal.   We haven't even seen the worst of these pictures.   Also I've heard that there are some new pics of insurgents that were turned over ISF circulating the Arab media now.   Rest assured that these make Abu Ghraib look like summer camp.   Once the american people figure out that there are no good guys here, the gig will be up for all of us I think.


----------



## S McKee (17 Nov 2005)

I do believe that one or two prisoners died while in custody, however I could be mistaken. I would have liked to see how the CBC presented the story, knowing the CBC however I suspect that the program had a decidedly anti-American flavour.


----------



## Recce41 (17 Nov 2005)

I believe in a way it was torture. But to the US, their the good guys so. It doesn't count. They the US, say they are for Freedom, Human Rights, BLAH BLAH, etc. But they don't hold by it. For one many detanees in Cuba, Iraq, and A Stan are not terrorists. They were on the wrong side. I saw one documantary from Britain, it was said, many people were picked up by, just having someone say you were. 
 It would be as here, I don't like my neighbour, so he's a terrorist. It is as in WW2 the Resistance fighters, were as the Iraqs, Afgans are. Fighting against a threat they feel the US is. You may say, the Nazis were bad OOOO yes. But they invaded a country, as the US did. Some supported the Germans, some didn't. Many French, didn't even care if they were liberated, for they had a so called peace. My father told me once, he was spit on by a French lady. She said, the Allies were just as bad for destroying her house and killing her husband. The Germans did do that. And there were many more stories of dislike.
 I say disband the Int guys. HAHA. But look who got it, the little guy and a Gen who was out ranked. Total BS


----------



## GO!!! (17 Nov 2005)

pbi - My statement regarding the "explicit and implicit" orders were in regards to the way the US troops percieved them and acted. 

Soldiers in the documentary state that it was included in their duties to keep prisoners awake for long periods of time, restrain them in stress positions, scare them with dogs, and engage in corrective measure to ensure compliance - they were following orders, not engaging in some sadistic game. The alleged rapists were not part of an official investigation, the guards acted alone on that one.

The prisoners that died were also mentioned in the documentary, but that happened in Afghanistan in 2002, not at Abu Ghraib. The common thread was that the same officer who had been in charge of the unit that (allegedly, the official cause of death was "natural causes") killed the two prisoners in A'stan, was in an official capacity at Abu Ghraib.


----------



## S McKee (17 Nov 2005)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> I believe in a way it was torture. But to the US, their the good guys so. It doesn't count. They the US, say they are for Freedom, Human Rights, BLAH BLAH, etc. But they don't hold by it. For one many detanees in Cuba, Iraq, and A Stan are not terrorists. They were on the wrong side. I saw one documantary from Britain, it was said, many people were picked up by, just having someone say you were.
> It would be as here, I don't like my neighbour, so he's a terrorist. It is as in WW2 the Resistance fighters, were as the Iraqs, Afgans are. Fighting against a threat they feel the US is. You may say, the Nazis were bad OOOO yes. But they invaded a country, as the US did. Some supported the Germans, some didn't. Many French, didn't even care if they were liberated, for they had a so called peace. My father told me once, he was spit on by a French lady. She said, the Allies were just as bad for destroying her house and killing her husband. The Germans did do that. And there were many more stories of dislike.
> I say disband the Int guys. HAHA. But look who got it, the little guy and a Gen who was out ranked. Total BS



WTF are you smoking? I can't understand a word of that incoherent drivel you wrote. Are you comparing the Nazis with the US?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Nov 2005)

Its already happy hour out there....


----------



## S McKee (17 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> The prisoners that died were also mentioned in the documentary, but that happened in Afghanistan in 2002, not at Abu Ghraib. The common thread was that the same officer who had been in charge of the unit that (allegedly, the official cause of death was "natural causes") killed the two prisoners in A'stan, was in an official capacity at Abu Ghraib.



Seen. 

Regarding whether or not the prisoners were "tortured" I don't think so. Tortured is a pretty strong term. I would say they were subjected to conditioning methods to ensure they were more pliable for interrogation. The whole issue is the political fallout and embarrassment that the US Government suffered because of the photos.


----------



## Hunter (17 Nov 2005)

I watched it last night and it seemed very one-sided.   They made a couple of references to an officer who had been in charge of the prison, and they kept making these references to her being presented with different decorations.   They didn't say what the decorations (including her second bronze star) were for, but seemed to suggest that she was being rewarded for condoning torture.

Overall I thought it wasn't very good.


----------



## S McKee (17 Nov 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Its already happy hour out there....



That must be it....


----------



## UberCree (17 Nov 2005)

The real story is that these U.S. soldiers are being charged at all, for crimes that would be laughable in most of the world.   Sure all the peace mongers and US haters claim that this proves state sponsorship of prisoner abuse, but in fact it proves teh opposite.   Several contractors have been charged, numerous soldiers, etc.   To me it says the checks and balances that are put in place to prevent widespread anarchy amongst the soldiers are in fact working.

Legthy discussion on this on SOCNET if interested in US opinion.
http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/showthread.php?t=54349


----------



## Blue Max (17 Nov 2005)

I have read the reports and stories and it seems to this untrained person that those Iraqi inmates were made to feel very uncomfortable so as to precipitate them releasing any information they were harbouring (unclear as to whether any good Intel was acquired). 

The CBC should querier the other Arab states around Iraq as to what normal interrogation techniques are in that region?  Normal interrogation techniques for most Arab states is probably more akin to, being strung up on a metal bed frame, having a bucket of water thrown over you just before an electrical power source is attached either to the bed frame or your body parts! 

Now that is torture, but no outrage from peaceniks or CBC story.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Nov 2005)

UberCree

Interesting that you brought this up.   They have found that in the British Forces, the soldiers are more afraid of the JAG than of the Enemy.   They fear the lengthy delays and time consuming process of being charged with 'criminal acts' and are often incapacitated in the performance of their duties in Iraq.   Many are getting so stressed out from the thought of the ramifications that they will face, if they engage a belligerent in the performance of their duties, that they are leaving the British Forces in droves.


----------



## rifleman (17 Nov 2005)

who cares what anyone else does?


----------



## HItorMiss (17 Nov 2005)

rifleman said:
			
		

> who cares what anyone else does?




You can't be serious, can you??


why should we care....because it's on our TV set. This is what the populace of Canada watched and therefore will (wrongly) base their oppinion on what the CF does. You see my friend they will start to question about what happens to those insurgent forces we may or may not have taken prisoner and may or may not have handed over to to US forces, then we get into a debate about said treatment of those detainees.


Now I'm not saying anything here other then, if we get hamstrung at a later date in the pursuit of our mission, because some CBC journalist (and I use that term lightly) stirred a pot with half researched material and a clear anti-American, anti-military agenda, then I really think were going to care then....so maybe we should care now.


----------



## UberCree (17 Nov 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> UberCree
> 
> Interesting that you brought this up.   They have found that in the British Forces, the soldiers are more afraid of the JAG than of the Enemy.   They fear the lengthy delays and time consuming process of being charged with 'criminal acts' and are often incapacitated in the performance of their duties in Iraq.   Many are getting so stressed out from the thought of the ramifications that they will face, if they engage a belligerent in the performance of their duties, that they are leaving the British Forces in droves.



"They" find out all sorts of things eh?  haha.  I suppose that is the downside for sure.  However I am sure that is also has the effect of them taking less prisoners ... if you know what I mean.  Of all the forces involved, the Brits have the Secrecy Act protecting them do they not?  I would think they would be least afraid of JAG.

Remember what they teach in basic.  If you abuse prisoners of war then the enemy will fight to the death.  If you treat them well, they will surrender in droves.  That we are debating and covering these 'abuses' proves to me, and many others in the world, that we are better than the enemy.


