No shame to learn from an expert? What about torture?

Remove all ads!

It appears that a number of the techniques used by the US military in Guantanamo Bay until that practice was abandoned in 2006, have been inspired by the evil Chinese communists, based on what they did during the Korean war to elicit false confessions from captured US military personnel.

That isn't so much new, except for it's clarity. That means that US interrogation practices resulted from application of SERE procedures that had been developed to counter the effect of those Chinese practices.

In that respect the habitually annoying Andrew Sullivan needs to add a facet to his portrait that frames US conduct in terms of the practice used by the Gestapo, called the 'verschärfte Vernehmung', roughly translated as enhanced interrogation (literally: sharpened interrogations'). Similarity in methods aside, I find the parallels Sullivan points out striking in many respects, mainly the highly bureaucratic regulations that mirror many of those made by the Bush administration, but I think that's just the typical result of a highly legalised state implementing torture. What he does well, is to put the practice into context of the Gestapo fighting resistance, terrorist activities and the views on that in post war courts. It gives a glimpse on how in future trials current US justifications will hold up in non-US courts.

The current debate in the US, even though masked through multiple layers of fog (Ticking time bombs galore! Necessity defence! Weak sister liberal!) and garbled and intentionally obstructive language (Eh, it's abuse, not torture; and it is detainee not prisoner), is about the inherent problems of a free society and the rule of law to reconcile its values and principles with torture.

So, just this little experiment. And what are your thoughts?

 

It is just a bit of hazing to welcome the new guys Ragusa! You know that, just a bit of fun and games, no ill intentions. Torture is using stuff like the iron maiden or stretchbenches, not forcing someone to be awake for a few weeks in a row or giving them a quick bath, that isn't torture.

 

I don't like that focus on "China" and "Chinese techniques". All those torture techniques are not exactly specific to the Chinese. Treating the victim like an animal? Filthy surroundings? Exploitation of wounds, causing pain? Those are all pretty basic.

If the Chinese invented some sort of specific, crazy tools for torture purposes, then it might make sense to call them "Chinese techniques". But pinning it on them like this seems to have racist undertones. It would be extremely naive to think that the Americans, or Europeans, never tortured anyone - and what, did they all steal their techniques from the Chinese without bothering to develop their own?

IMHO, this is a silly way to divert attention to evil China while America's under fire for being torturers - "It's not really our fault, it's those bastard Commies what taught us these."

 

I voted for the third option - but if someone decides to torture in an emergency situation against the law in order to get information that they believe is *that essential* to <whatever> that it's absolutely justified in their mind - I probably wouldn't hold it against them. It should never be written into a lawbook that you can torture someone, however.

 

Deathmage makes a damn strong point in questioning the validity of diverting the attention to another government.

 

Iku-Turso,
Deathmage's point is valid only insofar as these technicques are not specifically Chinese. If you read the Gestapo document carefully you'll note that it mentions exhaustion exercises, simplest food and sleep deprivation.

What he misses after getting that part right is that nobody is blaming the Korea-vintage Communist Chinese for Gitmo or US interrogations. The only thing related to that is that the US under Bush has adopted methods previous administrations have condemned as torture when the Chinese (or Vietnamese) Commies subjected American servicemen to them. To object to that is entirely understandable, but this outrage covers equally the Commies and the Bushies.

With great probability the simple reason why the Red Chinese methods went into SERE training and then became SOP for 'enhanced interrogations' was because

• they were the first the US actually studied in depth because of the dramatic impact the 'confessions' of the 'brainwashed' US servicemen had back in the US during the Korean war. In this context the original movie 'The Manchurian Candidate' is instructive. SERE training was introduced to prevent that from happening again. The Chinese inspiration is obvious after someone in the Pentagon, seeking for guidance for 'enhanced interrogations' in Guantanamo, simply took over that chart from Mr. Biederman's 1957 article on Commie torture procedures and merely changed the title.
  
  `​
• from psychological studies and experiences from a few decades of SERE training the US had a 'solid knowledge base' on their use, on which they built. When the Bush administration asked for some hard line options after 9/11, the SERE procedures as an 'option' were on-the-shelf, so to say.

