Doing the right thing? [Archive]

Two's in

11th Dec 2014, 12:56

I wouldn't bother with the Jetblast thread unless you feel the need for pages of liberal vs conservative willy waving and dick measuring. A more relevant question is what does this do for any aircrew who find themselves under capture. Never mind the ISIS type threat, which was never going to be a Geneva Convention conflict, but what about other nations that now see the rules of warfare are indeed completely arbitrary and negotiable. Thankfully the type of nation that is likely to feel this way is also less likely to have an effective counter Air threat, but there are other ways of being held captive than being shot down.

This torture episode effectively removes the need for anyone to worry about any consequences of not observing the Geneva Convention. Thanks to a deceptive and complicit series of UK Government actions around rendition, the UK is as much in the frame as the others.

Courtney Mil

11th Dec 2014, 13:10

...or he could just be someone new here with a topic of interest. I don't know; does it matter? Our opinions here are read by thousands of people all over the world. If you're shy about your feelings, don't put them in a public forum.

I may be wrong. Naaaa!

EDIT: how did this post submitted at 12:15, that appeared as posted at 12:15, suddenly change its time? Something is afoot.

Whenurhappy

11th Dec 2014, 14:46

And could I remind those serving that we are not authorised to comment on present-day US intelligence matters, or those of 5 Eyes or other partners. Just saying...

:=

Lonewolf_50

11th Dec 2014, 14:53

Mr.Noritake

11th Dec 2014, 15:07

Thank you for your comments.

I wish I was a journalist; I suspect it pays a damn sight more than I currently earn.

The reason I asked the question is quite simple. Some years ago my country was criticized by some for its treatment of prisoners - a treatment which was far less severe than that noted in this report (the less savoury sections of which have been redacted so we can only guess at what they describe). I think, in hindsight, most of my compatriots would view these criticisms of our behaviour as fair and just.

I'm not interested in soliciting comments on 'intelligence matters', but on how serving and ex-serving Western aviators view those who facilitated the acts described in the report, albeit in a peripheral mode, though rendition flights, ATC service of such flights, etc., etc.

If it's simply seen as 'part of the job', fine. But if I don't ask, how will I ever know?

ShotOne

11th Dec 2014, 15:12

The OP's question is probably worth thinking about, troll or not. At some point, rightly or wrongly, those who have inflicted what has been deemed torture may well be facing judicial process. Will pilots who ferried the victims? Probably not. What about an operative in Northern Pakistan who kills a terror suspect who turns out to be innocent? If he was caught there in the act of shooting him, very probably. If he used a RPAS...who knows?

Wrathmonk

11th Dec 2014, 15:30

ShotOne

What about an operative in Northern Pakistan who kills a terror suspect who turns out to be innocent? If he was caught there in the act of shooting him, very probably. If he used a RPAS...who knows?

Was the operative following what he believed, in all good faith, to be a legal order, and within the bounds of his RoE (which, because we play by the rules will take into account Geneva Convention etc)? Is it the person doing the 'deed' or the person who ordered it who has committed the crime? There have been calls that Bush and Blair stand trial for war crimes. Can we expect all those who served during, and after, GW2 to be in the dock alongside them?

Back to this case I suggest that any body linked to, but not directly committing the physical torture, will use the 'legal order' as his defence i.e. there was nothing illegal with flying an aircraft from A to B. They will probably claim that under 'need to know' they have 'plausible deniability'.:yuk:

And before a stream of comments regarding the Nuremburg defence of "I was only following orders" remember that on the (RAF) commissioning scroll is the statement "...and you to observe and follow such Orders and Directions as from time to time you shall receive from Us, or any superior Officer, according to the Rules and Discipline of War, in pursuance of the Trust hereby reposed in you." Which takes us back to para 1.

Roadster280

11th Dec 2014, 15:38

So it's OK to bomb terrorists (i.e. ISIS/L), causing death, pain and disfigurement on their own territory, but giving them a slap or almost drowning them in your own territory is a no-no?

I recall the movie "Mississippi Burning". One of the characters (FBI men) complains that they are operating in the gutter. The response being "well, if they crawled out of the sewer, then perhaps the gutter's the place we ought to be".

KenV

11th Dec 2014, 15:48

I'm not interested in soliciting comments on 'intelligence matters', but on how serving and ex-serving Western aviators view those who facilitated the acts described in the report,

It sounded to me that the folks engaged in the "torture" exceeded the scope of their orders and crossed a line. Whether that line was sufficient to warrant criminal prosecution, I don't know.

albeit in a peripheral mode, though rendition flights, ATC service of such flights, etc., etc. If it's simply seen as 'part of the job', fine. But if I don't ask, how will I ever know?
If I'd been involved in transporting these folks, I would have been as much in the dark about what was going to happen to them as the other 6 billion or so folks on this planet. So I would not have declined the mission. Even if I had known then what I know now, I doubt I would have declined to transport them.

vascodegama

11th Dec 2014, 16:03

"according to the Rules and Discipline of War"

That was the whole point of Nuremburg (and many other trials since). The orders given were not iaw Rules and Discipline of War-hence illegal.