----------



## geo (17 Nov 2005)

Blue Max said:
			
		

> The CBC should querier the other Arab states around Iraq as to what normal interrogation techniques are in that region?   Normal interrogation techniques for most Arab states is probably more akin to, being strung up on a metal bed frame, having a bucket of water thrown over you just before an electrical power source is attached either to the bed frame or your body parts!
> Now that is torture, but no outrage from peaceniks or CBC story.


Max...
It's pretty much the same thing as if your brother turned around and insulted /slugged ya... VS the bully down the block.

In the end, you forgive/tolerate the A$$Ole brother cause he's your brother BUT you will hold a grudge against that other yahoo.

To the Iraqis' the US & UK are the bullies down the street while the Shiites & Sunnis are the A$$Ole borthers & sisters.

The US & UK will always be "WRONG" no mater how well justified their acts might have seemed.

Fact of life


----------



## Blue Max (17 Nov 2005)

Geo, good description of how centuries of family survival/values have us turn our cheek when wronged by those closest to us. 

Your description does not though explain why the mob know as the press, that has no relation to A$$Ole family continually feed the flames of dissent and disinformation, to the detriment of relations closest to them, and I don't mean the A$$Ole family.

Does it mean that money (paper sales, TV specials...) trumps all else, even our own proverbial family ties? :-\


----------



## SHF (17 Nov 2005)

As requested from the original post from Go!!!, I share my thoughts.  

I am somewhat surprised that Canadian servicemen could find nothing wrong with the acts committed by the US forces at Abu Ghraib.  I will only provide a quote and compare it to the Geneva Conventions Article 17.

_Go!!!
Am I alone in thinking that the treatment that the Iraqi prisoners suffered there was not really torture?

They were badly treated, vigorously interrogated and made uncomfortable for long periods of time in order to facilitate interrogation. This was done under the explicit and implicit order of their chain of command - so, no biggie._

Article 17

*No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. * 

This is only a simple example of abuse of the POWs, but since the US government doesn't seem to recognize any of the detainees as POWs, I guess it is OK.  I have no idea how our folks in our society can be consumed by so much hatred and ignorance to stand idly by and allow crap like this to happen or to condone the occurrence.  

I never understood why we imprisoned Japanese, German, Italian, Ukrainian, etc Canadians during the two world wars.  Was it racism?  Was it a overzealous nationalism?  

To those of us who make excuses for the guilty serviceman, officers and government officials who treat fellow human beings like dirt, shame on us.


----------



## rifleman (18 Nov 2005)

Bottom line It doesn't matter how others treat their PWs we have a standard we live by and are bound by law to treat PWs in a humane manner. It doesn't matter if you call them PWs/ detainees/ guests.


----------



## geo (18 Nov 2005)

Blue Max said:
			
		

> Your description does not though explain why the mob know as the press, that has no relation to A$$Ole family continually feed the flames of dissent and disinformation, to the detriment of relations closest to them, and I don't mean the A$$Ole family.
> 
> Does it mean that money (paper sales, TV specials...) trumps all else, even our own proverbial family ties? :-\


Ahhhh ; The pre$$
Doesn't that say it all
face it.... are we talking about impartial reporting or partisan reporting?
There was a time that everyone swore by the impartiality of CNN. Everyone, including Sadam would have a set tuned in to them.... that was then & this is now... most Int guys would die before they would admit to using information coming from CNN...  and we can say the same thinqg about Al Jazeera (zp?)


----------



## Recce41 (18 Nov 2005)

I understand your point, writing a quick post never works.

What I meant was that, if you are the ones in charge you may the rules. So anything goes as the Germans did in WW2. 

 Also as in France during WW2 some French did not mind the Germans and were very reluctant to have the an invasion. And resented the Allies for destroying there homes and families. Such is happing now in Iraq. This was what I mean by, what my father had told me, not all wanted to be re invaded.

 Thus on the others side, the resistance fighters, were as the Iraq's are today. Were they terrorists? Were they just a group of people (civvies) that disliked the Germans and fight the only way they could. They blow up cars, sniped, IEDs, etc.

 This is where we have to decide, who is the enemy, who is just some poor bastard, or just a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time.


----------



## DBA (18 Nov 2005)

Resistance fighters in France didn't target the general civilian population when the Germans weren't available or too hard to get at. No huge bombs taking out 100's of civilians and zero occupation troops in front of places of worship for example. The Americans don't round up and execute 100 civilians when one of their troops is killed. It seems common these days to draw useless parallels mentioning things common to just about every instance of whats being discused while not even mentioning a single difference. When you compare two things you mention similarities and differences. To accept a comparison that doesn't is to be pretty naive. You have a $100 bill and I have a $10 bill. Both have a 1 in the denomination and both have a 0 in the denomination. Both are Canadian legal tender and have various other similar features. Want to swap em since they are so similar?


----------



## paracowboy (18 Nov 2005)

I find it comforting that so many people with no legal training have a better understanding of the Law Of Armed Conflict, and International Law in general, than the JAGs of Canada, the UK, the US, and Australia. It boggles my mind that people like this, who so clearly understand legal ramifications better than the Armies of lawyers employed by the most powerful nations on Earth, are wasting their time in the CF.
Perhaps those who consider the SOPs these nations follow to be torture, should run for political leadership. 
Or perhaps they should enter some sort of religious organizations, since they understand the moral implications so much better than the Padres of these nations and the ICRC, both of whom have full access to the various internment centers of these nations.

The one thing I fervently hope is that they do not serve anywhere near me in any sort of Theatre.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2005)

Yeah, shame on us.

Everyone's a f***ing expert....


----------



## SHF (18 Nov 2005)

Paracowboy,

Find it comforting in years to come that when your rifle company is enroute in the JSS to a foreign theatre of operations and I am the crew commander on the CP-140, that I will have no hesitation in completing my mission of protecting you and your brethren from enemy attack.  Should you be threatened and my ROE allow, I shall quickly and effectively conduct the commensurate attack on the threat.   :skull:

Do not mistake my concern for fellow man as a weakness.  POWs and detainees must be afforded safe keeping as required by law.  All the countries you mention have made mistakes with detainees.  Lawyers be damned.  Purposeful abuse of POWs is immoral and illegal.


----------



## GO!!! (18 Nov 2005)

> This is only a simple example of abuse of the POWs, but since the US government doesn't seem to recognize any of the detainees as POWs, I guess it is OK.  I have no idea how our folks in our society can be consumed by so much hatred and ignorance to stand idly by and allow crap like this to happen or to condone the occurrence.



These individuals were not PoWs. The Geneva convention also states that to be a PoW, they must have "carried arms openly, worn recognisable uniforms and insignia and report to a chain of command etc." I noticed that you conveniently left that little nugget of information out. 

I resent the implication that I/we are ignorant because we do not agree with you. In case you have'nt  noticed, the western world is under attack from an culture of extremist islam, which constitutes a tiny minority of muslims worldwide. Seeing as the the combatants in this fight would most accurately be described as fifth columnists here at home, and insurgents abroad, and the Geneva convention was written as rules of war between nation states as they were defined at the peace of Westphalia in 1648, the US was absolutely right to suspend the Geneva convention for this conflict. 

The Geneva Convention was written to provide protection for officers, men and civilians in WWI and WWII. Those wars are over now, so the rules have to be revised.

As for how our society can be consumed with hatred - I doubt that it has, but I would consider the Madrid bombings, the London Bombings, 9/11, the Khadr family and Canadian troops killed by suicide bombers in Afghanistan to be a pretty good start for fomenting the seeds of unhappiness.  




> I never understood why we imprisoned Japanese, German, Italian, Ukrainian, etc Canadians during the two world wars.  Was it racism?  Was it a overzealous nationalism?



I would hazard that you don't understand a great number of significant events in history, if your posts are any indication. The abovementioned ethnic groups were detained during the WWs because we were at war with their home countries, and in many cases, they had emigrated to Canada after the doctrines (fascim, the Nazi party, the fall of the Tokugawa party and the rise of the militarists in Japan and Communism in the Ukraine) had already become dominant in their home countries. So their relatives at in their respective home countries could have been used as leverage by the regimes there to coerce them to work against us here.

