Torture
Iraq, National Politics Comments (2)
Well, it’s official now. I’m a fascist.
Since Stephen Siciliano posted his comments in response to a post about Kerry’s economic policy then I’m not going to assume that he has anything of substance to contribute at all. Yet, I do want to deal with his comment:
Shouldn’t you be busy defending torture as “fraternity activity” along with the rest of the fascists?
Really, though. What’s to defend?
Torture is indefensable. There is never any call for it.
As it relates to the US Military and Abu Ghraib prison, notice what FM 34-52 has to say about torture:
PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FORCE
The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.
Additionally, the inability to carry out a threat of violence or force renders an interrogator ineffective should the source challenge the threat. Consequently, from both legal and moral viewpoints, the restrictions established by international law, agreements, and customs render threats of force, violence, and deprivation useless as interrogation techniques.
Having read the Taguba Report several times now, it looks like several acts which can fairly be described as torture under Convention III of the the 1947 Geneva Conventions have occurred.
Those acts set back our cause. They do nothing to pacify the region. Soldiers doing these things because they want to go home will end up staying longer in theater since the region is not pacified. And, as FM 34-52 points out, any intelligence information gained through the use of such tactics is suspect.
COL Thomas Pappas, Commander, 205th MI Brigade, should have known this already. The soldiers under his command should have known this already. If his soldiers did not, then he should be held accountable for their actions and his failure to train them. In my opinion, a general court-martial is not out of line.
BG Janis Karpinski, Commander 800th MP Brigade, should have known that the soldiers under her command were primarily tasked with the protection of detainees. The soldiers under her command should also have known of this primary tasking. They acted as though they did not, and she should be held accountable for their actions and her failure to demand proper training for them. Military discipline broke down in the ranks of the 800th MP and that breakdown appears to have gone all the way up to include BG Karpinski. Again, in my opinion, a general court-martial is not out of line.
But notice something. I am not suggesting that we turn either BG Karpinski or COL Pappas over to a roomful of detainees. I am not suggesting that we execute their families or random Americans for the sins that were committed or allowed by them. This is an opportunity for the United States to show the world, and the Arab world in particular, how a country guided by due process and the rule of law works when things do break down.
Compare this, though, with the torture and murder of Nicolas Berg.
First of all, notice that Mr. Berg was kidnapped before the allegations of torture were public. I guess it is possible that Zarqawi knew of what was going on inside the prison and decided to kidnap someone and kill them in retaliation. I don’t think that is very likely.
Why? Because Abu Musab Zarqawi has to be the world’s absolute worst tactician. And in a country that boasted the tactical genius of Saddam Hussein (who did not even last as long in combat as the Taliban did) that’s saying something. The only way that this could become a win for Zarqawi is if his objective is to increase the incidence of torture (thus outraging the Arab street). If his objective is to decrease the incidence then he has to know that his actions do not endear him to those he is trying to influence. If his objective to cause an uprising of the Arab street in response to his actions then the almost universal revulsion to them says it all. Even Hizb’Allah has condemned what he has done (see today’s previous entry).
But also notice that he says that he offered to trade Berg for some detainees. Now, wait a minute. I thought the objective here was to retaliate for prison abuses.
No, I think what we see is that Zarqawi’s motive here is to cause terror and revulsion in hopes that the US will be so terrified or revolted that we will pull out of Iraq and he can claim victory. So, the policy here was to inflict torture and pain. Unless the US does it, no one will hold Zarqawi for trial. There will be no due process. He will go unpunished.
Perhaps, Mr. Siciliano, since you hate everything about America, you would care to justify that?
MickC @ May 13, 2004