The comparison with the Warders taking the condemned to the gallows is, IMHO, a weak one. Those actions were completely lawful at the time.

West Coast

11th Dec 2014, 16:04

The problem here is hindsight doesn't take in context but I'm sure everyone here knew 9/11 was a one shot deal. For the not so prescient, there was a ticking time bomb waiting to go off and information was needed.

The term torture is applied with a wide brush, getting slammed against a wall specifically built to give now holds the moral equivalence of the most heinous acts. I understand the concept of a line in the sand not to be crossed, but you allow that and soon enough even a no contact interrogation or a particularly distasteful diet will soon be judged as torture. Even the concept of imprisonment may be viewed as a form of torture.

In 10 years from now will the killer drone program that the US and I believe the UK uses be viewed with the same moral repulsion?

Sun Who

11th Dec 2014, 16:43

a. Intelligence gained under torture is unreliable.
b. Intelligence gained under torture is inadmissible in court.
c. It's illegal.
d. It diverts resource from legal interrogation.
e. It provides succor to the enemy and creates martyrs.
f. It's generally applied to people who have not been found guilty by a legal process.

But, most importantly, it takes us one step closer to becoming the thing we're fighting and it's not necessary.

I am not a liberal and have no compunction about killing the enemy, with prejudice, but torture is not the tool of a thinking man.

Sun.

NutLoose

11th Dec 2014, 16:51

So it's OK to bomb terrorists (i.e. ISIS/L), causing death, pain and disfigurement on their own territory, but giving them a slap or almost drowning them in your own territory is a no-no?

I am surprised you cannot see the difference
Considering you are Bombing a fighting force that is armed and fighting back on one hand, the other is mistreatment of prisoners who cannot fight back.

I do find it ironic the world made a rush over trying to bring to justice those involved in torture in Bosnia and then on the same hand condone the use of torture for their own purposes.

As to the question asked re people knowing, well the flights mentioned coming through the UK I would doubt anyone on the ground seeing in the Jets, refuelling or handling the aircraft would know what or who was onboard, indeed it may be possible that no one in the UK knew what was going on, though I doubt it.
An example of what I mean, when Bush visited Iraq, Airforce one overflew the UK identing as a Challenger, in fact a passing flight asked ATC if that was Airforce One overhead to be told no it was a Challenger.

.

Lonewolf_50

11th Dec 2014, 16:56

The fallacy of omniscience, and requirement for same among aircrew, is a noteworthy feature of the OP's failed reasoning, or the attempt thereof.

The other fallacious position is of a chain of command that has perfect transparency and perfect understanding of all that goes on among all persons in same.

When you get to the real world, give us a call, and we'll buy you a pint.

NutLoose

11th Dec 2014, 16:59

Don't forget they were not all terrorists, some were innocent.

OUTSOURCING TORTURE - The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/02/14/outsourcing-torture)

Whatever the outcome, is has besmirched the USA's good name.

ShotOne

11th Dec 2014, 18:10

Well said, sunwho, on the nail.

Wrathmonk, how does the Geneva Convention come into this, being as we're not at war with Pakistan? If the Libyan who shot WPC Yvonne Fletcher was obeying a legal order does that get him off?

Our way will prevail against terrorism. But it will only prevail by our setting higher standards, even when it's difficult to do so, not by dropping to theirs

Roadster280

11th Dec 2014, 18:20

I am surprised you cannot see the difference
Considering you are Bombing a fighting force that is armed and fighting back on one hand, the other is mistreatment of prisoners who cannot fight back.

I do find it ironic the world made a rush over trying to bring to justice those involved in torture in Bosnia and then on the same hand condone the use of torture for their own purposes.

As to the question asked re people knowing, well the flights mentioned coming through the UK I would doubt anyone on the ground seeing in the Jets, refuelling or handling the aircraft would know what or who was onboard, indeed it may be possible that no one in the UK knew what was going on, though I doubt it.
An example of what I mean, when Bush visited Iraq, Airforce one overflew the UK identing as a Challenger, indeed a passing flight asked ATC if that was Airforce One overhead to be told no it was a Challenger.

So if you have been captured by these terrorists, and then I capture one of theirs, you would be OK if I just politely questioned my prisoner as to your whereabouts?

