About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5


Post 100

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 12:53pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
“I am skeptical of the Iraqis' ability to forge a lasting peace and a just polity … But I hope they can do so, and I hope that others who opposed the war and oppose the occupation will join me in that hope.” - Tom's blog

Actually, those sentiments are not too far from my own over the past months: ”Hope: Real or Mirage?” ”Hubris?” and ”Democracy For What?”

I don’t know, Tom, sometimes I see the fiery radical who harbors ill-will and hurls outrageously inflammatory invectives and at other times I see a sensitive (understandably) pained being trying to keep his sanity and soul in a crazy world (aren’t we all?) Thanks for the interesting read – I’ll check your blog for more.




Post 101

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 1:19pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Quoth Robert Davison (in a post I just noticed -- I've been in and out and missed quite a bit I think):

Quoting Me:

"Thus far, what they've turned up are: A few pre-1991 chemical artillery shells which do not appear to have been part of the Iraqi government's stockpiles after 1991 (i.e. they were probably taken off the battlefield and hidden by rebels or people who thought they could make money with them); and no evidence whatsoever of an operational relationship between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda."

Robert: "That's Monday morning quarterbacking."

Actually, whether or not it's Monday morning quarterbacking depends on whether I only began pointing it out after the invasion, or whether I was saying it beforehand.

In point of fact, I was half-right and half-wrong. I expected them to find chemical weapons, and said so. I was wrong. I didn't expect them to find evidence of an operational relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda, and said that, too. I was right.

Tom Knapp



Post 102

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 1:20pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Quoth Jason:

"I don’t know, Tom, sometimes I see the fiery radical who harbors ill-will and hurls outrageously inflammatory invectives"

That's a reasonably accurate description. Of course, the measure of invective's outrageousness isn't whether or not it's inflammatory, but whether or not it's accurate.

"and at other times I see a sensitive (understandably) pained being trying to keep his sanity and soul in a crazy world (aren’t we all?)"

Nah. You got me wrong there. I'm not especially sensitive or pained, except when I'm with my spouse and happen to have a rock in my shoe ;-)

As far as reconsidering any opinions goes, reach your own conclusions. That's all you can do. I don't know anyone who agrees with me on everything, or even that many people who agree with me on most things. That's okay. My blog is mostly just radical invective.

Regards,
Tom



Post 103

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 6:26pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

Post 101

Thursday, May 5 - 1:19pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Quoth Robert Davison (in a post I just noticed -- I've been in and out and missed quite a bit I think):
Well half wrong is better than nothing, but answering half a post is not.  I also pointed out the al queda connection.

I also commented regarding the memo you mentioned.  You must have missed that as well.




Post 104

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 6:46pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Quoth Robert Davison:

"I also commented regarding the memo you mentioned."

Did you? I saw a comment about a memo that "mentioned that Arabs are afraid of dogs," but that's not the memo I was referring to. I was referring to General Sanchez's memo of September, 2003, which specifically approved of 32 interrogation techniques including at least two forms of torture (sleep deprivation and stress position maintenance, both of which were rightly decried as torture when the North Vietnamese applied them to US troops), as well as at least two forms of abuse specifically outlawed by the Geneva conventions (deprivation of nutrition and prevention from fulfilling religious duties).

Tom Knapp



Post 105

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 6:13pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I invite your attention to "V" which prohibits sleep deprivation.

   September Sanchez Memo
    Department of Defense
    Sunday 14 September 2003

UNCLASSIFIED
    Page 1     Department of the Army
    Headquarters, Combined Joint Task Force Seven
    Camp Victory, Baghdad, Iraq
    APO AE 09335     CJTF-CG
    14 SEP 2003     MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, U.S. Central Command, 7115 South Boundary Boulevard, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida 33621-5101     SUBJECT: CJTF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy

View page one of the original pdf image.
(Photo: ACLU / FOIA)  


View page two of the original pdf image.
(Photo: ACLU / FOIA)  


View page three of the original pdf image.
(Photo: ACLU / FOIA)  


View page four of the original pdf image.
(Photo: ACLU / FOIA)  


View page five of the original pdf image.
(Photo: ACLU / FOIA)  


