Interesting memo. If I remember correctly, the US military uses all of these techniques when they prepare their officers and Special personnel for the possibility of capture. It is part of SERE training.

Not to give anyone ideas, but if we do it to our own the same way that we do it to others, is it still torture?

Bring out the comfy chair!

Correct me if I'm wrong Army guys, but I remember reading long time ago that the legal minimum amount of hours of sleep that a new Army recruit is required to have is four hours. I also heard that the DIs don't necessarily have to give all four hours at once. I wonder if this is true?

To me it's the flip side of the moral equivalency coin. If all ideologies are equally good and it's only our "biases" that keep us from realizing it, then so, too, are all bad things equally bad.

I've seen the major newswires suggest that the beheadings are justified by the Abu Ghraib interrogations. And they're not quoting the terrorists' lie, either- it's inserted into the text. They really believe that the two things are linked and that it's both justifiable and to be expected.

Really, when's the last time a major newswire used the word "terrorist" on their own? Even when a mother and her two kids were blown up in Bagdad the other day, it was done by "militants", "insurgents" or "rebels".

Hey, those kids coulda been working for the occupation, ya know. It could happen.

I have enough time to surf the net and read a variety of news sources to try to get an idea of what's going on in the world, but most people don't. Especially this morning, for some reason I can't quite pin down, I really have a sinking feeling that most of the media seem to have an agenda to remake the world according to their ideals, and truth has been sacrificed to meet this goal.

But, hey, there's no "truth" anyway. It all depends on one's point of view, right?

Interesting. I just spent four hours in the wee hours of the morning standing up on a boat that was returning to its base from patrolling the Detroit-Windsor fireworks, and pulling lookout duty on a 23 foot boat that is pitching and rolling on Lake Erie is a good workout.

I guess the US Coast Guard Auxiliary just committed a war crime against me.* Should I talk to Johnny Cochran?

*The fact that I volunteered is unimportant because, according to other luminaries, I am a poor, unintelligent, sheeple.

Baa.
Bah.

Dang, Mike beat me to my punchline, but I'm saying it anyway...

I worked retail for many years and it required upwards of 8-9 hours a day on my feet - can I sue for damages since that's clearly now considered torture?

“Torture?”

“(10) Removal of clothing

(11) Forced [shaving]

(12) Using [dogs] to induce stress

(1) The use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or severely painful consequences are imminent for him and/or his family.

(2) Exposure to cold weather or water

(3) Use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation.”

Bill Hobbs is a partisan hack and the knee-jerk defense of this administration is making some of its supporters sound quite insane. Some, much, much worse. If anyone needs convincing of this fact, please feel free to contact me to arrange for a few, "simple psychological games" (see above).

Jesus, Shep. You're actually serious?

This is a memo where they contemplated what they MIGHT DO, and Rumsfeld shot down the most extreme examples like the ones you specified. So what exactly is the problem? That they thought at all about, discussed at all, how much was too much?

C'mon Dean, you saw the f*cking PICTURES. Do you really suppose that's all there was or even that that was the worst of it? What do you suppose happens when we spirit some asshole off to Syria or UAE? Hopefully, these guys deserve whatever they get but most of the victims of this shit in Iraq weren’t even guilty of spitting on the sidewalk. There is testimony from military intelligence officers and the prison commander linking Rumsfeld directly to the GITMOization of Abu Graib.

And yes, I actually have a problem with them simply wondering what they could "technically" get away with. They knew the rules, they simply don't believe that rules apply to them. I have a big problem with that because I think that our shit does stink and the only most worthwhile thing we have to export is the rule of law in defense of human liberty and dignity. The rules in question are also there to protect our soldiers but, since they’ve now lost their most important guardian –us – why should we expect anyone else to take them seriously.

You must have a clue what this has done to our moral authority and (the remaining) justification for Bush’s Iraq policy. Anyone who wishes that policy success, who isn’t a hopeless partisan shill, should be outraged and calling for Rumsfeld’s head, not making excuses or glossing over this disgraceful chapter in our history.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Article 13
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Article 14
Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men. Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.

Article 17
“…No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.”

shep I see a partisan hack here and it is you.

Removal of clothing and forced shaving? Hey, I downloaded that video last week, too!