If the boots were on the other feet, I would prefer that you made absolutely certain that your prisoner had no information on my whereabouts before you let him rest in his cell. If that involved ridiculing the size of his man parts in front of female staff, stress positions, near-drowning, vicious dogs barking at him 24/7 and the odd slap, then I am 100% fine with that. Just so long as you come and get me before "Jihadi John" gets his machete out. To quote Captain Ramsay from Crimson Tide "We don't have time to **** about".

Sun Who

11th Dec 2014, 18:46

Roadster 280,

Mate, it's not a question of tit-for-tat, TORTURE DOESN'T WORK.
If you accept that, and do it anyway, then that's really questionable.

Sun

Pontius Navigator

11th Dec 2014, 18:51

So if you have been captured by these terrorists, and then I capture one of theirs, you would be OK if I just politely questioned my prisoner as to your whereabouts.

That is a question of immediate tactical interrogation (a word I suspect will go the way of Propaganda). By the time you have employed any more protracted techniques the rescue window will have been well shut.

The last time a soft interrogation was successfully used was by an honourable conventional enemy within living memory of most patients here.

Lonewolf_50

11th Dec 2014, 19:33

Whatever the outcome, is has besmirched the USA's good name. That's a non trivial issue, and the Abu Ghraib mess likewise tarnished our rep.

Lonewolf_50

11th Dec 2014, 19:36

Mate, it's not a question of tit-for-tat, TORTURE DOESN'T WORK.
If you correct that to "torture doesn't always work" and "can be counterproductive when used" you'd be closer to the mark.

Your broad statement is not actually true, party due to being too broad and over generalized, and partly due to what's already been reported years ago, in terms of intel gleaned that provided puzzle pieces that eventually led to getting Osama years later.

(No, the Jack Bauer ticking bomb scenario isn't real life ... )
Pontius: if you are referring to how they finally got Al Zarqawi in Iraq ... yes, some patient work led to getting a bead on him, but it took three years to get that bead on him. In the interim, he killed a lot of folks, and orchestrated the killing of hundreds, even thousands, in the anti Shiite campaign he was waging.

Mr.Noritake

11th Dec 2014, 19:40

I thought the question in my original post and subsequent follow up was quite specific. Evidence suggests it wasn't.

As jonw66 noted, there is a thread running on Jet Blast where those wishing to give vent to their feelings on the appropriateness or otherwise of the practices detailed in the Senate Committee report may offer their thoughts.

I'm grateful to those who offered their opinions in response on my original question. It's much appreciated. May I respectfully suggest to those who wish to offer their thoughts on matters beyond the scope of my original question that they do so on a thread where the OP may actually care to hear them?

Lonewolf_50

11th Dec 2014, 19:48

The reply I offered you in post 22 suffices to concisely outline the problem with the question posed.
Even putting aside the somewhat risky future position American aviators captured by hostile forces have now been placed in (yes, torture is horrible and wrong but you won't face prosecution if you use it...) what's the legal position regarding those pilots involved in rendition flights? After all, most knew the people they were transporting were going to undergo something more than 'a severe talking to'.

I like to think I'd have declined to pilot a rendition flight on moral grounds and let the chips fall where they may.
Thanks for the laugh.

West Coast

11th Dec 2014, 19:50

Sun who

I listen to both sides of the argument regarding the accuracy of information extracted from those who have undergone these procedures. There are those who argue that actionable intelligence was gleened. Of course, plenty who say no.
What they have in common is they are pushing an agenda and not simply offering up thier version or opinion.

Truth is we don't know, and that includes you unless you were at every single one of these events.

I'm going to stay firmly on the fence which is the only rational position to hold minus access to all the relevant data. Doesn't mean you have to like what occurred, just you accept that beyond opinion none of us know what the truth truly is.

Sun Who

11th Dec 2014, 20:04

Torture doesn't work because, even if it gets actionable intelligence (rare) any gains are more than offset by the negative aspects outlined in my previous post. This is the reason torture is not a tool of the thinking man.

Sun.

Roadster280

11th Dec 2014, 23:21

Fair points, although I don't think either the CIA nor I had in mind "torture" per se. Not in the sense of the schemes used by the Nazis or Saddam. Perhaps waterboarding is questionable, but I don't see psychological manipulation in the same light.

West Coast

12th Dec 2014, 00:50

Sun

That's opinion, not fact.

Again, neither you or I have the information to know if actionable intelligence was or wasn't gained. Nor do we have a proper way to gauge if there have been repercussions attributable to this, or if there were, was it worth it to potentially get an intelligence haul of note.

I appreciate you have a strong opinion, however I respectfully suggest you shouldn't hold a strong opinion on EITs minus a complete understanding of the results, which isn't available to either of us.

There's nothing wrong with disliking EITs while acknowledging you don't know if they were productive or not.

rh200

12th Dec 2014, 02:00

I'm rather surprised to see no comments here regarding the recent Senate Committee report into the CIA Detention and Interrogation Program.

