Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[--Pete]

hi,

will do so, but I need to get a few things off my plate first.

I appreciate that you are taking the time and effort to do this right. A serious consideration of where we are going, where we probably should be going, and how the two are related will be interesting, and may just bring some measure of sanity back to this forum. In support of that, might I suggest you post your reply as a new thread, since this thread has outlived its usefulness, died, and turned into a stinking corpse.

--Pete

[Thecla]

I think the administration painted the grey area about as far as you can go without being definitely illegal.

They went far beyond that (e.g. in claiming that in order to qualify as torture: "When the pain is physical, it must be of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure. Severe mental pain requires suffering not just at the moment of infliction but it also requires lasting psychological harm" and it's not even clear they stayed within their own bounds) into things that were clearly illegal. Of course, one can always choose to place the goal posts one inch further that wherever the US went (and ascribe anything beyond that to "bad apples").

I'm specifically thinking of the Stanford Prison Experiment. [i]"What happens when you put good people in an evil place? Does humanity win over evil, or does evil triumph?

In some cases, I think this happened (e.g. my guess is at Abu Ghraib, the prison guards who were supposed to be abusing and humiliating the prisoners at the behest of the miltary intelligence officers, went completely over the top in the absence of any external control).

But --- to repeat again --- that is a side issue. The main point is that this was the result of official policy, and most of it went exactly as intended.

one mans torture is another mans cold shower.

Or, to return to the CIA black prisons, in Khalid Sheik Mohammed's case, one man's torture is another man's torture (including yours --- I guarantee it).

[kandrathe]

They went far beyond that (e.g. in claiming that in order to qualify as torture: "When the pain is physical, it must be of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure. Severe mental pain requires suffering not just at the moment of infliction but it also requires lasting psychological harm" and it's not even clear they stayed within their own bounds) into things that were clearly illegal.

You are quoting from the Memo from Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo to the White House Counsel . This is a lawyer reading the law and telling someone how close to the edge they can walk without being convicted of a crime by the ICU. That is what I meant when I said, "I think the administration painted the grey area about as far as you can go without being definitely illegal."

But --- to repeat again --- that is a side issue. The main point is that this was the result of official policy, and most of it went exactly as intended.

And... this is your opinion? To me it appears, as a nation, the people made it clear in the last election that it did not go "as intended".

Or, to return to the CIA black prisons, in Khalid Sheik Mohammed's case, one man's torture is another man's torture (including yours --- I guarantee it).

The CIA is center stage on this one, with the tacit backing of the Bush Justice Department, although torture via rendition has been practiced by all of our allies including Canada and the UK, and directly by many.<blockquote>Berliner Zeitung wrote: "Speaking with a forked tongue is something Europeans are masters at. They criticise torture by the US and then enquire about visiting hours in the dungeons, they condemn the torture centers in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and offer to set up their own ones in Eastern Europe."</blockquote>

[Zenda]

Here are some questions you might clear up about the "leak"

Those exact same questions were asked (and more or less answered) in comments to the piece. I certainly agree with you though, that a professor 'teaching' future military personnel like this is almost too absurd to be true. Then again, it could explain the presence of so many 'bad apples';)

Regarding WikiLeaks, I never saw the site before finding that text. I have no experience with their credibility, and that's why I checked the same sources as you did. However, I doubt the purpose is to 'feed the outrage of the jihadis' (About Wikileaks):

"Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we are of assistance to people of all nations who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations."

I haven't found anywhere that it has been clearly deemed a fake, but I still might.

If you do, be sure to let me know. Wikileaks itself might be interested too. It would also be useful to see other lectures on interrogation techniques (or similar material), to determine if this was an exceptional case or not (if real).

they should just threaten to let them loose in the general prison population of any US federal prison. If you think the torturers were harsh, you've no idea what happens in a federal prison. I'd talk, no, actually, I'd spill my guts until they allowed me to be locked up in some other more sympathetic population of prisoners.

From what I heard, the things that happen in US federal prisons are not things to be proud of, yes, but that's another discussion. You can't put someone in a US prison without a trial, and trials are hard to win when the suspect is already tortured. As a result, some subjects are transferred to places that are even worse then US federal prisons.

torture via rendition has been practiced by all of our allies including Canada and the UK, and directly by many.

It isn't often that I can stand up for my country, but ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

"Only a very few countries do not commit significant human rights violations, according to Amnesty International. In their 2004 human rights report (covering 2003), the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Costa Rica are the only (mappable) countries that did not (in their opinion) violate at least some human rights significantly."

[kandrathe]

Those exact same questions were asked (and more or less answered) in comments to the piece. I certainly agree with you though, that a professor 'teaching' future military personnel like this is almost too absurd to be true. Then again, it could explain the presence of so many 'bad apples';)

Not all were asked there, but good questions with fluffy answers. Googling that item, I noticed that the alleged lecture was posted to no less than 40 liberal blog sites. Feed the rant.