It was not racism, simply a prudent wartime organisational to move a population of possible enemy operatives away from coastal areas and strategic bases and resources. 

How this is relevant to the Abu Ghraib discussion is beyond me though, all of these groups have recieved apologies, compensation or both for these wartime activities. 



> To those of us who make excuses for the guilty serviceman, officers and government officials who treat fellow human beings like dirt, shame on us.



I suppose that you would prefer to coddle the killers of coalition soldiers in Canadian style "club fed" prisons, and allow them to retain information which could save the lives of our fighting men and women. *You are saying that we are better off with more of our soldiers dead, than some of the enemy being uncomfortable.*

When it comes right down to it, none of the prisoners in Abu Grhaib prison died. None of them have any permanent injury. There are 2,281 coalition deaths, 2,083 Americans, one Australian, 97 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, two Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Hungarian, 26 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 17 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of November 18, 2005

But I suppose these men deserve to rot forgotten in holes in the ground so your sense of moral outrage can be massaged by not extracting vital intelligence from our sworn enemies, that would save future lives.

Please God let me never work for you.


----------



## SHF (18 Nov 2005)

Go!!!,  You would never work for me?  Think of all the fun we would have.   :

As a Canadian serviceman, you cannot abuse your detainees.  It is your original quote that bothered me as you seem to think it's OK.  You asked for thoughts.  You got 'em.

Cheers


----------



## S McKee (18 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I suppose that you would prefer to coddle the killers of coalition soldiers in Canadian style "club fed" prisons, and allow them to retain information which could save the lives of our fighting men and women. *You are saying that we are better off with more of our soldiers dead, than some of the enemy being uncomfortable.*
> 
> But I suppose these men deserve to rot forgotten in holes in the ground so your sense of moral outrage can be massaged by not extracting vital intelligence from our sworn enemies, that would save future lives.
> 
> Please God let me never work for you.



Couldn't have said it better GO! The naivety of some posters on this forum is truly amazing. We are fighting an enemy who has absolutely no qualms about lopping off the heads of their detainees (innocent civilians for the most part) and videotaping it for all the world to see; yet I don't recall reading any posts expressing moral outrage over these barbaric acts. This is an enemy which has successfully used our misguided sense of moral superiority as a weapon against us.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (18 Nov 2005)

Go, Jumper well said...Paracowboy I hate to agree with ya but you are also right.

   I am torn on this issue being a warrior I would never harm a captive (POW) but the mercenaries taking up arms and killing civilians thats another story. Obviously no good soldier would harm a captive but maybe for the bleeding hearts among us we should apply the full weight of the conventions of war to solve this problem. If the US executed the mercenaries in the field as would be allowed under the rules of war we would not be having this discussion. Yes thats right I said execute...spy's saboteurs who murder civilians is that not what they are under the law?


----------



## paracowboy (18 Nov 2005)

SHF said:
			
		

> Paracowboy,
> 
> Find it comforting in years to come that when your rifle company is enroute in the JSS to a foreign theatre of operations and I am the crew commander on the CP-140, that I will have no hesitation in completing my mission of protecting you and your brethren from enemy attack.   Should you be threatened and my ROE allow, I shall quickly and effectively conduct the commensurate attack on the threat.


and then see to it that we are charged with mistreating the illegal combatants we have killed/arrested, or ensuring they are released back onto the streets to kill more of us? Because that is the impression I'm getting.


----------



## Chimo (18 Nov 2005)

The bottom line up front is that it is illegal to abuse/torture prisoners, regardless of their legal status. That obligation begins the moment they come under your control. You do not need to be a Harvard lawyer to understand this. 

I am shocked at some of the flawed logic being applied here. We, as Canadians, have our own examples of prisoner abuse, Somalia '93 at the hands of some poorly disciplined soldiers of the Canadian Airborne Regiment. 

My belief is that there was a failing both in the most recent events in the US Army in Iraq and Afghanistan and in Somalia, starting with NCOs failing to do what was right. The NCOs need to show moral courage and stop the acts of abuse. Everyone involved knew it was wrong, no one took corrective action to stop it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Nov 2005)

Quote from Chimo,
_The bottom line up front is that it is illegal to abuse/torture prisoners, regardless of their legal status. That obligation begins the moment they come under your control. You do not need to be a Harvard lawyer to understand this._ 
Quote from 3rd Horseman,
_Yes thats right I said execute...spy's saboteurs who murder civilians is that not what they are under the law?_
Quote from GO!!!!,
_These individuals were not PoWs. The Geneva convention also states that to be a PoW, they must have "carried arms openly, worn recognisable uniforms and insignia and report to a chain of command etc." _ 

Hey Chimo,
One doesn't need to be a Harvard lawyer to see what the coalition should legally  be doing with them,...would this make you sleep better? :


----------



## GO!!! (18 Nov 2005)

Bruce is absolutely right, as was 3rd Horseman,

If we were REALLY following the Geneva Convention, we would be "executing without trial, representation or delay" as is the punishment for sabotage, spying, and fifth columnist activities.

So, is it preferable to shoot them, (as the GC dictates) or let them be uncomfortable in a modern prison?


----------



## S McKee (18 Nov 2005)

From a purely philosophical point of view, what is the The Geneva Convention? It is merely a veneer of civility, a set of rules that western society has tried to impose on the worst of human behavior: War. Instead of arguing about legal points and morality (war is inherently immoral) we would do well to heed the words of William Tecumseh Sherman 

"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over."


----------



## garb811 (18 Nov 2005)

What's going to sell more, a headline "Prisoners placed in a stress position!" or "Prisoners Tortured!"?   Terms like Stress position, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation etc make the average media consumer sit there and go, "Say what?!   What's this here sensory position all about?   Martha, we got something new to try tonight!" They don't sell papers or have people glued to their TV, but torture does because we humans, have this overwhelming compulsion to revel in others pain.   Editors know this and they know that to sell their goods they have an extremely brief period of time where they can grab a consumer's attention.   Just look at the number of one-word headlines on the tabloids.

In a similar vein, there seems to be a concerted effort to informally expand the traditional definitions of certain words.   While it's true that any living language will see the traditional definitions of some words change over time, it seems to me that certain interest groups misuse words in a very calculated manner over the long term which enables them to manipulate the perceived meaning to suit their goals.  Yesterdays perfectly acceptable interrogation tactic is now defined as being torture because it causes someone a modicum of mental or physical stress.  Then again, maybe it's just because I'm now paying attention to the phenomenon... 

I think much of the confusion in the mind of Joe Canada, and why the issue is remaining topical, is the ambiguous status of the detainees.   On the one hand it is being said that they are not prisoners of war and as such, they are not entitled to the protections afforded by the Conventions.   In light of that, Joe Canada falls back on his understanding of how things work here at home and makes the decision that since he is not a combatant, he is obviously a criminal, particularly since Canada considers terrorism to be a criminal offence.   If someone tries to kill someone in Canada and is subsequently arrested by the police there are Constitutional and court mandated limits on what the police can do while interrogating him.   These, as we all know, are extremely restrictive and becoming more so with each court ruling.   These standards are all Joe Canada knows: a person has the right to consult legal counsel without delay; a person accused of a crime cannot be deprived of sleep, food or water to elicit a confession; he cannot be questioned for an indeterminate amount of time without breaks; he can have a Kleenex to wipe the tears from his eyes when the mean policeman says unkind things etc etc.   When the media spins the Abu Ghraib story to Joe Public, it is very easy for Joe Canada to nod his head in agreement and say, "Yes, in Canada we don't do that to our criminals so it is obviously wrong". 

Not being overly pedantic but as for deaths at Abu Ghraib related to interrogations, there was at least one.   Manadel al-Jamadi died after being interrogated by the CIA immediately upon arrival at the prison after capture by a SEAL team.