View page six of the original pdf image.
(Photo: ACLU / FOIA)  

    Enclosed is the CJTF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy, modeled on the one implemented for interrogations conducted at Guantánamo Bay, but modified for applicability to a theater of war in which the Geneva Conventions apply. Unless otherwise directed, my intent is to implement this policy immediately.     Ricardo S. Sanchez
    Lieutenant General, U.S. Army
    Commanding     Encl
    BS

UNCLASSIFIED
    Page 2     Headquarters
    Combined Joint Task Force Seven
    Baghdad, Iraq
    APO AE 09335     CJTF-CG
    14 SEP 2003     Memorandum for:     C2, Combined Joint Task Force Seven, Baghdad, Iraq 09335
C3, Combined Joint Task Force Seven, Baghdad, Iraq 09335 Commander, 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, Baghdad, Iraq 09335     SUBJECT: CJTF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy     1. (S/NF)(U) This memorandum establishes the interrogation and counter-resistance policy for CJTF-7.     2. (S/NF)(U) I approve the use of specified interrogation and counter-resistance techniques A-DD, as described in enclosure 1, subject to the following:      a. (S/NF)(U) These techniques must be used within safeguards described in enclosure 2.      b. (S/NF)(U) Use of these techniques is limited to interrogations of detainees, security internees and enemy prisoners of war under the control of CJTF-7.      c. (S/NF)(U) Use of techniques B, I, O, Y, AA and CC on enemy prisoners of war must be approved by me personally prior to use. Submit written requests for use of these techniques, with supporting rationale, to me through the CJTF-7 C2. A legal review of CJTF-7 5JA must accompany each request.     3. (S/NF)(U) CJTF-7 is operating in a theater of war in which the Geneva Conventions are applicable. Coalition forces will continue to treat all persons under their control humanely.     4. (S/NF)(U) Requests for use of techniques not listed in enclosure 1 will be submitted to me through the CJTF-7 C2, and include a description of the proposed technique and recommended safeguards. A legal review from the CJTF-7 SJA must accompany each request.     5. (S/NF)(U) Nothing in this policy limits existing authority for maintenance of good order and discipline among detainees.     6. (S/NF)(U) POC is (redacted) DNVT (redacted) DSN (redacted)     Richardo S. Sanchez
    Lieutenant General, USA
    Commanding     2 Encls
    1. Interrogation Techniques
    2. General Safeguards     CF: Commander, US Central Command

SECRET//NOFORN

UNCLASSIFIED
    Page 3     Enclosure 1     Interrogation Techniques     (S/NF)(U) The use of techniques A-CC are subject to the general safeguards as provided below as well as specific implementation guidelines to be provided by the 205th MI BDE Commander. Specific implementation guidance with respect to techniques A-CC is provided in U.S. Army Field Manual 34-52. Further implementation guidance will be developed by 205th MI BDE Commander.     (S/NF)(U) Of the techniques set forth below, the policy aspects of certain techniques should be considered to the extent they reflect the views of other Coalition contributing nations. The description of the technique is annotated to include some policy issues that should be considered before application of the technique.     A. (S/NF)(U) Direct: Asking straightforward questions.     B. (S/NF)(U) Incentive/Removal of Incentive: Providing a reward or removing a privilege, above and beyond those that are required by the Geneva Convention, from detainees. [Caution: Other nations that believe detainees are entitled to EPW protection may consider that provision and retention of religious items (e.g. the Koran) are protected under international law (see, Geneva III, Article 34).]     C. (S/NF)(U) Emotional Love: Playing on the love a detainee has for an individual or group.     D. (S/NF)(U) Emotional Hate: Playing on the hatred a detainee has for an individual or group.     E. (S/NF)(U) Fear Up Harsh: Significantly increasing the fear level in a detainee.     F. (S/NF)(U) Fear Up Mild: Moderately increasing the fear level in a detainee.     G. (S/NF)(U) Reduced Fear: Reducing the fear level in a detainee.     H. (S/NF)(U) Pride and Ego Up: Boosting the ego of a detainee.     I. (S/NF)(U) Pride and Ego Down: Attacking or insulting the ego of a detainee, not beyond the limits that would apply to an EPW. [Caution: Article 17 of Geneva III provides, "Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." Other nations that believe detainees are entitled to EPW protections may consider this technique inconsistent with the provisions of Geneva.]     J. (S/NF)(U) Futility: Invoking the feeling of futility of a detainee.     K. (S/NF)(U) We Know All: Convincing the detainee that the interrogator already knows the answers to questions he asks the detainee.     L. (S/NF)(U) Establish Your Identity: Convincing the detainee that the interrogator has mistaken the detainee for someone else.

