• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Torture - What is it? What's acceptable in 2005?

Of course, the ultimate responsibility lies with the top command, but does that exclude individual responsibility? Do you mean that anybody in the SS or the Gestapo could say 'I was just following orders; it's Hitler's fault'. We are people, not ants.
 
I can't tell you exactly what the punishment is for disobeying a direct order is, but I'm sure it's pretty severe. Yes, a person is ultimately responcible for their own actions, but a military is based on the group, and the group's abilities to follow orders, even when the orders are to do something that in the "normal" world would be considered wrong.

Like to point a gun at someone, and try to kill them.

The mistake that is often made, is when civilians try to impose the laws and morals of a civil society, to an enironment that is the polar opposite of civil.
 
Sorry, I have to go again, and I hope to be able to add some words tomorrow.

As for now - I am glad to tell that I had a possibility to get to wear a military uniform with high pay and some priviliges back in Soviet times, and I've denied it after thinking about such possibilities when I could have been made to do something against my own judgement.
After that, all I do - I do as I deem it right. Sometimes I am get punished for it, but mostly not.
But from my short stay in the Army I remember that even according to our Military Statute there are cases when orders must not be obeyed, when they are obviously wrong. And in our history there are such cases, and those disobeyed wrong orders from high authority were granted honors and higher ranks afterwards.
 
Motokid said:
I can't tell you exactly what the punishment is for disobeying a direct order is, but I'm sure it's pretty severe. Yes, a person is ultimately responcible for their own actions, but a military is based on the group, and the group's abilities to follow orders, even when the orders are to do something that in the "normal" world would be considered wrong.

Like to point a gun at someone, and try to kill them.

The mistake that is often made, is when civilians try to impose the laws and morals of a civil society, to an enironment that is the polar opposite of civil.
Click to expand...

Wow... You are wrong here, sorry.
The war has laws. I have mentioned them before. Please read the Geneve Convention materials - I believe that must be there. If a military person deliberately kills a civilian, a POW, etc. - he gets court martialed.
We have a general officer (or was that a colonel?) who have killed a civilian girl in Chechnya, as he personally thought she were a sniper killing his men. It turned out he has been wrong, so he is in jail now. That's justice. War or no war, if a member of a legal govt agency is doing illegal things - he must be punished for it. General or private - all alike.
 
I am fully aware that there are laws and rules in war, but the line is very blurry and very difficult to define in many cases. If a chain of command is demanding results down through the ranks from the upper end on down through to the private, it is very hard for the private to "dis-obey" the order without facing huge consequences.
 
Motokid said:
I am fully aware that there are laws and rules in war, but the line is very blurry and very difficult to define in many cases. If a chain of command is demanding results down through the ranks from the upper end on down through to the private, it is very hard for the private to "dis-obey" the order without facing huge consequences.
Click to expand...

If you are a adult you are supposed to take responsability for your own actions. The guards in abu ghraib knew exactly what they did and they knew it was illegal. They cant possibly be stupid enough not to know. From the pictures it dont exactly look like they are disgusted at what they have to do.

Even in the army you can disobey a direct order if it is illegal. If an officer had ordered them to do what they did and they had refused, the officer would probably be put on trial, not the private.

They are people, not sheep. At least i hope so.
 
novella said:
As I said earlier, I believe that if a society does not extend the same human rights and democratic principles to everyone it deals with, not just its own citizens, then those principles are arbitrary and meaningless.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Motokid said:
I am fully aware that there are laws and rules in war, but the line is very blurry and very difficult to define in many cases. If a chain of command is demanding results down through the ranks from the upper end on down through to the private, it is very hard for the private to "dis-obey" the order without facing huge consequences.
Click to expand...