Shep, there are two issues here: The "what can we theoretically do?" issue, you seem to find easy to dismiss. But does the Geneva Convention apply to terrorists? They don't walk around wearing identifying signs or openly carrying arms, after all, let alone operate according to the customs of war.

Be that as it may, of the three articles you quote, surely everyone can get behind 13. No one wants to see another Dr. Mengele. Number 14 strikes me as having slightly more maneuvering room. We don't want women prisoners being raped or having forced miscarriages, obviously, but it's possible to imagine ways of leaning on people for information that would work on one sex and not (or at least not reliably) on the other.

However, there's a word for someone who would high-mindedly apply 17 to everything that twitches: sucker. The issue of whether those in charge of prisoners are in fact distinguishing among mere criminals, honorable combatants, and lawless terrorists, or between suspected and identified members of those groups, is also important. But it's not really possible to address if we're going to keep expressing delicate shock at the mere thought of making prisoners face "unpleasantness."

Well, shep, once you quit jerking your own knee, maybe you can go back and read what Dean (and many others, including yours truly) have said, which includes statements that there were actual abuses in the prison. The people responsible for those abuses should be found and prosecuted.

With me so far? The next step is that Dean is trying to illustrate the difference between certain abuses (naked-butt pyramids, strapping fake electrical leads to genitals, etc) and uses: sleep deprivation, hoods, enforced standing, and so on.

Keeping someone awake for 48 hours straight is in no way comparable to (oh, say) hanging them from a ceiling with their hands bound behind their back, the use of acid, amputations, or forced sodomy with broken bottles.

I respectfully submit that if you can't see the difference between the psychological pressure approach and actual torture, then there is something wrong with your perception, or set of values.

It is true that there are areas that blur the line. An excellent example would be the use of dogs. Apparently many (if not most) Iraqis are more easily terrified by "mean" or scary dogs than are Americans. It follows that bringing a military dog like a German Shepard close to a prisoner, and encouraging said dog to bark, snarl, and cause the prisoner to piss his pants to be a useful psychological technique. Doing this is very different from actually allowing the dog to attack the subject. The latter is wrong.

I hope you can see the difference between those to approaches. The problem is that folks on your side of the fence keep blowing things out of proportion just to score points. There is a huge difference between legitimate psychological pressure techniques and torture, which is what Dean and Bill have been saying all along. They never tried to defend what went wrong; they're just trying to maintain a sense of proportion and a balanced judgment.

This is one of the biggest differences between you and Dean; you are longer satisfied with merely removing Bush from office. No, the heretic must be punished! He must suffer for his sins, before he is cast into the Seventh Circle of Hell, where he will linger for all eternity.

Dean, on the other hand (if he felt that Bush was doing that badly) would just say "look, this guy is screwing up, here's my list of examples (with reliable citations of actual evidence {g}), and the logic which explains how I came to this position. Let's get the guy out of office, and replace him with someone better." (Dean, am I close?)

The actual opposition, on the other hand, has descended to the point where Bush is guilty until proven innocent, and anyone who tries to apply any sort of sane jugment is immediately exorciated as an apologist or knee-jerk reactionary. The logical end result of this can be seen at IndyMedia and other moonbat gatherings.

BTW, Dean, what hasn't really been discussed much yet (that I've seen anyway) is that actual torture really isn't that affective as an interrogation tool. Oh, it's great if you're trying to opress folks, which is why it was so popular with the Nazis, Communists, and Baathists. But it's pretty worthless for information-gathering.

Right, Casey. About all of it. Nothing whatsoever in this memo could ever, by any rational person, be construed as an endorsement of what those jerkoffs did at Abu Ghraib.

As I've said the many times I'm against torture for a variety of reasons. Mostly because we aren't monsters. But also because most experts will tell you it doesn't work anyway, because they tend to tell you whatever they think you want to hear anyway. So why do something inhuman and disgusting just to be told something not useful unless you're just a sadist?

If you're a police force with a quota of "solved" cases from your superiors, you might do it to get confessions without all the hassle of investigating more leads. Not that that happens anywhere near me.

"Much like those who suggest that today's Republicans are Fascists or that Democrats are Communists. What will these people say if actual fascists or Communists come along? If our government actually does start seriously torturing people? Or wantonly killing innocents on a regular basis?"

