Psychological thumbscrewing OK: army

The haunting picture of a hooded Iraqi prisoner standing on a box with wires attached to his hands who was told he would be electrocuted if he stepped off has caused outrage around the world.

But some military-trained interrogators say it can be permissible to deceive and intimidate a suspect during wartime to elicit vital information. And they fear a political overreaction by the US that could curtail methods relied on by the military for years to extract critical information about enemy plans.

"In my opinion, if putting some psychological pressure on someone saves the lives of 200 US soldiers, then maybe that psychological pressure is OK," said Mike Ritz, a former interrogator.

Mr Ritz said military interrogators' means might surprise civilians or offend their sensibilities, but "this is war and interrogators aren't gentlemen. We are liars. And civilians might not understand that."

Practices such as lying to prisoners, intimidating them, screaming at them, stripping them, hiding their faces under hoods, and depriving them of various comforts were generally permissible if there was a valid reason, Mr Ritz said. He drew the line at the sort of excesses committed by soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/03/1083436540317.html?from=moreStories

But American University law Professor Robert Goldman, who specialises in human-rights issues, said of the prisoner who appeared on the box.

"Would we want this to be happening to our soldiers if they were interrogated?

"There is a kind of golden rule here: What if the shoe were on the other foot?"

One leads by example.

THE IRAQI PEOPLE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11

THE IRAQI PEOPLE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WMD

THE IRAQI PEOPLE DID NOT THREATEN OUR SECURITY

THE IRAQI PEOPLE ARE NOT OUR ENEMIES

G-DAMNIT I am so freakin' tired of the justifications!!!

BULLSHIT!!!

:argh:

Some conveniently forget that we invaded THEIR country. They are fighting for their freedom, just as we fought for our freedom from England. After no WMDs, and getting rid of Saddam, the next excuse we trotted out was bringing democracy to Iraq.

Excuse me, but it's up to them to decide what kind of government they want. Not only was the invasion illegal, every pretext we have used is completely wrong. We are the war criminals here.

These people should be compensated for their pain and suffering by the Bush Administration...Cheney should turn over all his shares of Hallibuton to the Iraqi people as a symbol of contrition..

... and people still deny we've become a fascist nation? Horseshit.

The only thing we can do is write and call our elected leaders and scream our lungs out, and we must do this everyday.

I don't even bother anymore. I've realized that most of our elected officials simply do not care what our opinion is.

That's not something I'm happy to say. But it's what I believe. It will take far more than letters and phone calls to stop Imperial America.

Once the empire falls, they'll be more apt to listen, but then it'll be too little too late.

We have to stop - STOP! - looking for heroes that aren't there. Only we can turn this country around. Our corporate-friendly Congress and fascist-friendly USSC and White House don't really give a shit about you or me. Sorry to say it, but it's true. And again sorry to say it, but even if Kerry wins and we pry these traitors out of the White House, little will truly change.

There will be a revolution in our lifetime. Mark my words.

Nicely put. That is the road to maturity.

We need to keep saying this over and over and over again! The Iraqi people are not our enemies!

At least, they weren't until WE invaded and trashed their country.

Those are my sentiments exactly.

bitchin about that ole museum and the dead babies and all them cluster bombs. We have to shut them up because of the "blood and treasure" we have expended to free them from an oppressive regime that used torture (but let you keep yer pants on).

They are threatening me,us or them, while the same people supplying the weapons to them are the same ones making the claims. It is B.S.

And the apologists will start up about how "torture is not so bad if it gets important results". These bastards are so predictable.

Fess up, Mike Ritz, what tortures did you participate in?

On edit - I don't mean the poster, I mean the guy in the article.

Like, say, in the I/P forum.

We all know exactly who I'm talking about.

The UN Convention against torture explicitly prohibits the infliction of mental suffering, as does the Geneva Convention.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1505411

http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/C7DF211E28E6E1E5C1256E8900535FA3?opendocument

KUBARK

http://www.parascope.com/articles/0397/kubark06.htm

MKULTRA

http://www.parascope.com/ds/mkultra0.htm

Frank Olson

http://www.frankolsonproject.org/

Hmmm.. Does anyone remember something that happened a few years ago. Bush and his military co-horts put a policy in action that would allow the US to attack the Hague (think int'l war crimes tribunal), in the even any citizen of the US was on trial for war crimes.

I know this is true.. though I can't determine where to find the details. At the time, we on DU were outraged.. but it never really hit home until we attacked Iraq. They were setting it up so that THEY, not the soldiers would be freed in the event of war crime trials. We also, of course, pulled out of the war crimes agreements globally.

Not that I doubt you - I don't, not at all - but I really want to read more about that. It's insanity. Sheer fascist fantasy.

By the way...

But some military-trained interrogators say it can be permissible to deceive and intimidate a suspect during wartime to elicit vital information. And they fear a political overreaction by the US that could curtail methods relied on by the military for years to extract critical information about enemy plans.

They just admitted they've been breaking international law for years. Not that we didn't know it, but still, this comment should be recognized for what it is: a frank admission that the US tortures people.

"Liberation" my ass!

is that what he's saying? Sounds like it.

I reject this feces,...with every ounce of my being.

No "beacon of peace" would ever spout such trash, period.

But, then again, I am FOR humanity, not against it, as opposed to those FOR some psychotic delusions that they are so much more worthy than the rest of humanity.

UGH!!!

Put these people in a ward where they belong!!!

What in the world is the valid reason for that kind of torture??? I am disgusted!