*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.   What is being discussed is a nationally directed and mandated intelligence gathering process which is not conducted by, or even at, the capturing unit.   While I am not personally convinced that the methods being applied to the later are necessarily valid, but note I am not saying illegal, given my scepticism of the value of information obtained by some of the methods being applied, the two issues are apples and oranges.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2005)

Nice post - I think it captures my views quite well.


----------



## GO!!! (18 Nov 2005)

If only I could post so eloquently!

Nice one MP00161


----------



## Cyr (18 Nov 2005)

Very true mp 00161. Very well put.


----------



## missing1 (18 Nov 2005)

MP00161
Without doubt one of the better posts on this subject.
Good one


----------



## Recce41 (18 Nov 2005)

DBA said:
			
		

> Resistance fighters in France didn't target the general civilian population when the Germans weren't available or too hard to get at. No huge bombs taking out 100's of civilians and zero occupation troops in front of places of worship for example. The Americans don't round up and execute 100 civilians when one of their troops is killed. It seems common these days to draw useless parallels mentioning things common to just about every instance of whats being discused while not even mentioning a single difference. When you compare two things you mention similarities and differences. To accept a comparison that doesn't is to be pretty naive. You have a $100 bill and I have a $10 bill. Both have a 1 in the denomination and both have a 0 in the denomination. Both are Canadian legal tender and have various other similar features. Want to swap em since they are so similar?


 
 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.


----------



## UberCree (18 Nov 2005)

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.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2005)

I don't think Lindy Englund or BGen Karpinski are examples of testosterone out of control


----------



## Acorn (18 Nov 2005)

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.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2005)

Indeed, irregardless of what we think about it, it was a strategic blow.  I've heard that American soldiers refer to the Abu Gharib MP's as "Those A**holes who lost us the War....".    :-\


----------



## DBA (18 Nov 2005)

Recce41 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.



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.


----------



## Chimo (19 Nov 2005)

"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.


----------



## paracowboy (19 Nov 2005)

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.


----------



## KevinB (19 Nov 2005)

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.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Nov 2005)

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....


----------



## midgetcop (19 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't think Lindy Englund or BGen Karpinski are examples of testosterone out of control



No. But my main thoughts on this issue are - 

WHY oh _WHY_ did they take those freakin' _pictures???_

Idiots. 

 :


----------



## 3rd Horseman (19 Nov 2005)

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.


----------



## geo (20 Nov 2005)

Midgetcop...
Why did they take pictures?
For the same reason that Kyle Brown & Clayton Matchee did the picture thing.

Digital cameras are so prevalent these days - everyone has em & everyone uses em


----------



## muskrat89 (20 Nov 2005)

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...


----------



## geo (20 Nov 2005)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> 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...


On what do you base your evaluation?
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)


----------



## George Wallace (20 Nov 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> On what do you base your evaluation?
> Though the Nazis perfected the concentration camp, it's a British "invention" from the Boer days...


And I wonder where the Brits learned from......'Black Hole' of Calcutta.......Khartoum........Sudan.......


----------



## Dirt Digger (20 Nov 2005)

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.


----------



## muskrat89 (20 Nov 2005)

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


----------



## paracowboy (20 Nov 2005)

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: 





> torture means any act by which *severe* pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. _It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions._


 (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. 



> Art 4 covers all conflicts not covered by Art 3 which are all conflicts of an international character. It defines who is a prisoner of war and, therefore, a protected person under GCIII. Those entitled to prisoner of war status include:
> 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
> 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfil the following conditions: that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
> that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (although this is not required under Protocol I); that of carrying arms openly; that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
> ...


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.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Nov 2005)

Checkmate.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Nov 2005)

My opinion on this is changing.
For me it's a matter of proof and evidence against these guys.

On one hand you have people just grabbed off the street or someone dropping their name out of spite.
I'm not really cool with the idea of interrogating these guys in a hardcore way because to me they were in the wron place at the wrong time. Turns joe blow into a hateful dude. (id be hateful too)

One the other hamd, when you actually have considerable proof or evidence that one of these guys is connected to suicide attacks and you might be able to get more information out of them - I picture a 10 year old girl who has to spend the rest of her life with no arms legs or a face and think to myself, hey 'Fuck ya'.

If hurting a murder and taking away his freedom (which he's taken away from others) means your going to save soldiers lives and the lives of innocent civilians who just want to do their thing, well you can call it whatever you want. I'll call it saving someones life.


----------



## SHF (21 Nov 2005)

Paracowboy,

Well written, well thought out.

Cheers


----------



## Nemo888 (21 Nov 2005)

The Americans had very little credibility as "liberators" to begin with. The War of Hearts and Minds will end the insurgency. Whichever sides wins that battle wins the war. Do not underestimate the power of propaganda. The good guys, Heroes, liberators, soldiers of freedom protecting democracy.Rebels have started killing themselves rather than surrender to American forces. I'm paid to be an honourable soldier, that why I joined up. Why do you fight?

  Anyone who says torture doesn't work has a very limited imagination. Problem is what if the guy doesn't know anything? 

 I'll end with a quote from a POW talking to an MP in Afghanistan. After being kept awake and questioned for 24hrs straight.
  *"After I realized that this was the worst you were going to do to me I realized I was fighting for the wrong side."*


----------



## George Wallace (21 Nov 2005)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Anyone who says torture doesn't work has a very limited imagination. Problem is what if the guy doesn't know anything?



I won't bother with the rest of your post, but will comment on this.   Torture does get results, but not necessarily truthful results.   A person being tortured will say anything to save himself, even if he doesn't know anything.   A tortured person is likely to give up more fiction than fact.   

Other means of interrogation may be likely to draw out more facts.   Torture is not required, but sleep deprivation or other forms of 'stress' may be more likely to get results.   'Stressing out' a Detainee does not necessarily mean torture.   Our Liberal Press doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference.


----------



## TAS278 (21 Nov 2005)

> Jumper: Couldn't have said it better GO! The naivety of some posters on this forum is truly amazing. We are fighting an enemy who has absolutely no qualms about lopping off the heads of their detainees (innocent civilians for the most part) and videotaping it for all the world to see; yet I don't recall reading any posts expressing moral outrage over these barbaric acts. This is an enemy which has successfully used our misguided sense of moral superiority as a weapon against us.




Do you not remember the lessons your parents taught you. You think because you express an opinion and someone disagrees with it, that they are stupid or naive. BTW his opinion is that of fact and law. So if you disagree with the laws of this country and of others I really don't know what to tell you. (Maybe move somewhere else.) I would like to reiterate the Moral High Ground point. As a country do you think we should treat people inhumanely and do whatever we want to do in order to complete the task at hand or use the system that we have now that was written by our own blood. Do you think our enemies would respect us more and not torture us if we tortured our prisoners? You ever wonder why they call them extremists? 

I think you get what I am saying. Your anger with "the other side" has caused your educated opinion to become wrongly motivated. 
If you look as this problem objectively you will see why the "torture should be accepted" attitude is wrong.

Cheers


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Nov 2005)

Good point George.

What happens when the information we're getting from these guys is just bullshit they come up with to save themselves.

There's an important line between interrogating someone and tourture.  Bad information is worse than no information.

I don't agree with the whole 'They cut someones head off so we can do what we want' attitude but for guys guilty of those kinda crimes I don't have any problems with them being man handeled.

Tourture to me is when no good information is forthcomming and the guards (or whoever) are hurting the prisoner to be spiteful.