Those recent incarnations of Chinese methods are still an American practice and nobody is denying that. And of course there was an understanding in the US military what this was about and significant resistance against it. It took chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers, to help quash dissent from across the U.S. military against what the administration wanted it to do. Only after Gates took office this policy was reversed.

 

Ragusa I must point out that the initial topic you have chosen to look at (Governments employing torture used by other countries) is not really reflected in the Poll questions.

Having said that I dislike the idea if any form of torture, even if it is for a "good cause" as they say.

 

Yes I'm familiar with Gestapo techniques, Soviet Army interrogation methods and how North Korea treated P.O.W. during the Korean war and the use of these methods to get 'confessions'.

I've also thought of Gitmo as a ruse, or at least...well...a poor understanding of these methods if the goal is to attain reliable information since first and foremost these methods are brainwashing techniques .

You can get sincere confessions out of some people that their mother was a hamster and their father was smelled of elderberries with these methods. Some are more resilient than others though. If the point is to create scapegoats or submissive individuals, then these are the best studied methods to use...

 

The other reason why you are no longer going to get reliable information from the Gitmo detainees - whether torture is employed or not - is that at this point they've been out of the loop for so long that they really don't know what's going on. Even if some of these people are bona fide terrorists, they have now been held at Gitmo for over six years. There's no chance that they have any detailed information about some future terror plot, because they haven't received orders from the leadership of terrorist organization since prior to being taken captive.

 

Magister,
isn't it indifferent who does it?

Also,
let's keep in mind is that SERE training was from the onset supposed to prepare soldiers for the illegal bestialities that it was expected would be inflected on American prisoners if they fell into the hands of the communist enemy, to introduce soldiers to what methods were to be expected of an enemy devoid of decency.

To see such methods being adopted by the Bush administration as a policy ...

 

We've had this discussion before and if Bush keeps it up we'll probably have it again. I agree that waterboarding in particular is torture, as is deliberately malnourishing the person being interrogated. I would imagine, though, that there are people who think along these lines (I don't, at least not to the extent of frequent torture):

"Our enemies will use repugnant techniques on us. This is immoral. If we react submissively to this, we will lose this conflict. Therefore, we must respond aggressively. Sometimes you have to get dirty to stay alive. If we're immoral too, at least we will have saved our way of life."

At this point I am inclined to agree with Aldeth. Torturing the Gitmo detainees serves no purpose if your goal is to gather information. It might make some people feel better in that the people who have supposedly attacked America are being punished, but that's an entirely different use of torture, and one that I only advocate in the case of violent sex offenders.

 

To be honest, who cares where the techniques came from. Torture (and various treatise on torture) have been around for thousands of years. You can learn nearly every technique ever used by going to your local library.

The guys at Gitmo were actually pretty smart to bring in someone with experience on how to do the torture without killing the subject.

If I'm not mistaken, the SERE instructors are routinely briefed by the intelligence community to ensure the training is realistic. Perhaps the real trainers on torture techniques are not even mentioned in the article.

 

Is that your view? I thought you wiser than that.

Great article on the administrative genesis: The Green Light

 

mhm. This is why God invented Presidential pardons (or whatever the Euro equivalent is). If you absolutely, positively need to violate the law for the greater good of society--well, fine. If you're right, there's a decent chance you'll be pardoned (imagine the uproar; 'interrogator sentenced to 30 years for preventing nuclear strike on Manhattan'). If you're wrong, well...

 

Would you care to elaborate on that? It's difficult to make any response with such an ambiguous statement. What exactly do you think is foolish in the comment?

 

I voted for the first option. Extreme circumstances call for extreme means--regardless how repulsive they are.

That said, Torture should be reserved for the most dire of situations...

 

I voted for the 3rd option. But I am also with Gnarf abit on this. It depends on the extremeness I think. And whoever orders the torture had better be damn sure they will get vital info out of it. If a fellow being tortured is inncent, the act of torture itself is kind of like terrorism.