Interestingly, Hitler's nickname was wolf. All those people who keep comparing him to Bush or calling Bush a Nazi remind me of a certain story...

Casey,

1) F*ck terrorists. They have no rights in international or moral law.

2) George Bush has rhetorically turned Iraqis into “terrorists” and you have, apparently, been completely suckered by this lie. Even the designers of the policy would tell you that Iraq is only tangentially related, on a purely strategic level, to the fight against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. We are the invaders and occupiers of that country, so the onus is on us to prove that our aggression is morally justified and we are actually promoting democratic ideals. Somehow, mass arrest, detention without due process and the “psychological pressure approach” (BTW, Casey, you can’t “piss [your] pants” when you’re naked and forced to keep your hands on your head while a 100 lb. German Shepherd snarls at you at crotch level a few feet away – much as you’d like to) falls a bit short of the standards that should be set by the defender of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Go figure.

3) Since you “see the difference between the psychological pressure approach and actual torture, then”, I respectfully submit, “there is something wrong with your perception, or set of values.” That’s why there’s a rule of law, to help folks who are challenged in their perceptions and/or values. Everyone has the capacity to rationalize why his or her improper conduct is just – exactly what you and the administration are doing – and that’s also why we have the rule of law.

4) If the actual law isn’t not clear enough for you: “…No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind”, try this: how would you want our young men and women (or yourself) to be treated as a prisoner of war? Should say, your sister, be stripped naked in front of an interrogation squad, have a hood pulled over her head and be threatened and interrogated continuously for 20 hours? How ‘bout you Casey?

BTW, I’m perfectly happy to simply remove Bush et al from office and let sunshine and history judge their conduct. The difference between Dean and me is that I have no compunction about calling a spade “a spade” and Dean is not only unable to honestly analyze this administration’s conduct, he actually goes out of his way to excuse the worst of it.

That rant says far more about you than it does about me, Shep.

I notice no links or references for your assertions about the law, either. To the best of my knowledge, very few of the behaviors described in the memo--which was just a memo of possibilities that had to (yes, had to) be thought over--are illegal. If you have a law to cite on that, then do so.

But your ranting about "lies," your bizarre claim that the Bush administration has "turned Iraqis ito 'terrorists'" etc. mark you as a rage-filled, hate-filled person who doesn't know the difference between "someone who disagrees with me" and "someone who lies."

Dean, your dodging the obvious conflict between the requirements of international law, quoted verbatim, and the photographic evidence of what actually occurred as a result of the administration's equivocation (of which the memo in question was a part) mark you as a person who can't reconcile the facts. Since I believe in the power of denial and rationalization, your honesty isn't necessarily in question.

Joshua Boehme wrote:
""Much like those who suggest that today's Republicans are Fascists or that Democrats are Communists. What will these people say if actual fascists or Communists come along? If our government actually does start seriously torturing people? Or wantonly killing innocents on a regular basis?"

Interestingly, Hitler's nickname was wolf. All those people who keep comparing him to Bush or calling Bush a Nazi remind me of a certain story..."

All too true. I say anybody who equates the United States of America at any time past or present with the Third Reich, or who equates any President of the United States past or present (even Andrew Jackson) with Adolf Hitler, is an idiot.

Bush isn't a Hitler. He's merely a Hindenberg, merely warming the chair for the Hitler to come. America today is the Weimar Republic.

Excuse me, but the Geneva Convention is not "international law," Shep, and the U.S. has specifically--and appropriately--stated that they are not bound by that convention here. It is, after all, only valid when between two signatories of that convention, which Iraq never was. This was a war against a rogue state.

Moreover, if you can honestly sit there and think that the fact that the government discussed what kind of interrogation MIGHT be used somehow led to Abu Ghraib, well, I'm sorry, but we really have nothing to discuss.

shep says "F*ck terrorists. They have no rights in international or moral law."

This has got to be one of the most appalling statements I've ever heard on Dean's World. If I understand you correctly, you (apparently) are just fine with the idea of cutting terrorists' throats as soon as we capture them, and dumping the bodies in a ditch. Is this an accurate summation?