----------



## S McKee (21 Nov 2005)

TAS278 said:
			
		

> Do you not remember the lessons your parents taught you. You think because you express an opinion and someone disagrees with it, that they are stupid or naive. BTW his opinion is that of fact and law. So if you disagree with the laws of this country and of others I really don't know what to tell you. (Maybe move somewhere else.) I would like to reiterate the Moral High Ground point. As a country do you think we should treat people inhumanely and do whatever we want to do in order to complete the task at hand or use the system that we have now that was written by our own blood. Do you think our enemies would respect us more and not torture us if we tortured our prisoners? You ever wonder why they call them extremists?
> 
> I think you get what I am saying. Your anger with "the other side" has caused your educated opinion to become wrongly motivated.
> If you look as this problem objectively you will see why the "torture should be accepted" attitude is wrong.
> ...



I'm not entirely sure what your getting at or what my parents have to do with the alledged torture of detainees in Abu Ghraib. Howeve,r if your suggesting that I think people who disagree with my opinion are in any way "stupid" nothing could be further from the truth. If you check in your dictionary "naivety" is not the same as "stupidity".

I have never advocated the use of torture in any of my posts.   It was Napoleon Bonaparte who said 
"The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile." I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.

I do disagree with those who state that the "stress postions" and the interrogation techniques used on the detainees in Abu Ghraib were a form of "torture".   MP 00161's post on the subject is with a doubt, the best yet, on this topic and I concur with his opinion.

I also have a problem with those who "naively" claim the US is some sort of despotic regime, and who compare them to Nazi Germany. It seems to me that when the US does something that doesn't quite sit well with the moral sensibilities of the left, the extremists tend to drag Nazi Germany into the argument.

Finally, it's all well and good for us here in the relative comfort and safety of Canada to express our moral outrage and pass judgement on the US. We are not in Iraq, we do not have to deal with the grim reality of daily casualties and deaths of our combat troops. God forbid if anything like this happens in Afghanistan and we start seeing Canadian soldiers in body bags on the nightly news. I wonder if the critics would be so quick to judge then?


----------



## TAS278 (22 Nov 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> I'm not entirely sure what your getting at or what my parents have to do with the alledged torture of detainees in Abu Ghraib. Howeve,r if your suggesting that I think people who disagree with my opinion are in any way "stupid" nothing could be further from the truth. If you check in your dictionary "naivety" is not the same as "stupidity".
> 
> I have never advocated the use of torture in any of my posts.   It was Napoleon Bonaparte who said
> "The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile." I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.
> ...



Here ya have it. When you were a kid you were probably taught that two wrongs don't make a right. With that I said stupid *or* naive. 

You seemed to agree with GO!! and that was my premise to disagree with you. 

It is all fine for use to sit in and Canada and pass judgement. We, as the rest of the world all have that right. Are you in beleif we should accompany our neighbors in this fight for the hearts and minds of the Iraqis that really in Canada's interest? 

How long ago now did  MR. G.W. Bush state "The War is coming to an end". I don't think it would have been wise for Canada to commit to a long drawn out war when we can barely even trust our own government.  

We all know that torture is torture and there are laws that have been written in blood to keep these atrocities reoccuring. Laws don't care that you are angry or that someone "chopped off a guys head". They are there and we follow them. For us to bend our own rules to suit our emotion would leave us to behave exactly like these extremists. 

We fight to protect the innocent. To insure that the future is secure for our children.
Extremists fight because they are angry, they fight for no cause but their own personal vendetta. 

I disagree with the "war" on Iraq because it was started illegally. Even when it was proven that they made a mistake the Americans said "oops" and carried on with their own personal agenda. 
I knew that it would take this long. I that the Americans would punish everyone who didn't follow them economically. 

With that little /rant said I believe the Americans involved in Abu Ghraib are guilty of torture and should be punished to full extent of the law.


----------



## KevinB (22 Nov 2005)

TAS278 said:
			
		

> I disagree with the "war" on Iraq because it was started illegally.



Ok one of those  :



> Even when it was proven that they made a mistake the Americans said "oops" and carried on with their own personal agenda.
> I knew that it would take this long. I that the Americans would punish everyone who didn't follow them economically.



How is pointing out that your a loon doing for your arguement?



> With that little /rant said I believe the Americans involved in Abu Ghraib are guilty of torture and should be punished to full extent of the law.



 Which American's ?

I really curious on your background to arrive at all these sweeping, and in my experience RTFO conclusions.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Nov 2005)

TAS278 said:
			
		

> I disagree with the "war" on Iraq because it was started illegally.



I'm still looking for that instruction manual to international relations.... :


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Nov 2005)

TAS278 said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I disagree with the "war" on Iraq because it was started illegally. Even when it was proven that they made a mistake the Americans said "oops" and carried on with their own personal agenda.
> I knew that it would take this long. I that the Americans would punish everyone ...



I regard the war in Iraq as ill conceived but since I regard war in that region as preferable to peace in that region I don't quibble.

I believe we have an identifiable enemy: several _movements_, most of   which share four basic characteristics.   They are, by and large:

"¢	Arabic nationalist - except for the Iranians, of course;

"¢	Extremist - in their views on _Arabism_ and religion;

"¢	Fundamentalist - in their religious and nationalistic views; and

"¢	Islamic.

There seems to be a steady supply of these _movements_ and of recruits for them.

I doubt the supply of recruits or movements will dry up until there are some quite radical changes in societies in that region.   I believe they need something akin to both a _reformation_ and an _enlightenment_.   By 'they' I mean most of the people in most of the Arab, Middle Eastern, North African and South-West Asian _nations_.   (I do not believe, in contrast, that Islam, _per se_ needs either of those.   I believe that Islam can adapt, I think we can see successful adaptations of _enlightened_ Islam in East Asia.)

I do not believe that _enlightenments_ come without _reformations_ and I don't believe that either come from books and debates.   I think the Arabs/Middle East (and neighbours) need a couple of generations of bloody internecine wars and revolutions.   I need to emphasize that the enemy is neither Islam nor the Arabs, it is the _movements_, described above, but these, as Chairman Mao might have said, swim in the sea of their host societies and that is what needs to be reformed and enlightened.

I rather wish President Bush had attacked elsewhere - other than Iraq - but it is a good enough place to stick in the first _pick_ - there will have to be many more before the bull collapses in the dust.

International law can be stretched around almost anything - saying that the America led war in Iraq is illegal is fair enough, unsupported and unsupportable but fair enough.   I'll wait, patiently, for Mme Arbour to haul George W Bush up on charges.   ;D

 Edit: grammar


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Nov 2005)

"Started illegally".......looks to me like they said and did the same things we did in 39. 
If memory serves me right they gave warning and then a declaration of war.......sounds kosher to me.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Nov 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> "Started illegally".......looks to me like they said and did the same things we did in 39.
> If memory serves me right they gave warning and then a declaration of war.......sounds kosher to me.



Not quite.   In 1939 we were responding to an invasion of a sovereign state.   Britain gave Germany an ultimatum beyond which they stated that a state of war would exist between France and the UK, and Germany.   That ultimatum was not met, and consequently Chamberlain had no choice but to declare that a state of war existed.   Canada declared was on the 10th, a week later - but had actually mobilized its military for self defence of vital installations on August 25th.

For his part, Hitler invaded the sovereign state of Poland after a trumped up border incident, and a questionable claim on the free city of Danzig.

The United States acted rather like all the above nations; like Britain in that it announced certain conditions and presented an ultimatum which was not met, but rather like Germany in that it unilaterally (with the help of several allied nations, Canada not among them) invaded a sovereign nation - Iraq - with the announced purpose of deposing the leadership.   Unlike Germany, however, a soveriegn government was eventually installed.   The Germans set up the Government General in Poland and for all intents and purposes treated Poland as another state of the German union.

So you are only partially correct in that they did the same thing 'we' did.  

The ultimate authority and power of the United Nations seems to be the point of contention in whether or not the invasion was "legal" or not.  In the view of the UN, invasion was not yet sanctioned, and the US claimed to have proof that Iraq was violating previous agreements.  In fact, Iraq had indeed violated some earlier agreements, such as the no-fly zones, but what critics tend to focus on are a lack of evidence pointing to possession of weapons of mass destruction.  For their part, the US tells us that WMD were not the reason to go to war.