What an EVIL TROLL OF A MAN

Drew the Line--- EH Sporty ??

Pray tell, where was the line drawn ???

When the POW had a PLASTIC FLASHLIGHT RAMMED UP HIS RECTUM ???

When a GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG BIT HIM IN THE TESTICLES ???

When the POW had a 220 Volt wire attached to the TIP OF HIS PENIS ???

When Lynndie England was encouraged to help the POWs obtain erections so they could perform ORAL SEX ACTS ON EACH OTHER and the PERKY PRINCESS OF ABU GHRAIB PRISON COULD SHOUT "HE'S GETTING HARD"???

If the enemy had done this to OUR POWs the DEATH PENALTY would be in play

What a disgusting degenerate man

saying that the inmates were not combatants and that he would not torture them? I forget his name - high ranking officer.

information, since the victim will say what's needed to make it stop.

This is no way to get truth, but a great way to get agreement! (If you had some preset agenda, f'rinstance.)

There may be a subtle distinction between the two. Interrogation, even when conducted within the relatively free confines of civil law enforcement, has a fairly specific objective in mind. It's not a pretty one.

The thing is, you can never trust the veracity of information which is not freely given. An ulterior motive must always be suspected above anything the subject tells you.

Torture and interrogation often have the exact same objective. It's not to extract information from a suspect, although that might be the obvious first choice. Torture and interrogation instead are designed to make the subject submit to the will of the interrogator. The ideal subject is completely broken down until that person will tell you anything you want to know--or whatever the subject thinks you want to know. The more you can control the subject's mind, the more you control the flow of information coming out of that subject.

The information given is then carefully cross-referenced against known facts and the statements of other interrogation subjects, and from that a wispy afterimage of the truth can sometimes be drawn. Sooner or later the peanuts come out with all the rest of the poop and someone gets to recreate a Snickers bar from it--and feed it to Congress, as the case may be. But this is the most important thing: information extracted by coersion is useless unless verified by physical evidence which cannot be recreated in the interrogation room.

I can almost guarantee you that those poor naked hooded bastards and the people who filmed them constituted at least one less person in the room than were actually there. The other person was a "big fish" prisoner getting a first-hand demonstration of what is going to happen to him if he doesn't play ball. Maybe they were practicing for the big show, but you don't do that for pure, sick fun. You do it to get results.

Is that torture? Probably. Hell, yes. But there's an entire world of hurt beyond which mere degradation goes. That's when you're in to plain, dirty, get-it-now-or-don't-get-it-at-all information extraction--real torture.

If the situation gets desperate enough for the interrogators, real torture becomes an option. When a stick of SAS operatives were snagged in western Iraq back in '91, the Iraqis wanted to know who else was out there looking for SCUDs so desperately that they broke limbs, pulled teeth, and if memory serves, even killed a few prisoners in front of other men.

http://www.flashbacktv.co.uk/productions/index_behind_iraqi_lines.htm

You should be asking yourselves why these American (and possibly British) boys were so willing to go to the extent that they did. What are they looking for, and why are they so desperate to find it? Mark my words: July 23 is the "special delivery" date for something.

How are you going to know if it's bullshit or not? Simple. On the Friday before the Democratic Convention the Bush Administration is going to announce a triumph of some sort--Osama is dead or captured, the WMDs are found, a plot was foiled, it matters f@ck-all. All you have to know is this--did interrogation of prisoners lead to physical evidence, or did they just say it?

If it's merely the latter, it's another Bush Administration lie. Count on it.

<Tinfoil-hat alert> This is shocking, but I bet they've come a long long way since the early days of mind-control/torture coercive techniques. And these stories just look like cruel dumbasses engaging in schoolyard bully tactics. These sound too mundane and simplistic and maybe we're going to be told that after all they were just pranks or hoaxes.

Just something to distract attention?

Paranoia sucks, doesn't it?.

Does this mean practices like in Abu Grhaib are SOP?

Oh, nothing to worry, it's for the good cause.

Or the "mime-shoot the weenies" technique? That is, no doubt, quite specific in its goals.

And one can only speculate as to the genius of the "fellate your cellmate" probe. No doubt, many deep secrets of Saddam's arsenal and the resistance movement are uncovered by forcing prisoners to suck dicks.

Weak.

In and of itself, such humiliation extracts nothing. But as I said, there was probably an un-hooded prisoner somewhere behind that camera, watching, and that guy was crapping his pants.

You know what other evil shit they probably did? They probably handed a warm blanket, a cup of coffee, and a pack of cigarettes to the guy who had to watch it, then un-hooded the others so that they could all see their former boss kicking back and enjoying the show.

Then of course, as soon as the victims are out of the room, you take the blanket, smokes, and coffee away from the main subject and throw his ass in a dungeon somewhere. Now that guy is crapping his pants about being reunited with his former friends. It's all about breaking a person down until the will to resist is fully overridden.

Look, I'm not advocating this sort of practice by any means. It does, however, square very well with what I know about interrogation. Like I implied before, the pictures may have been from some sort of oafish rehearsal, but the intent was to eventually do such things in front of other prisoners, which is even worse and certainly falls afoul of the mental anguish provisions of the Geneva Convention.

Edit: I think there's a pretty good chance that the guys at the bottom of the pyramid learned their craft by actually having to endure similar privations in SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) training. Chances are the party line will be that the responsible people were bottom-tier yahoos fresh out of SERE school. Don't believe it.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov02/fleet.html