Different strokes on the water board...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tequila
The system did not work in the critical phase of meting out justice to the responsible. This only encourages further errors in the future. You regard this as a fundamental flaw(?) in the system, I regard it as a breakdown.
I too regard it as a breakdown but it it indeed also a fundamental flaw. You've identified the problem, now suggest a solution -- not one that would be nice but one that can realistically be applied and work.
Quote:
...I guess you are just more cynical than I.
Yep. Your turn will come... :wry:
Quote:
What is telling, incorrect, and irrelevant about it? Please explain.
Telling is the choice of words; there was no 'hollywood' about it nor was there any question of 'tough guy' or any macho BS. Those are typical progressive or collegiate talking point words used in an attempt to belittle any non-metrosexual behavior in this touchy feely era.
It was incorrect because the interrogation rules were a calculated response to an extant problem. People who have been trained to resist ordinary interrogation measures and who are aware of our normal methods (all available in open source as are 90% of our doctrinal pubs) can and will resist ordinary measures and harsher methods can be effective. The major error was in applying that ability to use harsher measures to DoD. We can probably agree that was dumb -- we can probably disagree on the use of harsher terchniques by non-DoD agencies. I have no problem with that (and my cynicism again comes out because we, the US of A, have been operating that way since long before I went in the Corps in 1949...). Rumsfeld and Miller were simply applying needed rule modifications in Guantanamo and they should never have been applied to Iraq. That was one error, one of many.
Sanchez's error was in pushing too hard on Pappas for results when he knew or should have known the possible results of that push. I have no doubt about the culpability of all three but I submit that their goofs do not excuse the actual perpetrators who, as mentioned earlier, all acknowledged they knew what they were doing was wrong. Nor IMO, does their stupidity rise to the level of criminal activity; doing dumb things is not a crime -- may be grounds for action but not necessarily for criminal prosecution. Action has been taken in all cases. May not be what you or I would prescribe but it has been taken.
All that is irrelevant IMO because it has happened, is history and we're unlikely to learn much more from the events than we have to date and I see little sense wasting thought or effort on bemoaning things that can't be changed.
Quote:
The system appears to have resolved the issue as far as military detentions go, but although it failed to properly allocate justice to the guilty...
In your opinion? Possibly in the opinion of some others? I think it did all it could do within its own parameters (and would point out that some of the investigations are STILL ongoing). I suspect some of those adjudged guilty and serving time might not agree with you. Based on what I read, now Colonel Karpinski does not and obviously Sanchez thinks he got screwed. However, do recall I agree that too many SENIOR people got off too light -- it's the American way... ;)
Quote:
...Yet continued justifications for waterboarding by civilian intelligence agencies seems to indicate that the system certainly has not fully resolved its interrogation issues across the government as a whole.
I suggest that it is in fact resolved but that you and some others do not agree with that resolution. Your prerogative. I have no hangups on it myself. Cynicism again...:wry:
Been my observation that one can certainly have and state an opinion on anything but it's best not to go into prime judgment mode until one has all the facts and that one should always recall that if one hasn't had to do the job, it's probably too easy to judge excessively harshly. Wars tend to be brutal and messy and there's a whole lot of gray out there. Absolutes are rare indeed...
Quote:
Sure. I've never been the man in the arena tasked with getting intel out of a detainee. Then again, I'm sure every torturer who ever put hands on an American POW would say the same thing.
Probably. Most of the rest of the world doesn't have all the luxuries that we do -- including the luxury to be nice to ones enemies. Even we don't always have that luxury in practice though it can be assumed we do -- if one just reads about it in air conditioned stateside comfort...
Your opinion and that of some others. However
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarajevo071
How long? Did those punishments fit the crime? Abuse, torture and deaths!?
No. They did not.
Here (in U.S.) you can get more time if you steal pack of razor blades in 7-11 but what do they get for murder? Or rape? Or torture? Same!?
the Abu Gharaib idiots all got jail time -- the Iraqis they maltreated -- not tortured -- were probably all out of jail before any of the abusers were and most of them will be in jail for some time. Every one caught torturing has been tried, those convicted got lengthy sentences and the murder convictions have ranged from 20 years to life -- about the European norm.
Quote:
...Ah, yes... I forget. Victims are only Arab Muslims.
What difference does that make? Other than in the minds of those Muslims (and others, a lot of others) determined to make an issue of it...
. . .
Quote:
And some people are surprised with all this around us asking, "why they hate us"!?
Some may be asking that. I'm not. I've been aware of everything from contempt to dislike to pure hatred directed at the US for over 50 years. Mostly centered in Europe. Nothing new in that.
The last time you started this stuff on this board when I was around, we got to the point where you acknowledged, late or not, the US did more for Bosnia than anyone else did...
What's your point?
Alternative History 101 ???
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tequila
...
Yes, there certainly is a question of Hollywood macho BS. None of the troika of Sanchez, Miller, nor Rumsfeld had any real-world experience with interrogation, coerced or otherwise. They simply believed that getting tougher would produce more good intel in the same way that the average viewer watching Jack Bauer shoot someone in the kneecap to gain accurate, actionable intelligence believes that Bauer's method works...
Still a telling phrase IMO. Sorry. Rumsfeld and Sanchez did not, Miller did. All nominally had access to knowledgeable advisors; in Sanchez case, Pappas -- whom I suspect got overruled in his advice to Sanchez...
Quote:
...The counterproductive and strategically disastrous results of this sort of "common sense" are plain for all to see and have been denounced by real-world professionals in the craft, including many on this very board.