Hell, even I don't go that far, and I consider myself pretty hard-bitten. I tend to prefer the Marines' motto "No better friend, no worse enemy." If you cross Marines in combat, you had better hope that God has mercy on your soul, because the Marines certainly won't.

But even Marines don't resort to torture, or casual murder of captives. I'm wondering where your moral compass is pointing these days, shep? There seems to be a remarkable cognative dissonance going on. On one hand, you seem to have relegated terrorists to the status of "vermin." On the other, you cry crocodile tears, and bend your ethics into bizarre contortions to justify calling sleep deprivation "torture."

The rest of your argument is equally sloppy. Let's begin with "George Bush has rhetorically turned Iraqis into “terrorists." Now, maybe I missed a news conference somewhere, but I really don't remember seeing or hearing any sort of announcement that all Iraqis are, in fact, terrorists. Perhaps you can provide links that can accurately cite Bush saying that? After that, you (as usual) argue by conclusion when you say that I've been suckered by a lie, when you have in fact provided no evidence of such a lie. When will liberal/Democrats begin to grow a clue? Repeated assertion does not make a claim true; it just makes it tiresome. As Lincoln once said "calling an arm a leg doesn't make it a leg." Repeatedly claiming that "X lied" (for any value of X ranging from Bush to his entire administration) doesn't make that claim true. You, and everyone else making this claim, have never yet provided any real evidence that would (say) persuade any normal American grand jury to press charges. As a reality check, do you think that Pelosi, Gore, Kerry, and company would hesitate for a New York second to impeach Bush if they had such proof?

You then go off on a tangent that Iraq is not a primary strategic objective in the WoT, while (again, as usual) providing no support for your claim. Apparently the logic of the left these days is "proof by acclimation." Or in the original Latin Ipse dixit (colloquially) "because I say so." :) After this we encounter the usual blather that the US is an "invader," ad nauseum. Can't anyone on the left develop their own arguments, or is there a "Ten for a dollar" sale at "Stale, Overused, & Unsupported Approaches'R'Us??"

Of course I agree that America is obliged to follow the rules of both law and morality, as far as they can. On another recent thread here you (seemed) to come to a consensus with Dean that war is an inherently nasty, vicious business. This is something else I am perfectly comfortable with. To quote the inimitable Sherman, "War is cruelty." We are still, alas, forced to pursue war when necessary.

In this case we are discussing (essentially) the necessity of defending the rule of law against the terrorists' attempts to force Iraq in to a Hobbesian state of nature. Even the United States Supreme Court has said that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." In other words civilized people are not obliged to participate in their own destruction in order to meet some theoretical Ideal of perfect law. Such citizens have a God-given right to defend themselves against predators.

Perhaps this argument may sway you a touch: in the movie Mississippi Burning Willem Dafoe's character agent Ward objects to Gene Hackman's (as agent Anderson) methods of attacking the bigot/murderers of the Klan as "descending into the gutter."

Anderson fires back "These people are crawling out of the sewer Mr. Anderson! Perhaps the gutter is exactly where we ought to be!"

I am quite sure you have no ethical or moral objections to the civil rights violations that the South suffered in the 60s, although -to my knowlege- neither the Constitution nor English and American Common Law recognize such violations as acceptable. My understanding is that distinctions such as "they're criminals/racists/terrorists" are not valid excuses for violating an individual's rights, but I have a sneaking feeling that (in this case) you aren't too fussed about the details, no?

Let us return to the facts at hand. You have provided NO specifics to support your position. You have, instead, (as usual) posited unsupported claims that the US is in fact executing "mass arrests" in Iraq, "without due process," and that [snarling] german shepards "fall[] a bit short of the standards" of America.

I would truely love to see serious evidence of mass arrests. In fact, I suspect that even the New York Times hasn't found the audacity to go that far, but even then such claims would only provide evidence of the Times own extraordinary bias.

"Fact, Watson! I need facts!."

The same follows for your statements about due process. Silly me, but I seemed to have missed that clause in the Constitution of Iraq, unless you now claim that Iraq American territory, with the safeguards thereof? Interesting interpretation, to say the least...

Before you hurt yourself leaping to an abusurd hyperbole, this does not mean that I somehow approve of treating Iraqi detainees as cattle, to do with as we wish. In fact, that would seem to be your gig, if I understood the lead of your response: "F*ck terrorists. They have no rights in international or moral law."