It's really not anything like 1939 in that sense.


----------



## S McKee (22 Nov 2005)

> [author=TAS278 link=topic=36533/post-299035#msg299035 date=1132685374]
> Here ya have it. When you were a kid you were probably taught that two wrongs don't make a right. With that I said stupid *or* naive.



Actually my parents abandoned me in the woods when I was an infant, and I was raised by a pack of wolves. So my parents didn't teach me anything. Having said, that I still don't know WTF your talking about.



> You seemed to agree with GO!! and that was my premise to disagree with you.



GO stated he doesn't believe in torture either, so what is your "premise" for disagreeing with me.



> It is all fine for use to sit in and Canada and pass judgement. We, as the rest of the world all have that right. Are you in beleif we should accompany our neighbors in this fight for the hearts and minds of the Iraqis that really in Canada's interest?



Canada's involvement/non-involvement in the War was not the issue here. The issue was whether or not we believed what happened to the detainees at Abu Ghraib was torture. I believe they were not tortured.



> How long ago now did  MR. G.W. Bush state "The War is coming to an end". I don't think it would have been wise for Canada to commit to a long drawn out war when we can barely even trust our own government.



Your entitled to your opinion. Hey I didn't call you stupid!



> We all know that torture is torture and there are laws that have been written in blood to keep these atrocities reoccuring.



What is your definition of "torture" and what are these laws "written in blood"? 



> Laws don't care that you are angry or that someone "chopped off a guys head". They are there and we follow them. For us to bend our own rules to suit our emotion would leave us to behave exactly like these extremists.



You obviously do not understand the concept of punishment as it relates to the law. If someone has been found guilty of a heinous crime, when he/she is sentenced there is an element of retribution built into the sentence. This is to placate public outrage and instill a sense of justice. The law is not emotionless, we do not live on the planet Vulcan.  



> We fight to protect the innocent. To insure that the future is secure for our children.
> Extremists fight because they are angry, they fight for no cause but their own personal vendetta.



Again your opinion. See I still haven't called you stupid!



> I disagree with the "war" on Iraq because it was started illegally. Even when it was proven that they made a mistake the Americans said "oops" and carried on with their own personal agenda.
> I knew that it would take this long. I that the Americans would punish everyone who didn't follow them economically.



Who is being punished?



> With that little /rant said I believe the Americans involved in Abu Ghraib are guilty of torture and should be punished to full extent of the law.



Wow what a well thought out, logical and well presented argument. You've won me over.  F***king Americans!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Nov 2005)

I think he was trying to make the case that the US is punishing Canada "economically" (his words) by a hard stance on Canadian beef and softwood lumber exports into the US, for just two examples.   I think one would be hard pressed to find "evidence" one way or another.   On its own, hard stances on these products are not indicative of vindictiveness.

See the debate here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36564.15/topicseen.html

I'm not attempting to connect any dots here, just clarifying what the orignal poster's claim may have been.  He is free to correct me if necessary.


----------



## GO!!! (22 Nov 2005)

TAS278 said:
			
		

> Here ya have it. When you were a kid you were probably taught that two wrongs don't make a right. With that I said stupid *or* naive.



I would substitute *and* as opposed to *or*.



> You seemed to agree with GO!! and that was my premise to disagree with you.



That's because I'm right.  



> It is all fine for use to sit in and Canada and pass judgement. We, as the rest of the world all have that right. Are you in beleif we should accompany our neighbors in this fight for the hearts and minds of the Iraqis that really in Canada's interest?



Well, considering that ours is a petroleum and fossil fuels dependent economy, and it would collapse if the Middle East began diverting oil supplies to China and India, driving up prices here, I would say yes, it is in Canada's interest, whether we are prepared to admit it or not. But that is not the topic of this thread. Left wing ranting belongs here: www.rabble.com  



> How long ago now did   MR. G.W. Bush state "The War is coming to an end". I don't think it would have been wise for Canada to commit to a long drawn out war when we can barely even trust our own government.


Once again, not the topic of this thread.



> We all know that torture is torture and there are laws that have been written in blood to keep these atrocities reoccuring. Laws don't care that you are angry or that someone "chopped off a guys head". They are there and we follow them. For us to bend our own rules to suit our emotion would leave us to behave exactly like these extremists.


I've never seen anything written in blood. We are not breaking any laws, written in ink, blood, stone or otherwise. We are trying to define torture. Obviously, what "we all know" has some variance.



> We fight to protect the innocent. To insure that the future is secure for our children.
> Extremists fight because they are angry, they fight for no cause but their own personal vendetta.


You fight when you are told to, because that is what professional soldiers do. No one cares about your children. All of our activities in the military sphere in the last 55 years have been to further Canada's "presitge, power and influence" (see Louis St. Laurent's Grey Hall Lecture). To delude yourself that you are protecting someone or something specific is a fallacy, and smacks of idealism, which has no place in the mind of a professional. 



> I disagree with the "war" on Iraq because it was started illegally. Even when it was proven that they made a mistake the Americans said "oops" and carried on with their own personal agenda.
> I knew that it would take this long. I that the Americans would punish everyone who didn't follow them economically.
> 
> With that little /rant said I believe the Americans involved in Abu Ghraib are guilty of torture and should be punished to full extent of the law.



Since the Westphalian system of the supremacy of states, and the lack of any universally recognised and enforceable international laws governing warfare, there is, by definition, no "illegal" war. Only what the UN says is illegal (and they never make mistakes  :)

I'm glad you knew, can you shake your crystal ball and tell us where *we're* going next, and for how long?

How are we being punished?

The American troops involved in Abu Ghraib are guilty of mistreatment of prisoners, and even that is iffy, given the standards of PoW treatment that existed when the Geneva Conventions were written. It would take a very "creative" application of the rules to charge them with anything but a 129. (or the US equivalent)


----------



## SHF (22 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> You fight when you are told to, because that is what professional soldiers do. No one cares about your children. All of our activities in the military sphere in the last 55 years have been to further Canada's "presitge, power and influence" (see Louis St. Laurent's Grey Hall Lecture). To delude yourself that you are protecting someone or something specific is a fallacy, and smacks of idealism, which has no place in the mind of a professional.



You fight because you're told to and that's what professional soldiers do?   Come on Go, even you know better than that.   Without even going into dozens of anectdotes, historical excerpts, and personal biographies, even I know that we fight for the soldier on our right and left, we fight for our regiments and squadrons.   We don't always fight because we are told to.   At times idealism is all that brings you through the s**tstorm you're in.   Not all serviceman are professionals and if if you look up the word professional, you'll find the soldier does not fit the definiton.   

This is your post.   You originally stated that you saw nothing wrong with roughing up detainees and further provided that the guilty parties were under orders so it was OK.   I grant you that you have since provided some historical facts and current references to law, which by the way, I have benefited as I have learned from all posters who have added facts of military and societal history.   You hide behind sarcasm and you attack those who disagree with you.   Some members join in the sarcasm and seem to relish in other posters' emotional responses.   

You stated (or was it prayer) that you never want to work with me.   My only conclusion can be that you cannot work with anyone who's opinion is different.   Must be a lonely life you lead.   My unsolicited advice is maybe you should lighten up on the attacks and offer the positive as you have displayed occasionally throughout the site.      

Bill


----------



## GO!!! (23 Nov 2005)

SHF said:
			
		

> You fight because you're told to and that's what professional soldiers do?  Come on Go, even you know better than that.  Without even going into dozens of anectdotes, historical excerpts, and personal biographies, even I know that we fight for the soldier on our right and left, we fight for our regiments and squadrons.  We don't always fight because we are told to.  At times idealism is all that brings you through the s**tstorm you're in.  Not all serviceman are professionals and if if you look up the word professional, you'll find the soldier does not fit the definiton.