Probably most hear know it would descend into a tit for tat argument of absolutes and didn't want to be the one to start the ball rolling.

Even putting aside the somewhat risky future position American aviators captured by hostile forces have now been placed in (yes, torture is horrible and wrong but you won't face prosecution if you use it...)

Will make no absolute difference as a whole, but the ones which would do real torture anyway will just try and use it as an excuse.

what's the legal position regarding those pilots involved in rendition flights? After all, most knew the people they were transporting were going to undergo something more than 'a severe talking to'.

It would depend on the exact knowledge of the pilots I would imagine, and exactly what they where going to be getting.

I like to think I'd have declined to pilot a rendition flight on moral grounds and let the chips fall where they may. But maybe not.

There you have it, moral grounds! Who's morals, the lefts, Osama, the rights, yours.

The western military if they where the ones flying, technically don't follow morals. As far as I'm aware they follow orders unless that order is obviously illegal. Someone in the military could enlighten us to the exact definition. They start following their own individual morals then we are really up sh!t creek without a canoe and paddle.

Thoughts?

You got them

Sun Who

12th Dec 2014, 03:37

West Coast,

While I acknowledge that I don't know if the CIA gained actionable int via what they have chosen to call EIT (a questionable term in itself, not employed by any other western security agency) I do know that the senate inquiry claims they didn't. I also know that inquiry reports the CIA used more than just psychological techniques, opting to just plain beat suspects up in some instances. Of note, from the Senate summary:

The committee reviewed 20 of the most frequent and prominent examples of purported counterterrorism “successes” that the CIA has attributed to the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques. Each of those examples was found to be wrong in fundamental respects. In some cases, there was no relationship between the claimed counterterrorism “success” and any information provided by a CIA detainee during or after the use of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques. In the remaining cases, the CIA inaccurately represented that unique information was acquired from a CIA detainee as a result of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques, when in fact the information was either (a) acquired from the CIA detainee prior to the use of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques or (b) corroborative of information already available to the intelligence community from sources other than the CIA detainee, and therefore not unique or “otherwise unavailable,” which was the standard for effectiveness the CIA presented to the Department of Justice and policymakers.Sun.

Again, I'm not a liberal and am very happy to kill the enemy when it progresses the aim (and have done so) but the CIA were not advancing the cause of American or Western security in this instance (the opposite in fact).

Although not an expert by any means, I have some passing experience of TQ&I, so am opining with a bit more knowledge than the average Grundian reader, but then, you don't need to be an expert to know when something is both ineffective and wrong.

Sun.

West Coast

12th Dec 2014, 04:11

Do you easily dismiss accounts from those who were in a position to know when they say information was gained? You inferred it was possible to get actionable info, so you'll agree there not categorically lying, but quite possibly telling the truth. Then again they could be CYA'ing, doubtful you and I will ever know as we only have biased data to base our opinions on. Kinda leads back to fence sitting doesn't it?

I also dislike the term EIT, but I can't bring myself to call what these detainees went through torture.

Sun Who

12th Dec 2014, 06:52

I guess I could choose to believe the CIA obtained actionable intelligence via these means but it doesn't matter because the main point remains that as an instrument to achieve effect it doesn't work (see my initial post).

You may struggle to call what the detainees went through torture, but I think it fits the definition:

Article 1 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT):

“... 'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”
Also of note, the CIA had no expertise in interrogation prior to 9/11. They reverse engineered their own RTI programme. The FBI who really do know about interrogation, offered to undertake the necessary activity but the CIA declined.

Sun

rh200

12th Dec 2014, 07:12

There was a nice piece on CNN earlier today. It featured what was supposedly one of the shrinks involved. He's calling on the government to lift his non confidentiality agreement so he can have his say.

As for torture/ or what ever else you want to call its use, everyone keeps missing the point, its a tool to be used in conjunction with other tools, by itself its virtually useless.

As for the UN, they don't rule the world, the only thing that matters are individuals countries legal definitions and laws.

Just This Once...

12th Dec 2014, 07:43

I know of one instance where an RAF aircraft captain was presented with a contentious passenger to be taken somewhere that the passenger would not have enjoyed. He sought advice from his deployed commander who suspended the trip whilst advice was sought from the UK.

The UK chain of command cancelled the sortie and, without hesitation, backed the actions of the aircraft captain and the detco.

The 'passenger' was moved by a different nation before being handed to another nation. The UK played no role in this affair.

Decisions are never easy, but we all have the ability to make them.

West Coast

12th Dec 2014, 11:55

One could make a case that simply detaining and interrogating a suspected terrorist is torture given the open ended definition. Surely even detaining one causes some degree of mental duress.

I'll simply have to continue my quest to properly define what it was they went through.