SECRET//NOFORN

UNCLASSIFIED
    Page 4     M. (S/NF)(U) Repetition: Continuously repeating the same question to the detainee within interrogation periods of normal duration.     N. (S/NF)(U) File and Dossier: Convincing Detainee that the interrogator has a damning and inaccurate file, which must be fixed.     O. (S/NF)(U) Mutt and Jeff: A team consisting of a friendly and harsh interrogator. The harsh interrogator might employ the Pride and Ego Down technique.[Caution: Other nations that believe that EPW protections apply to detainees may view this technique as inconsistent with Geneva III, Article 13 which provides that EPWs must be protected against acts of intimidation. Consideration should be given to these views prior to application of the technique.]     P. (S/NF)(U) Rapid Fire: Questioning in rapid succession without allowing detainee to answer.     Q. (S/NF)(U) Silence: Staring at the detainee to encourage discomfort.     R. (S/NF)(U) Change of Scenery Up: Removing the detainee from the standard interrogation setting (generally to a location more pleasant, but no worse).     S. (S/NF)(U) Change of Scenery Down: Removing the detainee from the standard interrogation setting and placing him in a setting that may be less comfortable; would not constitute a substantial change in environmental quality.     T. (S/NF)(U) Dietary Manipulation: Changing the diet of a detainee; no intended deprivation of food or water; no adverse medical or cultural effect and without intent to deprive subject of food or water, e.g., hot rations to MREs.     U. (S/NF)(U) Environmental Manipulation: Altering the environment to create moderate discomfort (e.g. adjusting temperature or introducing an unpleasant smell). Conditions may not be such that they injure the detainee. Detainee is accompanied by interrogator at all times.
[Caution: Based on court cases in other countries, some nations may view application of this technique in certain circumstances to be inhumane. Consideration of these views should be given prior to use of this technique.]     V. (S/NF)(U) Sleep Adjustment: Adjusting the sleep times of a detainee (e.g. reversing sleep cycles from night to day). This technique is NOT sleep deprivation.     W. (S/NF)(U) False Flag: Convincing the detainee that individuals from a country other than the United States are interrogating him.     X. (S/NF)(U) Isolation: Isolating the detainees from other detainees while still complying with basic standards of treatment. [Caution: the use of isolation as an interrogation technique requires detailed implementation instructions, including specific guidelines regarding the length of isolation, medical and psychological review, and approval for extensions of the length of isolation by the 205th MI BDE Commander. Use of this technique for more than 30 days, whether continuous or not, must be briefed to 205th MI BDE Commander prior to implementation.

SECRET//NOFORN

UNCLASSIFIED
    Page 5     Y. (S/NF)(U) Presence of Military Working Dog: Exploits Arab fear of dogs while maintaining security during interrogations. Dogs will be muzzled and under the control of MWD handler at all times to prevent contact with detainee.     Z. (S/NF)(U) Sleep Management: Detainee provided minimum 4 hours of sleep per 24 hour period, not to exceed 72 continuous hours.     AA. (S/NF)(U) Yelling, Loud Music, and Light Control: Used to create fear, disorient detainee and prolong capture shock. Volume controlled to prevent injury.     BB. (S/NF)(U) Deception: Use of falsified representations including documents and reports.     CC. (S/NF)(U) Stress Positions: Use of physical postures (sitting, standing, kneeling, prone, ect.) for no more than 1 hour per use. Use of technique(s) will not exceed 4 hours and adequate rest between use of each position will be provided.

