We took lessons from the Soviets and Chinese on torture

[Lanya]

Today's Must Read
By Laura McGann - June 1, 2007, 10:08 AM

Many of the controversial interrogation tactics used against “war on terror” detainees in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan are similar to strategies the United States feared its worst enemies would use against captured soldiers during the Cold War.

Time magazine catches this connection in a recently declassified report, "Review of DoD-Directed Investigations of Detainee Abuse,” that has received little media coverage.

The same potential enemy tactics the U.S. military trained forces to face during the Cold War became interrogation strategies used on enemy combatants.

    Originally developed as training for elite special forces at Fort Bragg under the "Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape" program, otherwise known as SERE, tactics such as sleep deprivation, isolation, sexual humiliation, nudity, exposure to extremes of cold and stress positions were part of a carefully monitored survival training program for personnel at risk of capture by Soviet or Chinese forces, all carried out under the supervision of military psychologists:

The Pentagon began scaling back the well-documented use of these SERE tactics in 2002, which include “prolonged isolation, sensory deprivation (visual and auditory), forced removal of clothing, exploiting prisoners phobias (notably fear of dogs), and threats against family members.” The Army Field Manual now prohibits the use of water-boarding and dogs.

Some critics are concerned that the scale-back has not gone far enough, Time reports:

    In the letter to Secretary Gates, dated May 31, 2007, the non-profit Physicians for Human Rights cites an appendix of the current Army Field Manual that "explicitly permits what amounts to isolation, along with sleep and sensory deprivation." The letter, signed by retired Army General Stephen Xenakis, a psychiatrist and former senior medical commander, and Leonard Rubenstein, the organization's executive director, also points out that the current Field Manual remains "silent on a number of other SERE-based methods (including sensory overload and deprivation) creating ambiguity and doubt over their place in interrogation doctrine."
http://tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003329.php

[sirs]

And............................?  Ready to demonstrate where we're advocating pulling flesh off skin?, dismembering body parts?, pulling tongues out?, being hung from one's private parts?, burning alive?  You know, the things that our current enemy of terrorists perform as SOP, that appears to never get a peep of condemnation from those so fast to lay claim of how vile the U.S. is supposed to be?

[Universe Prince]

Ready to demonstrate where we're advocating pulling flesh off skin?, dismembering body parts?, pulling tongues out?, being hung from one's private parts?, burning alive?  You know, the things that our current enemy of terrorists perform as SOP, that appears to never get a peep of condemnation from those so fast to lay claim of how vile the U.S. is supposed to be?

I was not aware we were supposed to let the terrorists determine what our level of standards is supposed to be.



This is a factor , how many times have we heard the argument that we should be kind to captives for the sake of our own when they get captured?

A reaction to the threat in kind is exactly what happened after Malmady ,and it did not have to get to Washington and back down the chain of command , it was simply a matter of our side learning the story.


As things sem to me I would like very much for our opposiion to rise to our present standard , and for our standard to also improve , but the worser standard is the worser problem.

[sirs]

Ready to demonstrate where we're advocating pulling flesh off skin?, dismembering body parts?, pulling tongues out?, being hung from one's private parts?, burning alive?  You know, the things that our current enemy of terrorists perform as SOP, that appears to never get a peep of condemnation from those so fast to lay claim of how vile the U.S. is supposed to be?

I was not aware we were supposed to let the terrorists determine what our level of standards is supposed to be.

Nor was I referencing as any form of torture standard.  The article again was in referencing to trying to prepare our troops to deal with harsh interrogation techniques.  I'm able to draw the line between that and actual torture.  Are you?  Or do we all need to define our version of "torture"  Forced to eat lima beans and listen to rap music could be considered "torture", if I were a prisoner

[Universe Prince]

Nor was I referencing as any form of torture standard.  The article again was in referencing to trying to prepare our troops to deal with harsh interrogation techniques. I'm able to draw the line between that and actual torture.  Are you?