Lonewolf_50

12th Dec 2014, 13:24

sun who, your attempt at redefinition of the phrase "doesn't work" when one of the gents who is in the business reported in his rebuttal, yesterday, that they got actionable intelligence, tells me that you don't understand how to use the language, or that you are being willfully dishonest.

If, based on your further explanation, the point that you are attempting to make is the you don't believe that the outcome is worth the cost -- in hindsight -- that's certainly a point worth considering. The decision makers at the time either thought it was, or really didn't grasp the cost in image and perception that they risked in making that short term decision.

It is a non trivial point to consider, when one looks at various actions taken in the political context.

So, it may have worked (gleaned useful information) in some cases, may have been utterly useless in other cases, and may have led to bad intel ("tell them anything to make it stop") in other cases.

At the time, being in a reactive mode, it appears that the leadership decided that any little bit gleaned was worth nearly any cost. If you have issue with that judgment from a variety of political camps, a variety of people in this country are on side with you.

Al R

12th Dec 2014, 13:47

Sun Who,

It is wrong to suggest torture doesn't work. It would be better to suggest it doesn't always work. As an aside, you imply (apols if I got that wrong) insight about the 'rarity' of solid int - can you quantify that?

Torture doesn't work because, even if it gets actionable intelligence (rare) any gains are more than offset by the negative aspects outlined in my previous post. This is the reason torture is not a tool of the thinking man.

Sun Who

12th Dec 2014, 16:02

Lonewolf 50, AI R,

Before I add anything, I'll make a brief observation; I think this thread is a good example of the best of the PPRuNE, with people disagreeing/debating in an adult fashion.

So,

As an aside, you imply (apols if I got that wrong) insight about the 'rarity' of solid int - can you quantify that? I could, you'll appreciate that I won't - I realise that may lay me open to accusations of making unsubstantiated assertions.

You both make a fair point that my definition of 'what works' is insufficient, so I guess I need to do better. When I assert that 'torture doesn't work' what I mean is that it doesn't support the overall strategic aim (very well, if at all). It's not that the negative factors aren't worth it (on balance) it's that the negative factors (as per my post 1) do more harm (to the overall strategic aim, not 'the mission') than the intel does good, thereby making the choice of torture a bad one on a functional basis

I also think torture is morally bankrupt BUT I accept entirely that's a position based on a particular ethical perspective (let's not get into the difference between morals and ethics) and as such, a weaker position.

Sun.

effortless

12th Dec 2014, 16:47

I am depressed, when SAVAK or BOSS did it it was torture. When we do it it isn't. :ooh:

ShotOne

12th Dec 2014, 18:18

Al R, did you read any of the senate report? I appreciate it has now become a political ping-pong ball but the evidence was that little if any intelligence of value was obtained by torture, much of what was, turned out to be nonsense and at least one cooperative suspect giving valuable intel ceased doing so when water boarded.

Herod

12th Dec 2014, 19:14

We in the West are supposed to be upholding the values of civilisation, moral and ethical. Torture is WRONG. End of story.

Al R

12th Dec 2014, 20:25

Shot one,

I didn't read the 560 pages as quickly as you did, clearly! What amazed me though, was the $81m paid over 8 years to the two USAF SERE pusser's shrinks who must have thought Christmas had come early. I make no other comment on its content, the direction or the acuity of its political weather vane. I did hear someone far better informed than both of us refer to it as bullsh*t last night though!

Herod,

Yes, torture is completely wrong.

ShotOne

12th Dec 2014, 21:26

I can't claim to have read every one, Al and I'm staggered by the 81 million bit too. The person "better informed than us" is hardly an impartial witness.

Al R

12th Dec 2014, 21:46

Indeed.. but what is impartial? It varies with time and who sits in the Oval Office. I would trust a report generated by the CIA or the White House as much or as little as I'd trust any report generated by any body, it has the whiff of being written by someone with a highly tubed political antenna and the self flagellation fairly screams sometimes. Let's face it, it's an exercise in.. what, I wonder?

I didn't read it all either.. :O

rh200

13th Dec 2014, 05:56

We in the West are supposed to be upholding the values of civilisation, moral and ethical. Torture is WRONG. End of story.

Seems like there is some differing opinion.

Scalia on torture morality: 'I don't think it's so clear at all' - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/12/politics/scalia-on-torture-death-penalty/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)

Life isn't cut and dried, sticking to dogma makes us just as much extremists by definition.

Boudreaux Bob

13th Dec 2014, 06:11

For those of you who go on about the future risk to American (or other Aircrew) as a result of this Report and the CIA EIT Program itself, perhaps you forgot about the treatment our Aircrew received during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf War I when captured by the enemy.

They were tortured, killed, and in some cases eaten by the Bad Guys.

I would suggest you read your History before you go running your ratchet jaws.