SECRET//NOFORN

UNCLASSIFIED
    Page 6     Enclosure 2     General Safeguards     (S/NF)(U) Application of these interrogation techniques is subject to the following general safeguards: (i) limited to use at interrogation facilities only; (ii) there is reasonable basis to believe that the detainee possesses critical intelligence; (iii) the detainee is medically and operationally evaluated as suitable (considering all techniques to be used in combination); (iv) interrogators are specifically trained for the technique(s); (v) a specific interrogation plan (including reasonable safeguards, limits on duration, intervals between applications, termination criteria and the presence or availability of qualified medical personnel) has been developed; (vi) there is appropriate supervision; and, (vii) there is appropriate specified senior approval as identified by 205th MI BDE Commander for use with any specified detainee (after considering the foregoing and receiving legal advice).     (U) The purpose of all interviews and interrogations is to get the most information from a detainee with the least intrusive method, always applied in a humane and lawful manner with sufficient oversight by trained investigators or interrogators. Operating instructions must be developed based on command policies to insure uniform, careful, and safe application of interrogations of detainees.     (S/NF)(U) Interrogations must always be planned, deliberate actions that take into account factors such as a detainee's current and past performance in both detention and interrogation; a detainee's emotional and physical strengths and weaknesses; assessment of possible approaches that may work on a certain detainee in an effort to gain the trust of the detainee; strengths and weaknesses of interrogators; and implementation by other personnel for a certain detainee based on other factors.     (S/NF)(U) Interrogation approaches are designed to manipulate the detainee's emotions and weaknesses to gain his willing cooperation. Interrogation operations are never conducted in a vacuum; they are conducted in close cooperation with the units detaining the individuals. The policies established by the detaining units that pertain to searching, silencing and segregating also play a role in interrogation of the detainee. Detainee interrogation involves developing a plan tailored to an individual and approved by senior interrogators. Strict adherence to policies/standard operating procedures governing the administration or interrogation techniques and oversight is essential.     (S/NF)(U) It is important that interrogators be provided reasonable latitude to vary techniques depending on the detainee's culture, strengths, weaknesses, environment, extent of training in resistance techniques as well as the urgency of obtaining information that the detainee is believed to have.     (S/NF)(U) While techniques are considered individually within this analysis, it must be understood that in practice, techniques are usually used in combination. The cumulative effect of all techniques to be employed must be considered before any decisions are made regarding approval for particular situations. The title of a particular technique is not always fully descriptive of a particular technique. 205th MI BDE Commander is responsible for oversight of all techniques involving physical contact.

SECRET//NOFORN

UNCLASSIFIED




Post 106

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 10:00pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Quoth Robert Davison:

"I invite your attention to 'V' which prohibits sleep deprivation."

Um, no. Article V prescribes sleep deprivation while denying that what it is prescribing is sleep deprivation.

Tom Knapp



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 107

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 10:06pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I admit I didn't read every word carefully, but this document leads me
to suspect that more care is taken for the well-being of the 'detainees',
than is provided by the average hospital during a week long stay.




Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 108

Saturday, May 7, 2005 - 7:10amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Mr. Knapp,

This memo is a cautious and solicitous document.  To justify your pre-conception about the war, nothing that is said or done can please you. 

A cynic is not merely one who reads bitter lessons from the past, he is one who is prematurely disappointed in the future. --Sidney J. Harris





Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 109

Saturday, May 7, 2005 - 1:55pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Quoth Robert Davison:

"This memo is a cautious and solicitous document. To justify your pre-conception about the war, nothing that is said or done can please you."

I'm not sure what "pre-conception about the war" you think I'm trying to justify.

In the 1991 war, prisoners were treated humanely and troops who abused them were punished. Several individuals from my regiment were, in fact, court martialed over things which, in the current context, wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.

For example, the prisoners were fed MREs. Several Marines contrived to save up a couple of cases of MREs in which the main serving was pork (ham slice, pork patty, etc.) which, as you know, Muslims are forbidden to eat. These were perfectly good MREs, with lots of non-pork food in them, and there were plenty - the prisoners could have subsisted on the non-pork portions and still have had a higher-calorie diet than the average civilian. Nonetheless, several Marines lost stripes over the incident.

My "pre-conception" about this war was that America would adhere to international law and, more importantly, to its own past high standards of conduct.