So, in principle it is exactly the same as in civil life: when ordered to do something you think wrong, you have two alternatives: to do as ordered, and get promoted, etc., or to disobey, and suffer for it. As far as I can look in history, it is full of both examples. So in the end it is simple: is the human being human enough to behave as a human being, or conformist enough not to trouble his/her own mind with rightness/wrongness of the decisions of higher authorities.
Somehow it seems to me that a free person must always question it if higher authority is right. If a person lets it go unquestioned that the boss is always right - such a person looks like a slave to me. So when a society where such beliefs prevailed gets some important role in the world - it is always bad for all, as there were never a human being in history who never made a single mistake. And if a nation without doubt is ready vigorously to fulfill any order from people at the top - surely disaster will follow... We have seen it in Germany, Russia, Japan, Campuchia and other places.
 
novella said:
Geenh, you seem to equate personal loss with some priveleged entitlement to righteousness and revenge and also think that an enlightened view of world justice and democratic principles indicates that a person has no understanding of personal loss. That's a close-minded, primitive view.

As I said earlier, I believe that if a society does not extend the same human rights and democratic principles to everyone it deals with, not just its own citizens, then those principles are arbitrary and meaningless.

If anyone is to have an expectation of fair trial and innocence before guilt, then everyone has to have the same privilege. Just read what you wrote above. It's not just those who've lost family and friends who suffer, and it's certainly not an experience that conveys any kind of moral certitude. This notion that due process and considered justice is the territory of 'bleeding heart liberals' tells me that you are operating on the same moral and intellectual level as the terrorists.
Click to expand...


Awwww. Thanks for the kind words! You're way of telling me your point is really quite amazing! Calling me names and belittling me. Everyone can have an opinion. Realise that you're not the only person with a mortgage on the truth and don't use put-downs as a way to put your point across.

I will not say more because of the anger your post raised in me and I shan't even begin to do what you did to me... call me names and judge me for my opinions without understand what I actually meant.
 
History Channel on TV

The Dark Art of Interrogation
Tune In:
Sunday, July 10 @ 8pm ET/PT

"Today, espionage, terror, and psychological warfare collide at specially-designed prisons like Guantanamo Bay, where masters of information-gathering practice the age-old art of interrogation. After 9/11, the US and other countries initiated a new rationale about use of elaborate psychological manipulation to ward off world terrorism. Enter that shadowy world with former CIA Agent Keith Hall, who defends his brutal interrogation of a Lebanese terrorist suspect. Meet Michael Koubi, an Israeli interrogator whose theatrics and deception produce exceptional results. Special Forces operative Bill Cowan explains how battlefield interrogations in Vietnam helped save lives, and US POWs describe the hell they endured. Former Afghan and Pakistani occupants of Camp X-Ray and Palestinian terrorist suspects also offer firsthand accounts. Best-selling author Mark Bowden (Black Hawk Down) guides us through a morally gray world the government would rather you not enter. "
 
Anybody else get to watch this show? It was pretty intense and had some of the same moral conflict issues we discussed here.

There was one interview with an interrogator, who had worked with detainies who were headed for Guantanamo, who had some really interesting experiences. He said the best thing they had found for getting prisoners to open up for them was to have a guy pose as a military official from Egypt. This "actor" was capable of speaking fluent Egyptian with a very specific dialect, and he looked the part in every way possible. They walked through the detainies, and using duct tape they would write down the name of a country and stick the tape on the chest of the prisoner. The prisoner was lead to believe the country that was written on the tape was the country that would get control over the prisoners interrogation and inprisonment. Then they would allow the prisoners to go back to the holding areas. The prisoners knew that the American's would not "torture" them, but they also knew that once they were delivered to the country whose name appeared on their chest, that life would take a drastic turn for the worse. This fear of leaving US custody was enough to get them to open up and spill their guts about everything they knew. I thought that was pretty ingenious. Let their own fears of what other countries would do to them be the leverage for obtaining vital information.
 
Shade said:
They can believe what they like, but we're not at war. As Sergo points out, terrorism is not war. Read Jason Burke's Al Qaeda: the True Story of Radical Islam which debunks the myth that Al Qaeda is some huge worldwide organisation with Osama bin Laden at the top which is out to topple the west. Then look around for Adam Curtis's documentary series The Power of Nightmares which told the history of politicians who, bereft of the ability to promise people shining futures, instead decided to threaten people with fear of shadowy enemies, in order to stay in power.
Click to expand...

