Torture states love

[solarbird]

A brief history of the new bipartisan acceptance of torture.

Torture states hate being wrong, so make up reasons to send you to jail.

Torture states love redefining "private" to mean "not private."

Torture states don't really care about counterexamples, because effectiveness isn't the point.

Torture states take pride in torture. "Three Cheers for Waterboarding... Waterboarding is something of which every American should be proud."

Comments

[loopback.livejournal.com]

your world is a sad and terrible place.

i swear i did not go looking for this

[solarbird]

Re: i swear i did not go looking for this

[loopback.livejournal.com]

i'll admit it. i lol'd.

[angharads-house.livejournal.com]

Being sincerely convinced you've died is not anguish? I'll grant that I am not a mother-tongue speaker of your language, but that argument seems a bit hard to swallow.

The Laws of War (which I suspect your country has by now formally repudiated) specify that prisoners, detainees and Protected Persons (under Geneva) are to be treated with dignity, in a manner similar to that by which one's own troops are treated. Same rations, same housing, same expectation to perform necessary work for their own maintenance. Nowhere in there, nowhere, does it ever say that maltreatment is permissible. And frequently noted is the principle that maltreatment is forbidden. We have the historic example of Bataan, and others, to provide an example of how not to conduct conflict.

And that is regardless of the provocation. Sure, that's one of the glaring asymmetries of irregular and guerilla warfare, but if we stoop to a level of savagery, then that is what we have become. Savages.

Never on my watch, thank you.

[kathrynt.livejournal.com]

Dude, what about when the terrorists ARE citizens?

Relevant references (edited for clarity)

[angharads-house.livejournal.com]

Here are the doctrinal references, from American sources (Training and Doctrine Command, but widely adapted under NATO standardisation agreements); all of these were still currently in force at the time that I retired (except perhaps for field manual 27-2, which was up for revision although I don't know how far that got). None are classified. If I can find online references to these I will send them presently; but for now, this is a start.

Field Manual 27-2, Your Conduct in Combat Under the Laws of War, Nov 1984. This manual explains the Law of War in very simple terms and highlights those laws that soldiers are most likely to encounter.

Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, July 1956, combines into one document a complete text of the Geneva/Hague Conventions.

Field Manual 19-40, Enemy Prisoners of War, Civilian Internees, and Detained Persons, Feb 1976, provides guidance for the treatment of detainees from point of capture, through evacuation to internment and release from captivity.

Training Circular 27-10-1, June 1979, Selected Problems in the Law of War.

Training Circular 27-10-2, September 1980, Prisoners of War.

Training Circular 27-10-3, April 1985, Instructor's Guide to the Law of War.

I used to have copies of all of these in my working library: when I retired, I passed them back to folks who were still serving, and who would find them useful (none of these were universal issue for us, owing to budget constraints). The 27-series TCs were meant for company, squadron or battery-level training exercises, typically for 'tailgate training' in theb field. The idea all along was to put the ground rules in simple, comprehensible and teachable form. Nowhere in there was maltreatment of prisoners ever suggested, advocated, or permitted; contrarily, the case-studies and problems presented explained why, despite occasional severe provocation, the rights, dignity and well-being of prisoners and other detainees was paramount.

If the command guidance has changed recently, and it might well have, in my deeply-held opinion this was a change to the ill. Warfare, to the extent that it is just and conscionable at all, has clearly definable limits. Torture in any way, shape or form goes beyond those clear limits.

[solarbird]

Are you going to make me play this stupid fucking game for you? Are you really going to make me do this?

Christ.

Fine. I'll do better. Here, American soldiers court-marshalled for waterboarding in Vietnam:

Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment.

"The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College. [src]

Also, you'll find that the US held the same position in the Spanish-American War. But okay, here's Americans pressing war-crimes charges for waterboarding against a Japanese soldier after World War II:

in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.

"Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. "We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II," he said. [src]

Here is part of a transcript from another WWII waterboarding war-crimes trial, for another Japanese officer. Here are more (some repetition). Here are several more.

Does "tried, convicted, and sentenced" count as condemnation?

Here's a picture of the waterboarding equipment used by the Khmer Rouge a few short years after the US army was court-marshalling soldiers for waterboarding. This being one of their principal methods of torture, we can safely assume that this is one of the torture methods prosecuted as war crimes later. The US Navy includes waterboarding in its torture-resistance training programme, because it's torture. Here's a bit of older history on the "water cure," or water torture, or, as we're calling it today, waterboarding, between 1620 and 1940, with references and quotes from original material. President Theodore Roosevelt condemned waterboarding (under another name) in the 19th century. I can't link to the 1949 New York Times article discussion how the Soviet Union forces fake confessions through water torture, but here's a Salon article discussion some of the history of water tortures, all of which are defended by their practitioners the same way you're defending this latest current iteration.

This is stupid. It's all a pointless game of redefinition that comes down to "it's okay if it's us," and quite frankly, I'm just not buying in. And I'm also not buying that "people who oppose torture want the US to lose" line. Fuck that, and fuck you for throwing it at me.

[banner.livejournal.com]

Okay, so I disagree and want to see the stuff which I figured you had so I could read it. That's playing a game? I would like to point out your continual theme of 'torture states (fill in the blank)'.

I'm not of the opinion that 'it's okay for us but no one else' either. I'm curious as to if waterboarding then is the same as it is now.

And I was saying that if you take away all the tools of intelligence (which you have agreed with in at least once case, getting all upset over intelligence gathering of calls that go outside the country) don't be surprised if people reach for tools you like even less.

And excuse me for entering into a conversation that I would never have entered into if I wasn't honestly interesting in hearing more than your (recent) over the top rhetoric in order to see if you might have a point that would convince me. I told you why I feel the way I do. I asked for more information to consider.

I could say more, but what's the point? I will read the links you put here in response, and I will not bother you again.

[angharads-house.livejournal.com]

Yes, waterboarding is the same, now; slightly "improved" for intensity of effect, if anything.

[solarbird]

For the record, I'm not deleting the comments shown as "deleted" above. The original poster is.

Also, I've credited you with a good knowledge of history. These things are obvious to people who are historically aware. Accordingly, I did not presume the question was in good faith. I apologise for that assumption if indeed it actually was.

[banner.livejournal.com]

As I have been given to understand it from various sources, waterboarding as practiced today doesn't actually introduce water into the body of the subject. Yes in the cases you cited water got into the stomach, mouth and even lungs, and it caused unconciousness. If ANY of that is happening in what they are doing today, then yes I am opposed to it. It is okay to cause fear in interrogations of terrorists, they fall outside of the conventions, but it still needs to be done carefully and only in rare cases of special need. But if they're getting water in the stomachs or lungs or even mouth then it's wrong.

[foibos.livejournal.com]

If I ever claim that you are incapable of making any kind of concession, then I'm a liar.

[flashfire.livejournal.com]

Personally, if it were up to me, I'd just kill them all.

Well, I'm glad it's not up to you.

Your fractured viewpoint is not based in reality, much as you and the rest of the braindead right wing idiots think otherwise.

[angharads-house.livejournal.com]

"...I'd just kill them all."

A substantial proportion of the troops would be quite willing to do just that. I fear that we will see more of that attitude as the war progresses.

[risu.livejournal.com]

This is *the* mistake, dude. Means. Ends. All that bringing anguish does is bring anguish; it doesn't keep people safe. It doesn't matter how much you think you're trying to keep people safe while doing it. It doesn't matter how much you *say* you're trying to keep people safe while doing it. You need a spirit of service, a heart for protecting *everybody*, and an ironclad *devotion* to the rule of law if you want to make a difference and save people's lives and liberties.

Or else all you're doing is tormenting people with one hand and writing your legal defense with the other.