The contradiction shouldn't be so difficult to understand: America cannot legitimately use the fact that it is a great and moral country as justification for abandoning the standards that MAKE it a great and moral country. That's like claiming that your reputation as a non-bank-robber entitles you to rob a bank, and that after doing so you are still entitled to be regarded as a non-bank-robber.

The memo was, indeed, cautious. It said "we're going to break US and international law. We're going to engage in abuse and torture. But let us be very, very careful to say that we are not doing so, even though we know damn well we are."

Tom Knapp



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 110

Saturday, May 7, 2005 - 2:12pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Thomas,
At the risk of sounding flippant (oh, well who isn't around here much of the time),
what is 'international law'?  What country enforces it? (Or is this the beauty of anarchism at work?)
If you mean the Geneva convention, et al are the detainees countries signatories?

I agree with you that humans should be treated humanely; even treating evil people as sub-humans often degrades the abuser as much as the abused.  But is failing to adhere to some politically correct notion of respecting someone's dietary choices a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate?  I think you can supply other, more persuasive examples.

From what little I know of the Abu Gharib situation, for example, the 'torture' seemed to consist largely of mockery and humiliation. (Certainly in bad taste, but 'abuse'?)

Some detail would be helpful.




Post 111

Saturday, May 7, 2005 - 4:24pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I don't think this is mere "bad taste." And, of course, this excludes the much more unsightly photos the government did not release.



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 112

Saturday, May 7, 2005 - 6:19pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Anthony,
I agree that 'bad taste' is not sufficiently harsh to describe that sort of thing.
It's difficult to tell from still photos what is going on in some cases, but at the very least those
photos suggest some very sick behavior. (I.e. given the wounds, blood, etc one can't tell
how they were inflicted and so forth.)

But let me not hesitate to say that I'm not trying to downplay that behavior. I don't
know whether I would consider it 'torture' but 'abuse' is justified, perhaps even too mild.

That sort of dishonorable behavior should be called to account.  And, from what I understand,
was and is.

It may surprise you to learn that I've never seen those photos before.  I make efforts to avoid learning the grotesque details
of what the government and many people do with their daily lives.  There is, of course, a careful balance required not to just stick
one's head in the sand and remain willfully ignorant of events that are actually worth knowing something about.  I don't pretend to be able to walk that line perfectly.

As to photos unreleased, I can't make any judgement on evidence I don't have.  And I don't think you should either.

And for all you Bush haters out there, I remind you that he was outraged at that behavior as well. (Or do you think he was just cynically playing to the voting crowd?)




Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 113

Saturday, May 7, 2005 - 7:11pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Our side does correct itself - and I am actually in sympathy with Thomas's appeal that our side maintain standards on the moral high ground.

Just one comment, though. Our side uses the checks and balances (there's that word again) of Western democracy to the extent that these pictures Anthony linked to actually become public and those guilty get punished.

Does anyone think Saddam would have had that kind of system in mind if he had stayed in power? Or maybe he did when he did have power? Not bloody likely.

The point is that some people on our side do engage in abuses, but the system is structured to maintain a correctional standard. That is vastly superior to dictatorships.

Those who glorify such regimes over America (and the free world) - or even insinuate that they are within their "rights" - should keep this difference in mind.

Michael




Post 114

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 8:36amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

Mr. Knapp wrote:


In the 1991 war, prisoners were treated humanely and troops who abused them were punished.

 

 

In the 1991 war we were dealing solely with Iraqi soldiers for which guidelines are well established.  This time we are dealing with Al Queda who has declared war on America and goes well beyond the bounds of civilized behavior by beheading folks and flying planes into the Pentagon. 

 

I wonder, if you had before you the member of an Al Queda sect which was holding you wife or child, what manner of interrogation you would choose?   I somehow doubt you would be as cautious as our military is attempting to be.


 

My "pre-conception" about this war was that America would adhere to international law and, more importantly, to its own past high standards of conduct.

 

I doubt that POWs are being treated any more harshly than they ever were.   


The memo was, indeed, cautious. It said "we're going to break US and international law. We're going to engage in abuse and torture. But let us be very, very careful to say that we are not doing so, even though we know damn well we are."

 

It says no such thing, that is simply how you choose to characterize it.  The memo tells the interrogator how far he can go without crossing the line.  I approve.

Wolf


 




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.