I believe the article was about the use by the U.S. of those techniques as methods of interrogation. So when you, Sirs, say "draw the line between that and actual torture", are you suggesting these techniques are not torture?

If by your question you mean can I tell the difference between training men in how to withstand torture and using torture as a method if interrogating prisoners, the answer is yes. Which is why I can approve of the former, disapprove of the latter and see no contradiction there. How about you?

[sirs]

Nor was I referencing as any form of torture standard.  The article again was in referencing to trying to prepare our troops to deal with harsh interrogation techniques. I'm able to draw the line between that and actual torture.  Are you?

I believe the article was about the use by the U.S. of those techniques as methods of interrogation. So when you, Sirs, say "draw the line between that and actual torture", are you suggesting these techniques are not torture?

Yes.  I've been on record long ago, that humiliation, psychological & physical stresses without causing physical harm, USED TO INTERROGATE PRISONERS, is not torture.  Torture, as I have consistently seen it is the purposeful & brutal application of techniques to inflict the greatest amount of physical & psychological pain, simply to cause pain and/or death

If by your question you mean can I tell the difference between training men in how to withstand torture and using torture as a method if interrogating prisoners, the answer is yes. Which is why I can approve of the former, disapprove of the latter and see no contradiction there. How about you?

Obviously we have 2 definitions of torture

[Universe Prince]

Yes.  I've been on record long ago, that humiliation, psychological & physical stresses without causing physical harm, USED TO INTERROGATE PRISONERS, is not torture.  Torture, as I have consistently seen it is the purposeful & brutal application of techniques to inflict the greatest amount of physical & psychological pain, simply to cause pain and/or death

So, if I am understanding you correctly, you're saying physical and psychological abuse is not torture if used to interrogate prisoners. That is an odd distinction, and it seems completely invalid to me.

Obviously we have 2 definitions of torture

Perhaps. I'm frankly unfamiliar with the notion that torture techniques used in interrogating prisoners are not torture. As I recall, the basic definition of torture included physical and/or psychological abuse as a means of interrogation. I would be more than a little surprised to find a definition that specifically made an exception for interrogating prisoners, as you seem to have done.

[sirs]

I've been on record long ago, that humiliation, psychological & physical stresses without causing physical harm, USED TO INTERROGATE PRISONERS, is not torture.  Torture, as I have consistently seen it is the purposeful & brutal application of techniques to inflict the greatest amount of physical & psychological pain, simply to cause pain and/or death

So, if I am understanding you correctly, you're saying physical and psychological abuse is not torture if used to interrogate prisoners.

Not abuse, stresses used to facilitate answers to questions pertinent in trying to stop terrorist attacks and the murdering of innocent men, women, & children.  "Abuse" is the obvious inferrence of going far above and beyond what would be considered acceptable stress

That is an odd distinction, and it seems completely invalid to me.

And you are completely entitled to that opinion

Obviously we have 2 definitions of torture

Perhaps. I'm frankly unfamiliar with the notion that torture techniques used in interrogating prisoners are not torture.

That's because you're applying the term "torture" inappropriately, IMHO.  Thus the obvious difference we have in applying the term.  As I said, I could apply torture, in how you're using it, in making me listen to rap music.  It's the what, how & why that differentiates our versions of torture, it would seem

[Lanya]

Right.  The difference is, when we're doing it, it's not torture.  It's  just "stressful." 
When they do it, they get hung after a war crimes tribunal and rightly so.
We are America, hear us torture apply stressors.

PS: I thought "situational ethics" were decried among conservatives.  If this isn't a perfect example of them, I don't know what is.

[sirs]

Right.  The difference is, when we're doing it, it's not torture.  It's  just "stressful."