From what I heard, the things that happen in US federal prisons are not things to be proud of, yes, but that's another discussion. You can't put someone in a US prison without a trial, and trials are hard to win when the suspect is already tortured. As a result, some subjects are transferred to places that are even worse then US federal prisons.

It is routine in the US to put some illegal aliens into federal prisons pending deportation proceedings. In many cases (47%) they actually never had a trial, but only an administrative hearing where the reasons for deportation are presented. (source)

It isn't often that I can stand up for my country, but ...

It's probably a good thing. It would certainly reduce the credibility of the International Criminal Court if the Netherlands was also engaged in war crimes. The US, for the past 50 years has had to do quite a bit of heavy lifting for our friends in Europe and Asia. It is an enviable position to sit back under the umbrella of protection we've provided and offer little back but harsh criticism. Perhaps now with the EU, you guys are ready to make a go of defending yourself against the little despots that remain, and maybe the US is ready to turn over the work. I wouldn't mind at all having the US focused more on the domestic economic front, and homeland security. Islamic extremism is more a problem for Europe, than the US anyway.

[Jester]

"Only a very few countries do not commit significant human rights violations, according to Amnesty International. In their 2004 human rights report (covering 2003), the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Costa Rica are the only (mappable) countries that did not (in their opinion) violate at least some human rights significantly."

I love it. "Northern Europe, Northern Europe, Northern Europe, Northern Europe, and Costa Rica."

/sings "One of these things is not like the others..."

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I love it. "Northern Europe, Northern Europe, Northern Europe, Northern Europe, and Costa Rica." /sings "One of these things is not like the others..."

And, three of them are marginally populated Scandinavia. It appears that one thing Costa Rica has going for it is that they have abolished a standing military in 1949. The Federal police also is responsible for defending the borders. What is not mentioned very much is the cozy relationship that Costa Rica has with the US at times for clandestine action. No news is good news. :)

[weakwarrior]

"Only a very few countries do not commit significant human rights violations, according to Amnesty International. In their 2004 human rights report (covering 2003), the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Costa Rica are the only (mappable) countries that did not (in their opinion) violate at least some human rights significantly."

Since then England has declared the entire country of Iceland a terrorist state, so knock that one off the list.:)

[Zenda]

Not all were asked there, but good questions with fluffy answers.

Well, you are free to add your own view to those comments, to question Wikileaks credibility on its Wiki page, and to show us something that contradicts the issue, ofcourse.

It is routine in the US to put some illegal aliens into federal prisons pending deportation proceedings.

I was really surprised to read this, especially after you stated that being in these prisons is worse as being tortured. But your link made me realize this is about *criminal* illegal aliens, and even those got a proper conviction (47% is the amount that got convicted for unlawfully entering the United States, the rest for other crimes).

It's probably a good thing.

I suppose so. Anyway, it was merely a defense against your allegation that my country would be involved in torture. I know it doesn't count as proof, but like I said, a chance like this doesn't present itself very often;)

[Ashock]

"Only a very few countries do not commit significant human rights violations, according to Amnesty International. In their 2004 human rights report (covering 2003), the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Costa Rica are the only (mappable) countries that did not (in their opinion) violate at least some human rights significantly."

Where are you going to commit human rights violations? You have no world presence, no influence and frankly you do not matter to the way the world is shaped. You stay away from anything and everything and basically live your lives to your own satisfaction. You take no sides, you stay away from anything that is more important than saving Bambi and freeing Willy. When the world is in turmoil, you stay mostly neutral and hope that trouble passes you buy. You stand for nothing. You are never in a position to commit either significant good or significant bad. When I see packages of Tofu in the supermarket, I think of the whole of Scandinavia. Does not taste good. Does not taste bad. Tastes like nothing. The correlation is obvious.

[Jester]

Where are you going to commit human rights violations?

Are human rights violations usually committed abroad? I would imagine not.

-Jester

[Zenda]

You take no sides, you stay away from anything that is more important than saving Bambi and freeing Willy. When the world is in turmoil, you stay mostly neutral and hope that trouble passes you buy. You stand for nothing. You are never in a position to commit either significant good or significant bad. When I see packages of Tofu in the supermarket, I think of the whole of Scandinavia. Does not taste good. Does not taste bad. Tastes like nothing. The correlation is obvious.

There is little denying in that, except that the Netherlands are not part of Scandinavia, and that tofu can taste decent if properly prepared. But yes, we Dutch are pretty good in making profits from all sides in a conflict, and getting away with it. Always have been. We even started a few wars here and there, to make sure that business goes on, in times when other nations still worried about religious relics and such.

[Thecla]

This is a lawyer reading the law and telling someone how close to the edge they can walk without being convicted of a crime by the ICU.

Nonsense. This is a lawyer providing "color of law" for torture by claiming that anything which does not involve pain similar to organ failure and death is not torture. The purpose of those memos was not to provide advice, it was to provide legal cover for the adoption of "aggressive" interrogation methods by the Bush administration.