I was referring to the reasons militaries are deployed and given missions and tasks. But it applies to individual motivations as well. We are a professional army. We do not perform our tasks in a blind rage or because our friends are with us. We do it with a cool detachment, with the knowledge that the mission can change or be cancelled at the whim of our political masters. Not all servicemen are professionals? Where do you work? What are they then; some sort of disorganised horde, maurauding in a politically convenient manner?



> This is your post.  You originally stated that you saw nothing wrong with roughing up detainees and further provided that the guilty parties were under orders so it was OK.  I grant you that you have since provided some historical facts and current references to law, which by the way, I have benefited as I have learned from all posters who have added facts of military and societal history.  You hide behind sarcasm and you attack those who disagree with you.  Some members join in the sarcasm and seem to relish in other posters' emotional responses.


Sarcasm is a method of amplification of a point, and often also serves to demonstrate the fallacy of the inappropriate concept that it is targeting. 


> You stated (or was it prayer) that you never want to work with me.  My only conclusion can be that you cannot work with anyone who's opinion is different.  Must be a lonely life you lead.  My unsolicited advice is maybe you should lighten up on the attacks and offer the positive as you have displayed occasionally throughout the site.



I work quite successfully with many professionals whose opinions diverge significantly from my own, but they all agree on a few critical points, one of which is that we are always "right" if we all come home alive. Your post on page 2 implies that "treating our fellow human beings properly" should take precedence over this.

You are wrong. We can never allow the idea to even be entertained that the citizens of any other nation are worth saving more than our own soldiers. To do this is to cheapen our lives, which we all put on the line in pursuit of our duties. That the ego and pride of a few young terrorists can be bruised to save the lives of coalition troops is a non issue for me. 

That you imply that our counterparts in Iraq should risk more casualties by NOT interrogating these men is a serious crisis of leadership.


----------



## FastEddy (24 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I work quite successfully with many professionals whose opinions diverge significantly from my own, but they all agree on a few critical points, one of which is that we are always "right" if we all come home alive. Your post on page 2 implies that "treating our fellow human beings properly" should take precedence over this.
> 
> You are wrong. We can never allow the idea to even be entertained that the citizens of any other nation are worth saving more than our own soldiers. To do this is to cheapen our lives, which we all put on the line in pursuit of our duties. That the ego and pride of a few young terrorists can be bruised to save the lives of coalition troops is a non issue for me.
> 
> That you imply that our counterparts in Iraq should risk more casualties by NOT interrogating these men is a serious crisis of leadership.




SHF old Chap ! with regard to the above two statements, any body who does not share those sentiments, I would  also have seriously  doubts about working with or fighting along side.

The reasons you give for why Soldiers fight seems a bit assbackwards, The Regiment, etc. etc., can only be accredited to the degree and efficiency of their actions and efforts. Not the reasons they are ordered into combat. The last time I checked, they were ordered to do so. The thought of imminent death or mutilation is not a contributing inducement to do so, a Soldiers immediate response to orders is acquired through Training, Conditioning and DISCIPLINE, therefore "GO" would be quite correct in his presumptions of why they fight.


----------



## TAS278 (24 Nov 2005)

Instead of trying to repost everything I have stated so that you all can take another shot at me I will simply state this. You have all seen the evidence on the news. We have heard the reports and listened to their side. I for one will say that when any incidents involving the military become public that the whole story is not told. I am not saying there was a cover up, just an interpretation of what may have actually occurred. 

This incident was potential the downfall to American public and world support, so it was dealt with the utmost discretion.
Anything that could have been forgotten or not actually documented would have been left out in order to spin this into an isolated incident. 
The fact that they were ordered to do this is definitely one thing. Could honestly tell me that if you were in that situation and you were ordered to commit something like this that you would be smiling in the pictures???

They are guilty ______, Now what is done about this is not up to us. But will become incorporated in to my opinion about the Americans

Though I would like to know how you think mistreating and torture in this situation are different.


----------



## KevinB (24 Nov 2005)

:


Torture and being a shithead are two different things.

 Clayton Matchee, Kyle Brown (and a few helpers) tortured Shidane Arone in Somalia.  Belgian Paratroopers tortured some Somalia by "slow roasting" them over a fire pit.


 These Americans where thoughtless and dumb, and some definitely are criminals, the issues you are talking about are not torture.  Perhaps there where some isolated incidents of torture at Abu Ghraib or elsewhere - however it was not US military policy.


You can blather on if you would like - but it proves nothing more than your a delusional rabid anti-armerican.


----------



## TAS278 (24 Nov 2005)

Not torture???  By what definition? Who is to say if left unchecked that this wouldn't have went further. You speak of policy as if it actually means something.  : You are simply being idealistic.. Torture in Somalia was more that of sadists than done for any direct purpose. Honestly i don't think you can compare the two. Of course the American will interrogate. It was said before that it is their responsibility. So interrogate them but don't strip them of their basic human rights. and i wouldn't sound so anti-American if all the topics weren't involving them. We can talk about other countries if you would prefer.


----------



## 48Highlander (24 Nov 2005)

TAS278 said:
			
		

> Not torture???  By what definition?



tor ·ture Pronunciation (tôrchr)
n.
1.  a. Infliction of *severe* physical pain as a *means of punishment or coercion*.
     b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2. *Excruciating* physical or mental pain; *agony*: the torture of waiting in suspense.
3. Something causing *severe* pain or anguish.


By that definition.  The prisoners in abu-gharib were not subject to severe pain by anyones measurement, nor was the treatment they were subject to intended to coerce or punish them.  It was merely a matter of a bunch of sadistic idiots acting like shitheads for their own amusement.



			
				TAS278 said:
			
		

> Who is to say if left unchecked that this wouldn't have went further. You speak of policy as if it actually means something.  : You are simply being idealistic..



With an attitude like that, you may wish to re-think your commitment to the CF.



			
				TAS278 said:
			
		

> Torture in Somalia was more that of sadists than done for any direct purpose. Honestly i don't think you can compare the two.



Are you on drugs?  What do you think abu-gharib was about?  You think putting men on leashes is a secret CIA interrogation technique?


----------



## 2 Cdo (24 Nov 2005)

Just wade in here quickly with my .02 cents. SHF and TAS278, you two really don't have a clue! I've done escape and evasion with the British Army and have undergone interrogation IN TRAINING that was far worse then the little bit of humiliation suffered by some potential terrorist scumbags!
As for you TAZ, it's already been said but I'll say it again. You are obviously one of those Canadians who suffers from 'anti-Americanism" a disease that mainly affects those with a low intelligence and a low sense of worth, who feel it is necessary to constantly berate their neighbour because their neighbour actually goes out and does things that need doing while he sits on his a$$ and just whines about his status. No, I repeat, no amount of clear proof or thought will change your mind so I will now ignore all future drivel from you.
Sorry folks for the little bit of a rant there but people like him just annoy the guts out of me and sometimes they just need to be put in their place.


----------



## Long in the tooth (24 Nov 2005)

I'm against torture in principle.  Not because it's bad, per se, but that studies have shown it hardly works.  People being interrogated generally say whatever they have to say.  The americans accused of torture should be punished for being stupid, and then again for getting caught.


----------



## FastEddy (25 Nov 2005)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Just wade in here quickly with my .02 cents. SHF and TAS278, you two really don't have a clue! I've done escape and evasion with the British Army and have undergone interrogation IN TRAINING that was far worse then the little bit of humiliation suffered by some potential terrorist scumbags!
> As for you TAZ, it's already been said but I'll say it again. You are obviously one of those Canadians who suffers from 'anti-Americanism" a disease that mainly affects those with a low intelligence and a low sense of worth, who feel it is necessary to constantly berate their neighbour because their neighbour actually goes out and does things that need doing while he sits on his a$$ and just whines about his status. No, I repeat, no amount of clear proof or thought will change your mind so I will now ignore all future drivel from you.
> Sorry folks for the little bit of a rant there but people like him just annoy the guts out of me and sometimes they just need to be put in their place.