WWII....President George H.W. Bush was shot down and rescued close to this location.

Perhaps the most senior officer convicted of cannibalism was Lt Gen. Yoshio Tachibana, who with 11 other Japanese personnel was tried in relation to the execution of U.S. Navy airmen, and the cannibalism of at least one of them, in August 1944, on Chichi Jima, in the Bonin Islands. They were beheaded on Tachibana's orders. As military and international law did not specifically deal with cannibalism, they were tried for murder and "prevention of honorable burial". Tachibana was sentenced to death.

During Vietnam....

The Cruelest Period
One notable escape attempt in May 1969 had horrific consequences for POWs. Air Force captains John Dramesi and Edwin Atterberry planned an elaborate escape from the "Zoo Annex." Despite their planning, they made it only a few miles. They had made clothing and props to blend in with the native population, and the prison authorities were furious that the Americans had been able to plan such a complex operation. North Vietnamese retaliation on POWs through the summer of 1969 was the most brutal and sustained episode of criminal inhumanity during the Southeast Asia War.

For two weeks, POWs on the "escape committee" who had helped Dramesi and Atterberry were tortured for details. Then, others who knew nothing of the plan were tortured as well. Already meager rations were further reduced, exercise banned, and many prisoners were savagely beaten over the coming months. One POW was hung upside down from the ceiling and shocked with a car battery. Teams of torturers wielding rubber fan belts took turns flaying the bare skin off POWs' bodies. Others were clubbed and forced to kneel for hours without sleep between whippings. Over a 2-week period, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Red McDaniel received more than 700 lashes. He suffered many open wounds, endured electric shocks, was bound in ropes and irons, and was hung upside down with a compound arm fracture--which guards manipulated while questioning continued. Many others suffered similarly as the orgy of retaliation spread among the camps.

For their escape attempt, the North Vietnamese murdered Atterberry by beating him to death, and they flogged Dramesi with fan belts for 38 straight days. They allowed him no sleep during that period (he was forced to sit on a small stool the whole time), they beat him savagely, and alternately tied him in tight ropes or restrained him in irons as he was forced to write and tape apologies. He had only two small pieces of bread and two cups of water each day, and lived in his own filth. Incredibly, he survived--but he was compelled to listen to Atterberry's screams.

Gulf War I.....

WASHINGTON — All 23 American prisoners of war captured by Iraqi forces during Operation Desert Storm, including two U.S. servicewomen, were tortured or abused by their captors, a top Defense Department official told U.S. lawmakers Thursday.

In several instances, Iraqi interrogators broke bones, perforated eardrums and threatened to shoot or dismember the American prisoners in their custody, Army Col. Bill Jordan said in testimony before Congress' Human Rights Caucus.

Sun Who

13th Dec 2014, 06:25

Boudreaux Bob, I'm not sure what your point is but if risk associated with the report is a topic you want to discuss, then it's worth reading it before commenting. It can be found here (http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf).

Sun.

Boudreaux Bob

13th Dec 2014, 06:50

Sun,

Having been an Investigator I know for a fact that any inquiry that relies solely on a collection of documents and does not conduct one single Interview of People directly involved in the situation under scrutiny, just cannot be considered anything worth serious consideration.

Reading the Executive Summary of a compilation of several thousand pages of documents is not something I care to waste a minute's time doing.

Without Sworn Statements or Formal Results of Interview Documents resulting from Interviews of Individuals that are named in, or who created those Documents, who participated in Decisions, formulated Legal Opinions, and had first hand knowledge of events, the Report is fatally flawed.

To think the investigation cost Fifty Million Dollars is beyond belief.....to collect paper? That should be investigated itself for potential Fraud, Waste, and Abuse violations of Federal Law.

If you think the EIT Program is so evil....then how about the use of Armed Drones to attack Targets and causing the deaths of innocent people? Obama has authorized such strikes that have killed American Citizens without any Due Process considerations as required by our Constitution.

If "Torturing" people is evil then what is killing them sans Trial?

ShotOne

13th Dec 2014, 08:11

Bob, you've listed some very unpleasant instances of torture. None of them conferred a military advantage and all left a stain on the perpetrating nation which remained long after the conflict. What point were you trying to make?

Sun Who

13th Dec 2014, 08:41

It's worth noting that the review didn't conduct interviews because the CIA chose not to allow its staff to cooperate, even under controlled, private sessions, because those staff were 'under jeopardy'. Having said that, it seems reasonable to assume the majority of the documents would be an accurate record. If that's not the case, it begs further questions about the CIA's conduct.

I'm still not sure I understand your point Bob and neither am I sure that the introduction of UAS strikes as an ethical comparator is helpful. However, in case it helps situate my viewpoint:

I have no issues with the application of force via unmanned aircraft. I've seen at first hand, up close and personal, the procedures used by both US and allied aircrews to ensure the chances of collateral damage are minimised, and they are extremely rigorous and well within the laws of armed conflict. I do not believe the same can be said for the CIA's use of torture, which appears to have been amateurish at best, and bordering on mis-placed revenge at worst.