That is what I meant when I said, "I think the administration painted the grey area about as far as you can go without being definitely illegal." And... this is your opinion?

And what is your opinion? Do you think, just to be specific, that the CIA tortured Khalid Sheik Mohammed, or not?

The CIA is center stage on this one, with the tacit backing of the Bush Justice Department, although torture via rendition has been practiced by all of our allies including Canada and the UK

The CIA clearly had explicit backing from the Bush Justice Department. But it's interesting how quickly you jump from "the CIA is center stage" to "torture has been practiced by Canada and the UK" without acknowledging in between that the the US has tortured people.

[Thecla]

And this news just in: In a further outrageous act of asymmetrical warfare, another Guantanamo detainee kills himself.

[kandrathe]

And this news just in: In a further outrageous act of asymmetrical warfare, another Guantanamo detainee kills himself.

I guess, being the skeptic, before jumping to the conclusion that it is outrageous, I would want to know the suicide rate at Gitmo in proportion to say the suicide rate in other prisons. From what I've read on the topic, many of the detainees have been attempting to kill themselves from the first day they arrived. And, in a way, they've been suicidal martyrs even before they were incarcerated. Do you think that doing so might just be another part of their struggle?

[Thecla]

before jumping to the conclusion that it is outrageous

Of course it's outrageous. How dare he kill himself?;)

[Vandiablo]

What would Cheeses do?? . . . . . . (ramble)

There is little denying in that, except that the Netherlands are not part of Scandinavia, and that tofu can taste decent if properly prepared. But yes, we Dutch are pretty good in making profits from all sides in a conflict, and getting away with it. Always have been. We even started a few wars here and there, to make sure that business goes on, in times when other nations still worried about religious relics and such.

Don't forget many of us went to America to make our fortunes. Okay, so our kids married non-Dutch, but some of us still have the Dutch names.

My great-grandparents referred to themselves as Hollanders, to distinguish themselves from the "Pennsylvania Dutch" who were German. Americans couldn't hear "Deutsch" (sp?) without thinking Dutch, so the Pa. Germans became Dutch in Americans' minds. (Evidently geography is still a problem for many Americans.) Also, I've heard some people say that Hollanders were a touch snobby and believed Holland to be the most refined part of the Netherlands, so that may also be why Hollanders would prefer not be called Dutch.

If you look at an old map of New York, you may see the spelling "Brooklijn". I'm not sure how the Dutch would spell "Dodgers". First the British took New Amsterdam away, renamed it New York, then insurgents took it back, then the British imperialists invaded it again, insurgents take it back, the citizens send soldiers to fight a civil war and some international wars, a giant ape terrorizes it, and then it's attacked twice by religious zealots. Your typical 400 year history.

If we are talking food, the Dutch are winners over Americans when it comes to the important stuff: cheese. The best U.S. cheese, Monterey Jack, has heavy Spanish influence. The only other U.S. cheese to be recommended is Wisconsin Sharp Cheddar (also white cheddar). It is not surprising that "American Cheese" is not cheese at all, just a mass of orange chemicals made to taste good on a burger (as opposed to tasting good to a burgher?? HAW HAW *snort*). Of course, the English do slightly better than the Dutch in cheese matters, for who can outdo a Stilton? Not even the French.

If you are talking about Scandinavia and food, and you have no fish, then you don't know what you're talking about.

--van der diablo

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm not sure how the Dutch would spell "Dodgers".

Dodgers; B-U-M-S; Dodgers.

Glad to be of help:)

--Pete

[Jester]

I guess, being the skeptic, before jumping to the conclusion that it is outrageous, I would want to know the suicide rate at Gitmo in proportion to say the suicide rate in other prisons. From what I've read on the topic, many of the detainees have been attempting to kill themselves from the first day they arrived. And, in a way, they've been suicidal martyrs even before they were incarcerated. Do you think that doing so might just be another part of their struggle?

Wouldn't you need some kind of assumption about the numbers that are innocent vs. guilty to make that kind of question sensical?

Someone who was thrown in Gitmo on bogus suspicion would obviously not be continuing a "struggle" they never were a part of, but I can certainly see the motive for suicide.

It appears that the actual suicide rate (for completed suicides) is staggeringly low, but suicide attempts seem quite high. This is probably an issue of the degree of control, and may suggest that comparisons with normal prison populations would be impractical.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Wouldn't you need some kind of assumption about the numbers that are innocent vs. guilty to make that kind of question sensical?

That would need to also be a factor, yes. However, if you knew with certainty that a person was innocent, then why would they continue to be incarcerated. The studies I've seen suggest that the "innocent" who are locked up are the most compliant prisoners (already being "different" from the guilty prisoners). My presumption would be that innocent people would be less inclined to suicide attempts, although they would probably feel most justified in trying to escape. Also, I would expect the suicide rates in all prisons to be higher than the general population as people who commit crimes suffer already from a level of anti-social isolation. Suicide as an option would also vary great by person depending on their individual mental conditions.