I repeat -again-: how are psychological presssure techniques (clear and specific examples provided earlier) "torture?" You have to date never provided any justification for this position. Please do so. Merely stating that valid pressure techniques are not "proper conduct" is not a rebuttal, but a simple-minded contradiction. I ask again: why are basic psychological pressure techniques such as sleep deprivation, et. al., "torture?"

Ah, but I forgot: shep has brilliantly broken through my defenses with his unstoppable citation of International Law: The Geneva Conventions! (suspensful fill: "da-da-daaaaa...)

NOT. Excuse the sarcasm, but I'd just love to hear just when and where we've been violating the Conventions? As in "abusing prisoners of war." By your own reasoning, the Iraq detainees are not subject to the Geneva Conventions since they aren't prisoners of war. According to you, the abuses are due to the US gadding about, clapping innocent Iraqis into irons in an obscene orgy of inter armes, silent leges. If this is the case, then they cannot, by definition be prisoners of war. Hence they are not subject to the Conventions.

And -whoopsie- there goes you're entire arguement. It's really sad. You used to be one of the intelligent liberals around here. These days, you don't "call a spade a spade," you call it a "worthless piece of Fascist repressive shit who is the Worst. President. Ever." It's pathetic. Really. I'm not even conservative/Republican; I just tend to vote more with them on certain topics than I do with liberal/Democrats. I have to say I would much prefer a "Reagan Republican" leader than the current crop. The theme of "get the government off our backs" has a certain resonance with me.

Perhaps you enjoy the central-state serfism inherent in modern liberal/Democrat thought. I don't.

Oh, that nitwit "what if your sister married one" question you threw out: I have two sisters; one three years older, one three years younger. Both are certifiable liberals. And I'll tell you something, shep. If anyone ever tried any of that shit with my sisters, they'd have serious trouble looking for their balls, because both of them would have clawed the dumb bastards' eyes out first, before drop-kicking their useless testicles for an extra point. You don't mess with West Virginia stock, mi amigo.

But then, my sisters aren't the type to blow up police stations, suicide-bomb women and children, or force the descent of an entire country into bloody, lawless, chaos either.

Just in case you forgot with 95% of those bastiches in Abu Ghraib where there in the first place...

P.S. Mr. E.: an EXCELLENT point I've seen raised elsewhere. Alas, it didn't seem to get much attention here. :(

Casey:
"Oh, that nitwit "what if your sister married one" question you threw out: I have two sisters; one three years older, one three years younger. Both are certifiable liberals. And I'll tell you something, shep. If anyone ever tried any of that shit with my sisters, they'd have serious trouble looking for their balls, because both of them would have clawed the dumb bastards' eyes out first, before drop-kicking their useless testicles for an extra point. You don't mess with West Virginia stock, mi amigo.

But then, my sisters aren't the type to blow up police stations, suicide-bomb women and children, or force the descent of an entire country into bloody, lawless, chaos either."

And neither have those whom we have humiliated, abused, tortured, and killed been shown to be. Your sisters wouldn't get a chance to prove their innocence or encounter anyone's balls, except in a very bad way, if they simply happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Neither would you.

If you and Dean think that's what this country is about and want to parse what's technically legal or whether what we know US citizens have done constitutes "torture", knock yourselves out. You guys stick with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, I'll continue to insist that the United States set an example of humanity and the rule of law in the world.

shep, let me thank you for admitting that you don't have a single real argument to stand on.

No, really. The best you can come up with is snarky remarks about the position which Dean and I both hold regarding interrogation techniques.

Your last reply is sad, even for a squishy liberal like you. :) You just keep repeating the same hoary old lines, because you have nothing better to say. The best you can come up with is an ineffectual snivel that your opponents are being "picky about definitions" when you try to twist words to your suit own narrow political aims.

Or, in this case, you cry that Dean and I are parsing what is "technically" legal, which adverb is intended to hint that we are excusing actions which are, in fact, illegal. Pity you can't seem to find any (oh...) EVIDENCE or anything to support that. Whoops, I'm being "picky" again, aren't I? Heh heh heh...

Admit it. You're flat-out WRONG on this one, and don't have a leg to stand on.

God, I hate being right all the time. {martyred look}