Sun

Boudreaux Bob

13th Dec 2014, 12:21

Plainly the Jury has its mind made up using far less than half the evidence.

No need to discuss it further.

Did the Report contain the DOJ Investigative Reports that resulted in there being no Criminal Actions undertaken against any CIA personnel and there being a Declaration by the President there would be none in the future?

How much harm did the North Vietnamese suffer due to the disclosure of their Torture and Murder? Remember the fate of the Defenders of Dien Bien Phu?

What actions did the British take in wake of that?

So why all this recent consternation over the CIA Report?

Are you as upset over the Human Rights record of say...Iran, China, North Korea?

Do you think any Air Crew or SpecOps troopers that get taken by ISIS are going to be given Tea and Sticky Buns?

Perhaps this is just a rough old World we live in and has been forever.

When we compare the treatment of Danny Pearl by KSM....and the subsequent treatment of KSM by the CIA, somehow I think KSM is the fortunate one.

One hacked off another's Head to perpetrate a Terror act and the the others handled him very roughly to counter a Terrorist Organization that has murdered Thousands of People.

Sorry, but the whole reaction to the Report, which is preposterous itself, just smacks of hypocrisy.

We at least should be honest with ourselves in this and ask just what is our motivation in having the position we do.

When you finally admit the Senate Investigation was poorly done, did not include all the facts, ignored logical and relevant avenues of investigation, and was put out by People who were directly involved in the Oversight of the Program and who had called for even more harsh methods....then perhaps you are worth listening to.

We had a discussion about the Drone Strikes and the Due Process requirements of American Law....and those who are so up in arms over this Report have no concerns about killing people by Drone Strikes despite in a couple of cases US Law protected a few of them. The outcry then was why should those few be protected because of their American Citizenship rather than showing any concern for the Law.

I fail to see how Murder is a lesser evil than Waterboarding where no one is killed.

If you want to argue morality then do so but be honest with yourself and others when you do. You cannot separate killing from torture no matter how you try.

You only fool yourself if you think that is possible.

This is a War we are in and there can be no doubt of that.

You were quite happy to Area Bomb whole cities during World War II but you get squeamish about a few hundred folks getting roughed up during interrogation?

Why are you not as outraged about the length of detention without Trial the Prisoners in Gitmo have endured? Is it the fact the UK has the same ability under your Terrorism Laws? Why no outrage at that?

Sorry....I just don't buy your arguments.

Roadster280

13th Dec 2014, 12:36

Some powerful points there, Bob.

Your examples of the horrific torture perpetrated in Vietnam outline perfectly the difference I was trying to show between psychological techniques used by the likes of the CIA and outright cruel violent torture used by others.

The world isn't black and white, there are shades of grey. "Torture is wrong, end of" is probably a phrase we can all agree with, but exactly what constitutes "torture" is not as black and white. My old Tp Sgt had worked in the Internment camps in N Ireland at the start of the Troubles. He said how they would encourage splits among the prisoners by for example, salting the food of one, but not the other, thus causing fights over the food. Compared with being whipped with a fan belt for 38 days, that is so mild as to be not even worth talking about. But it would cause a Guardianista a lot of hand-wringing.

I don't advocate excessive violence in the treatment of prisoners, but I don't think it realistic to expect that they simply be put in a cell and not interrogated. Interrogation isn't supposed to be a job interview. What is the "RE" part of "SERE" all about? And who runs the courses? And why do we have such people in the first place?

I come back to my position - it is not black and white.

Whenurhappy

13th Dec 2014, 13:16

How much harm did the North Vietnamese suffer due to the disclosure of their Torture and Murder? Remember the fate of the Defenders of Dien Bien Phu?

What actions did the British take in wake of that?

Whilst not wishing to comment on this present matter, the CIA, reporting in a diplomatic cable, were shocked to find the British did not use torture during the Emergency in Malaya (1948-1960). Several police were prosecuted for using 'Third Degree' because it was a civil Emergency and torture, certainly in the eyes of intelligence and Special Branch Officers, was unpleasant, unnecessary and counter-productive.

Typically, after several hours in 'disorientation rooms' [non-right-angled rooms, noise], the 'shock of capture' was exploited by offering hot baths, food, drink, cigarettes to the captured insurgents. The success rate in turning insurgents and TST couriers was quite remarkable. As usual, the interviewers exploited motivations - family, money, waivering ideological beliefs - as well as the lure of good food and drink. Women insurgents - often captured working as couriers - were regarded as particularly difficult to turn and it was found that if they were offered a decent hair do and manicure, they would be more amenable for working for the Government. There are a number of very good open-source studies on this aspect of the campaign.