No, if we do it just to cause pain and suffering, then it's torture, whether we do it or "they" do.   When it's done and is not causing any physical damage, and it attempting to facilitate information to stop the killing of others, then it's not torture, whether we do it, or "they" do

Try to be a little more honest, Lanya

 

[gipper]

I find Lanya's breeziness just another casualty of the mindset of the looney left. Yes, distinctions have to be made. Even John McCain makes them. Interrogation in time of war or other serious peril should not imitate a tea party. But, yes, core values are at stake so our best (not our breeziest) thought should be devoted to the matter. Among the things to consider, aside from downright uncomfortability, are the reliability of the methods, IF ANY, and the degree of harm we are attempting to avert, and the time frame within which averting must be accomplished. A blanket ban on "severe techniques" -- even if such a ban were established de facto by nonuse of certain techniques as part of the regular "arsenal" -- must be rejected so as to save every (approved) tool for use when it really and actually may save a significant amount of lives.

[Universe Prince]

Not abuse, stresses used to facilitate answers to questions pertinent in trying to stop terrorist attacks and the murdering of innocent men, women, & children.  "Abuse" is the obvious inferrence of going far above and beyond what would be considered acceptable stress

Please, if you would, clarify for me the specific difference between 'stress' and 'abuse'.

As I said, I could apply torture, in how you're using it, in making me listen to rap music.  It's the what, how & why that differentiates our versions of torture, it would seem

Um, no. Torture is not annoying people or making them uncomfortable. Torture is the infliction of severe physical and/or psychological suffering. No matter how bad you think rap music is, being made to listen to it is not going to bring you to the sort of psychological fear and suffering that I'm talking about. Waterboarding you or threatening you with large, snarling dogs probably would. The difference there seems pretty significant to me, and techniques of the latter sort are what I've been talking about. And as I said before, I'm not familiar with the notion that such techniques are somehow not torture if used as a means of interrogation. The notion seems, at best, like a weak justification for getting away with using torture for interrogation purposes.

[sirs]

Not abuse, stresses used to facilitate answers to questions pertinent in trying to stop terrorist attacks and the murdering of innocent men, women, & children.  "Abuse" is the obvious inferrence of going far above and beyond what would be considered acceptable stress

Please, if you would, clarify for me the specific difference between 'stress' and 'abuse'.

Stress is placing the body in some form of duress, be it physical, mental, emotional, and/or psychological.  Abuse is the willful attempt at trying to bring completely unwarranted and over-the-top form of stress, simply to abuse & cause pain

As I said, I could apply torture, in how you're using it, in making me listen to rap music.  It's the what, how & why that differentiates our versions of torture, it would seem

Um, no. Torture is not annoying people or making them uncomfortable. Torture is the infliction of severe physical and/or psychological suffering. No matter how bad you think rap music is, being made to listen to it is not going to bring you to the sort of psychological fear and suffering that I'm talking about. ...The notion seems, at best, like a weak justification for getting away with using torture for interrogation purposes.

Again, you need to go back to the beginning, since your version of torture is obviously different than mine.  Causing someone to be afraid is one of the best ways of interrogating. It causes no physical damage, and is not torture, in the sense that "torture" is historically understood to mean....dislocating of appendages, piercing body parts, burning flesh, pulling eyes out....THAT's torture

[gipper]

We need a baseline, perhaps best approached with a hypothetical. It is certain that many US lives (pick your magnitude) will be lost unless crucial information is not extracted in short order from a high-level terorist operative and a preventive operation begun. There is a certainty (no doubt whatsoever) that certain brutal and inhuman techniques will win his capitulation. Do you use those techniques? If so, why; if not, why not? As a closing comment, please take this hypothetical as factually unalterable (no dodges allowed). Further, assume that the target is, say, St. Louis, and that deaths in the range of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined are a realistic forecast. (I know this is a rather hackneyed exercise, but I can't think of a better one to state the issues.)

[Lanya]

Gipper: You find my comment "breezy"? 
Man, you sure are hard to satisfy.   The right's too this, the left's too that.  You're like Baby Bear, can't find the exactly right bowl of porridge.  I'll just leave you to that search.