Strategically disastrous? Into hyperbole? Public relations disasters do not equal strategic disasters by a long stretch. True on the expressed disagreement. You did note there were other professionals who disagreed with the disagree-ers? People can disagree on things, that ought to be okay -- and it usually means the real truth is somewhere between the two...
Quote:
...And did I just get accused of being a metrosexual? I've been accused of being a traitor, a secret Muslim, and a rabid right-winger on various internet message forums, but this is a first. Seriously, I've never even bought hair gel. :D
Nah, you got charged with using cheesy metrosexual-like terminology, not the same thing. I also offered up collegiate (I thought that sounded better than juvenile -- remember I'm a dinosuar :D ).
Quote:
Real world examples of reliable, actionable intel produced through such methods, please.
Heh. Ask for the impossible. Assuming I do have knowledge of such, should I post it here on an open forum? I will give you one arguable example -- KSM.
Quote:
A solution would have been for the Commander-in-Chief to man up and accept Rumsfeld's resignation when Abu Ghraib broke...
We can agree on that. I would have, he did not. End of story.
Quote:
... A message of command responsibility would have been sent and the idea that the United States was not just going to punish the little fish while letting their enablers swim off to cushy retirement would have been banished forever...
That would have entailed turning over many years of tradition. While it would be nice, that's unlikely to happen in your lifetime. Ain't the American way... :mad:
Quote:
...Not to mention that the armed forces could have had Bob Gates at the helm that much sooner. Unfortunately, as in many other instances, the CINC chose another path.
Or someone else, perhaps far worse. We'll never know because it did not happen and I suggest it's completely futile to play 'what ifs' with the past.
My worry is the long-term degredation
in the effectiveness and capabilities of the services who use these techniques.
This is not inevitable but it seems to happen fairly consistently with organizations that embrace the use of torture, or even just accept the "necessity".
1. Its always easier to extract a confession via torture than it is to put together a solid case which proves guilt.
2. Interrogators & Investigators who are unscrupulous and willing to quickly resort to torture will meet more performance benchmarks and generally be promoted more quickly and frequently than their more conscientious and professional peers.
3. Over time these unscrupulous people can dominate the hierarchy where they will continue to promote people like themselves and hold back those whose personal sensibilities do not mesh with the priorities and sensibilities of their superiors. Competent professional investigators either quick, drop out, or get stuck in middling positions. Incompetent and unprofessional ones thrive.
4. Eventually the entire organization becomes adapted, not to investigation of real threats, but a self-perpetuating cycle of forcing confessions out of subjects and then using these confessions as "evidence" of the immensity of the plots against us which justify the continued use of torture to stop. In reality, they become less and less able to find, much less stop, real threats to our country. In the end they become entirely odious - cruel, oppressive, and yet unable to do the job they are actually supposed to be doing.
Finally, a question I often ask myself:
Why are the people who most strenuously support the use of torture against "known terrorists with actionable intelligence" also the ones most opposed to the very safeguards that would protect innocent people from being tortured by mistake? Why do we let them get away with framing the discussion as a question of torturing guys like Khalid Sheik Muhammed while implementing a policy of torturing guys like Achmed the corner baker who knows nothing of Al Queda but has a cousin who might know some Jihadis and who once made a phone call to someone whose brother-in-law went to high school with Osama and who ..... (well, you get the idea)?
I'm not sure that your stated concern is truly valid
in this country at this time. Things can change but are really unlikely to do so. We have a national tendency to go too far in one direction and then to over correct and go back too far in the opposite direction -- yet we generally end up after some oscillation in getting it about right. We don't torture -- some people may do so as an exception but we, as a nation don't buy it. The Armed forces certainly don't and punish where they can when it is discovered.
I do not -- and do not know anyone who -- supports torture for all the reasons you state. I possibly would not agree with you on what constitutes torture but I might. Regardless, I do agree with harsh interrogation techniques short of torture -- and I use the US statutory description thereof. Anyone indulging in such torture IMO deserves the harshest possible punishment.
Which leads to to your final paragraph. I'm not at all sure what you're trying to say? Are you implying that we have done that or is that merely a hypothetical based on some things you've seen on blogs written by people who have little real knowledge of the topic?
Uboat509, for your education only:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Uboat509
Anybody know what deaths he is talking about? To my knowledge the Abu G seven were not accused in any deaths.
Of course they didn't. Cover up, anyone!? BTW, since you never heard about deaths in U.S. custody here is couple of links...
Quote:
Iraqi Died While Hung From Wrists
An Iraqi whose corpse was photographed with grinning U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib died under CIA interrogation while suspended by his wrists, which had been handcuffed behind his back, according to investigative reports reviewed by The Associated Press.
...
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0217-09.htm
Quote:
Trial Starts in Abu Ghraib Death
An alleged Iraqi insurgent, Manadel Jamadi, died under intense CIA questioning at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad about 19 months ago. On Tuesday, the government launched the first criminal trial in the case -- but none of the CIA agents who were involved is facing charges.
Rather, the Navy court-martialed Lt. Andrew K. Ledford, a Navy SEAL whose platoon had captured Jamadi and delivered him -- alive, kicking and shouting, witnesses say -- to CIA interrogators on the night of his death.
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052401428.html
Quote:
Manadel al-Jamadi (Arabic: مناضل الجمادي) was an Iraqi prisoner who was tortured to death in United States custody during interrogation at Abu Ghraib prison in November 2003. His name became known in 2004 when the Abu Ghraib scandal made news—his corpse packed in ice was the background for widely-reprinted pictures of grinning United States Army Specialists Sabrina Harman and Charles Graner each offering a "thumbs-up" gesture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manadel_al-Jamadi