No need to apologize, nice to hear from someone who's Been There, Seen That, Done That !.

Just as a added note of interest which nodbody has mentioned, A interrogation is designed to produce two completely different results, 1: A Confession 2: Pertenant Information. Pertenant Information may Influence or be contained in a Confession. If harsh methods are employed to obtain either of these, it is the judgement and responsibility of the Interrogator or Intelligent Officers to sift and weed out any false or misleading information.

It seems to be the general conception of the general public, that any information obtained under harsh methods only results in false or misleading statements to stop the interrogation. Then consider, the Prisoner is aware that false information has been given and most certainly it will be verified or acted on, therefore the Prisoner has placed himself in real jeopardy and certainly not escaped interrogation. Remember that , Interrogators and Intelligent Officers are very highly trained and skilled personnel and any comparison to those Idiots at Abu Ghraib is purely coincidental.

Sorry 2 Cdo, to tailgate your post.

Cheers.


----------



## TAS278 (25 Nov 2005)

Maybe I am coming off Anti-American. I really don't see how though. We are talking about Americans and if they tortured these poss terrorists. I think they did. If you don't then fine. I am not attacking anyone personally. 
I am glad that some of you are getting angry about this and trying to make personal attacks on me.   If you don't like what people have to say then don't have a forum. If you simply made this forum to only talk to People that agree with you then so be it. It is funny thought hat you all get riled up and attack my intelligence becuase i disagree with you.
 I do find it quite amusing that you we question my commitment to the CF.
You have no idea who i am.


----------



## 48Highlander (25 Nov 2005)

TAS278 said:
			
		

> Maybe I am coming off Anti-American. I really don't see how though. We are talking about Americans and if they tortured these poss terrorists. I think they did. If you don't then fine. I am not attacking anyone personally.
> I am glad that some of you are getting angry about this and trying to make personal attacks on me.   If you don't like what people have to say then don't have a forum. If you simply made this forum to only talk to People that agree with you then so be it. It is funny thought hat you all get riled up and attack my intelligence becuase i disagree with you.
> I do find it quite amusing that you we question my commitment to the CF.
> You have no idea who i am.



.....

If we were talking in real life, right now you'd be watching me scratch my head in confussion.  Followed by a giant "WHAT??".

Alright, so now you're saying you disagree with both the dictionary definition of torture, and the UN definition of torture.  And you wonder why I'm making fun of your intelligence?  Listen dimwit, you're more than welcome to disagree with our opinions.  There's a wide diversity of opinions on these forums and we don't generaly agree on very much, but when we disagree it's about policies, or personal preferences, or something of that sort; something that is an OPINION.  As well, those who are disagreeing with the general consensus usualy try to explain WHY they disagree.

YOU on the other hand are not disagreeing with our opinions; what YOU are doing right now is disputing the very definition of torture without even bothering to state why you feel it's wrong.  Now if you feel that you're intelligent enough to rewrite the dictionary, as well as UN protocols on torture, well, hey, you're entitled to your opinion.  I still think you're an idiot, and I'm entitled to state my opinion.  I'm not "attacking your intelligence" because you "disagree with me", I'm simply stating a solid fact:  I think you're an idiot.  You asked for a definition of torture, I showed you one, and you either chose to ignore it, or didn't understand it.  Either way, your "intelligence" is just about high enough to keep you from dragging your knuckles on the ground.

I also don't give a crap who you are.  Anyone who considers policy to be a joke does not belong in our armed forces.  Period.

Now quit wasting our air and bandwidth.


----------



## muskrat89 (25 Nov 2005)

Let's keep the focus on the debate, not the participants....


----------



## George Wallace (25 Nov 2005)

Opps....made a post in the wrong thread.   ;D

Once again I think the problem here lies in the fact that some people cannot differentiate between what is Torture, what is Abuse, and what is Stress.
Some people equate any form of Stress as Abuse, and any Abuse as Torture.  Interrogation does not automatically mean Torture.  Physical or mental Stress or Abuse do not necessarily become Torture.  There are degrees to which these are applied.  Only in the most extreme are they going to become Torture.


----------



## GO!!! (25 Nov 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> .....
> 
> If we were talking in real life, right now you'd be watching me scratch my head in confussion.   Followed by a giant "WHAT??".
> 
> ...



+1

Feel the sting of that pimp slapping!!

Also, you are right, we don't know you, but from your profile, you are a Navy technician, posted to a ship, well qualified I assume, to comment on ground operations, counter - terror activites and US military intelligence as it relates to international law and the UN. You could have significant experience with your boots on the ground and a gun in your hands, and have taken the time to educate yourself in the intricaticies of the abovementioned activities, but we don't know you.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Nov 2005)

Not Navy, try this..(Bedford Institute of Oceanography]


...and don't forget this great site,
http://www.cbla.net/


----------



## TAS278 (26 Nov 2005)

WoW impressive.  Do you want a hero cookie now or should i wait to give you one later in person.  :crybaby:


----------



## FastEddy (27 Nov 2005)

TAS278 said:
			
		

> WoW impressive.   Do you want a hero cookie now or should i wait to give you one later in person.   :crybaby:




Sorry !, regarding the above, pretty strong sentiments and this would be in reply to ? and the point is ?.


----------



## Acorn (27 Nov 2005)

Incomprehensible crap deleted.


----------



## S McKee (27 Nov 2005)

Is just me or are people getting just alittle cranky? No milk and cookies for you. By the way MPs do interrogate......


----------



## GO!!! (27 Nov 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> Is just me or are people getting just alittle cranky? No milk and cookies for you. By the way MPs do interrogate......



The better men of the army prefer tea and scrumpets, and perhaps a snifter of brandy in the parlour after dinner.


----------



## FastEddy (27 Nov 2005)

Just a few points of clarification, 1: The Term INTERVEIW is used when carring out the questioning of   a Witnesses or Persons of Interest. 2: The Term INTERROGATION is used when questioning a Suspect or Prisnor.

However, these terms are so interchangeable, depending on Country, Force or Organization its hard to pin down a exact singular definition.

During my Service here and abroad, I have never had the occasion to Interrogate a Enemy Prisoner or Combatant. But I can't count the Dependants and Military personnel I have.

I don't think anyone is trying to excuse the bad behavior and stupidity at Abu Ghraib and that the perparate rs should not be disciplined. Simply that their action does not fall under the definition of Torture per se.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Nov 2005)

Don't you wish your girlfriend was hot like me....



http://www.pcdmusic.com/

(Yes, I am pissed....)


----------



## Slim (27 Nov 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> How many of you have actually interrogated someone?



I will stand up and say that back in '89, when we were still doing this type of thing i was given the chance to obseve a few, which were done by the Canadian and US Int branch(s) as proscribed in the "book."

The 'prisoners' were subjected to lack of sleep, yelling, violent actions close to them (but not directed at them) and other such psycological tricks that get used to break someone down.

the MP's would use things like stress positions, lack of sleep and other assorted methods to prepare a sunject for interrogation.

This was observedat the Div PW cage during RV'89.

Cheers

Slim


----------



## paracowboy (27 Nov 2005)

never mind


----------



## Acorn (27 Nov 2005)

My apologies to all about that last tirade. My wife should have taken the keys to the computer. I edited the post out, so sorry about the loss of quotations. Frankly I'm glad at least one of my stupider moments won't be immortalized.

The problem I have is that it does appear that some look at what happened as some sort of sophmoric hazing ritual. Some of it was, but some of those things that were done are techniques designed to break down a subject for interrogation. The problem is that they need to be used in a controlled manner, and if mis-used they *could* constuitute torture. 

Acorn


----------



## Infanteer (27 Nov 2005)

Haha, I love drive-by posts by the inebriated.  I cleaned up the trail to stick to the issue (and not the drunken bottle throwing) - my comment on sexy girls still stands though....


----------