Tell the Marines from II Marine Expeditionary Force who just shipped to Iraq that we aren't at war...

Tell the Soldiers from 82nd Airborne we aren't at war...

Tell the Sailors aboard the USS Nimitz that we aren't at war...

Tell the civilian contractors in Baghdad that we aren't at war...

Better yet, explain to the grieving wives, sons and daughters of those who won't be coming home that we are not at war.

Vietnam wasn't an "officially declared War" either, but we still must abide by the Geneva convention.

The one thing that has set us apart from our enemies is our respect for human rights. That has always been the "higher ground" on which we stand. After the bullets stop splatting into flesh, and the tanks are loaded back up, and the occupied country is set on a course of recovery, we have always been able to hold our head up, look the enemy in the eye, and say "We treated you fairly".

After 9-11, when a friend was killed, and a couple of co-workers injured at the Pentagon, things changed. I personally have no problem whatsoever with "pursuasive interrogation" techniques. We have experts who know what they are doing, and can sift through false data. No one (especially radical extremeists) will talk because of torture, they talk because of the possibility of it ending. Death does not inspire fear in these people, but the possiblity of stopping the pain (or discomfort) will inspire speech.

I DO NOT ADVOCATE torture. I do, though, think that there are effective, albeit questionable, means by which to extract data that should be used. I also feel that this is on the short list of "information the public does not need". The problem comes when things get out of hand. Another issue is that we no longer have (if we ever really did have) "objective reporting". The media is so eager to promote "their guy" (whomever that may be) they will report anything that sounds like it might be true if it is against the other guy. "News" has been so misleading that you cannot be sure if what you are reading is fact, or interpretation. "Torture" could be a subjective term used to describe something the reporter didn't like.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Alright! My kind of thread! Wow, there is so much to reply to here, so I'll just go with my main idea first, and reserve the right to post again later.

Posted by MotoKid:
Who is ultimately to blaim for the actions of the military, and the individuals in it? Who is to blaim for the abuses at Abu Gharab and Guantanemo Bay?
Click to expand...

You know, there is one huge aspect WRT to this question that I am very distressed to say has not gotten nearly the attention I would have liked to see.

It all revolves around the phrase "privatley contracted intelligence specialists."

Who are they accountable to? Absolutley no one. Yet is seems very clear they were given authority over ACTUAL MILITARY personnel, and may even have been ultimatley at the heart of the entire mess.

So the problem is that we allowed people who could be above the law to be involved in war time operations IMHO.

Guess whose responsible for that? Maybe another organization rife with problems of no accountability or oversight perhaps?

We've just gotta find a way to reign the fucking CIA in, people.

I'm not naive enough to be suggesting this is a new problem, but that doesn't mean it has to continue to be one. We can't have a bunch of lawless rogues doing God only knows what in our names without being subject to our scrutiny.
 
This was being talked about on coast-to-coast am this morning. I don't know if it's fact or fiction. It could very well be something made up to bolster American "buy-in" to feeding the current administrations policies.....who knows...but if there is any truth to any of this it is really the most frightening scenario imaginable....

I would caution that the link below will not make you feel very good. If you prefer to have a care free day, filled with happy thoughts, and warm fuzzy feelings you may wish to avoid this completely. Sort of the ignorance is bliss mentality.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45203
 
Motokid said:
This was being talked about on coast-to-coast am this morning. I don't know if it's fact or fiction. It could very well be something made up to bolster American "buy-in" to feeding the current administrations policies.....who knows...but if there is any truth to any of this it is really the most frightening scenario imaginable....

I would caution that the link below will not make you feel very good. If you prefer to have a care free day, filled with happy thoughts, and warm fuzzy feelings you may wish to avoid this completely. Sort of the ignorance is bliss mentality.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45203
Click to expand...
Although you cautioned me, I read the article, and now the rest of my day is fucked up.
 
So...getting back on topic....after reading that little ditty...what is acceptable treatment of known terrorists in captivity in terms of extracting any, and all information regarding future plots and future plans?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top