 

T2,
the torturer is hostis humani generis. What about his apologist?

Yesterday I saw this post, which sums up nicely what I think

I attribute some weight to that view because the man, a Green Beret, has himself interrogated prisoners in Vietnam as an intelligence officer and later was at the DIA the 'Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East, South Asia and Terrorism,' and later the first Director of the Defense Humint Service. He knows what he is talking about, and I greatly respect his views, knowledge and experience.

In my understanding of military honour, I would have expected something along the line of that happening in America after Abu Ghraib. Alas, it did not. It did not happen because America's torture policy was not an accident but intent, and ordered from the top of the chain of command and because, I'm guessing, the soldiers at the top didn't see a point to step down and take blame and responsibility for something that was forced on them by their civilian leadership.

I have said it before, the so-called 'debate' sufferers from the basic malady, that people fail to differentiate between revenge or punishment and interrogation.

After interrogation there is plenty of time for revenge or punishment if need be - when he's finished talking give the guy a proper trial in a military commission (not that joke Bush set up) and then set him free, or lock him up or put him to a wall - whatever fits. Swagger, lust for revenge, more respectably dressed up as a 'rational' 'cost-benefit analysis' sweep all differences aside.

For the proponents of torture the question is decided on whether the recipients of such treatment are felt to 'deserve it' and whether they can persuade themselves that torture could potentially save lives. After that, better quickly drop the issue before they get second thoughts. Like that under a worst case oriented view every information in war can potentially save lives, which means torture is always 'worth it'. Or that under that rationale the potential benefits always justify the application on mere suspicion, after all there could be dire consequences if he knew something. The inevitable effect is that torture will become widespread, and teach the interrogators that if a little force works, more works even better. Excess is guaranteed.

In the cost-benefit analysis the benefits are always seen in the brightest light while the potential risks are at their darkest. I think that is because even a torturer has to convince himself that what he does, however revolting, serves a greater, noble purpose. That applies for the apologists as well. In the essence the torture proponents are projecting their worst nightmares (ticking timebomb!) on their 'potential information sources', about the character of the subjects as much about the potential threats. That way than can rationalise away their own scruples and feel good about their choice. Too bad they're deluding themselves. The entire justification is a house of cards - speculations based on assertions. This is a generated hysteria with little relation to reality.

The administration sure did their best to label everyone at Guantanamo as terrorists, the worst of the worst. After 9/11 the apparent gut reaction toward what to do with anyone accused of terrorism was to say that they do 'deserve it', after all they are terrorists, and that that's justification enough for about everything.

Such views are still relatively widespread if recent polls are any indication, and it will remain like that for a while. Torture, as the GOP presidential primaries have impressively demonstrated, has the potential to become another wedge issue in federal elections in the US.

 

Ragusa, as usual you didn't answer my question. Instead of making a simple reply to clarify your comment, you chose to take the opportunity to write another essay on the evils of the Bush Administration.

This is getting quite boring.

By the way, I did not say I agreed with the tactics used -- only that the people at Gitmo were smart to learn how to be non-lethal.

 

There was a question? I understood that 'who cares ...' to be entirely dismissive/relativistic/rhetorical. And if it was a question did I answer it. It is relevant because the US has embraced as a policy the use of methods they themselves condemned and recognised to be used by an enemy devoid of any decency. Rightly so, I think. That doesn't strike you as remarkable at all?

I delved not into the evils of the Bushies but into obvious flaws of the argument, as I understand it, that is being made for the use of torture in the so-called 'debate' in the US. I think that what I wrote in that essay at least in part reflects your view. You can tell me if I am wrong. I don't know for sure because you are a little ambiguous yourself. I thought my 'essay' would give you something to pick up to clarify your point.

That means you do not approve of their use, but find the use smart as long as it doesn't kill them? Or do you find torture that doesn't kill is a smart thing to use, as opposed to torture that does, which you disapprove of? Or do you mean that while torturing they were smart not to kill because then it would have been murder?

I don't understand what you mean. Is that something about 'minimalising neccessary evils' or are you just hedging?