I appreciate that all COIN and CT campaigns are different, but certainly during this particularly brutal campaign, torture was not used by the Government side.

Boudreaux Bob

13th Dec 2014, 13:33

Yes Malaya...along with Kenya, Cyprus, and Northern Ireland....the British all squeaky clean!

http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/1135/1/uoa66jt01.pdf

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223831/How-Britain-tortured-Nazi-PoWs-The-horrifying-interrogation-methods-belie-proud-boast-fought-clean-war.html

woptb

13th Dec 2014, 13:36

Torture is illegal,based on international & most national law;

"…the deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting alone or on the orders of any authority, to force another person to yield information, to make a confession, or for any other reason."

Tokyo Declaration, 1975

There is no moral or ethical dilemma,the reason is immaterial,who does it is immaterial.

ShotOne

13th Dec 2014, 13:42

Bbob, nobody here claims that. And it's most certainly not true of, say, the Russians or Iranians. But that doesn't stop them seizing the opportunity to distract from and justify their own bad behaviour.

Roland Pulfrew

13th Dec 2014, 13:46

Half the problem here is defining what 'torture' is. Most western politicians seem to have a very low threshold but a number of the techniques mentioned in this report (and the UK Iraq enquiry) were done to me in training (and that was after woptb's 1975 Tokyo thing). Did I consider that I was being tortured? No. Do I think that some of those things have a place in prisoner handling? Yes. Are we very squeemish in the West nowadays? In my opinion, Yes.

Maybe I should contact antibritishhumanrightslawyers4u.com to see if I have a multimillion pound claim against the government (of 30 years ago)!!

Boudreaux Bob

13th Dec 2014, 14:07

Shot,

My point is fairly simple.

The Americans and CIA are being accused of doing nefarious things as if we are the only ones to have ever engaged in such activities.

That is patently unfair, down right wrong, and very hypocritical of those that insist upon doing so.

Compounded by the inadequacies of the Feinstein Report which they do not wish to acknowledge makes it all very wrong in my view.

The Daily Mail Article about the London Cage and the events that surround that situation are for all intents and purposes the same as today.

Yet we have to remember that no one has been executed based upon Confessions extracted under the CIA's EIT program. One individual died while in Captivity and could attributed to the treatment he received.

This whole debate about "Torture", what constitutes Torture, and the moral/ethical/legal issues that pertain, is one that is not new, not limited to just the United States and its CIA.

I long ago here at pprune went on record saying I endorsed standard interrogation techniques as used by our Law Enforcement Agencies in efforts to obtain "confessions" to criminal acts even if done by Terrorists. I also confirmed my firm belief in the protections afforded to all individuals by the US Constitution and applicable Federal and State Law. I also accepted that those protections to non-US Citizens held outside the United States were very limited and for those accused of Terrorism I had no qualms with them not being afforded the same protections as US Citizens. All of those views are based upon consideration of the Law.

I have a lot of problem with the way our Government uses the Armed Drones and that we have a Sitting US President who brags about his having a "Kill List" and the ability to pen his name to an Order and the CIA/Military will send out a Drone and kill that person even if that person happens to be a US Citizen. That is far more bothersome to me than authorizing the use of EIT's on Terrorists held by the US Government.

Thelma Viaduct

13th Dec 2014, 14:20

The US/UK governments don't care about their own people i.e sending soldiers to fight/die/lose limbs in wars based on lies.

Why would they suddenly care about alleged 'terrorists'?

Whenurhappy

13th Dec 2014, 14:43

BB,

What I said about Malaya is based on a year's archival research and interviews with surviving terrorists and intelligence officers, conducted 10 years ago (which I am willing to share with you - including a considerable amount of documents from the CIA's own archives).

What I didn't say was it didn't happen; what I did say that it was prohibited (I have a copied of the Order signed by the Commissioner of Police) and was not an instrument of state power (unlike the present matter) - why? Because in this contflict it was completely unhelpful. Once you tortured a CEP/SEP (who was subject to the civil police code), you could not turn them and use them as a source, with any degree of success. Fact.

Boudreaux Bob

13th Dec 2014, 15:04

In Vietnam, the USN SEAL's used a similar approach in cultivating captured VC/NVA which included very "lenient" treatment and the use of soft techniques to very good use.

Winning an individual over as compared to breaking him has got to be the better method. I have no doubt of that and have said that all along.

I am not naive enough to think that will always work or is it always appropriate.

The end goal is probably what determines the methods to be used.

If you seek to build a Criminal Case then coercive interrogation techniques are not appropriate ever.

If it is cooperation you seek then again coercive techniques are not appropriate.

If it is simply getting critical information from an unwilling prisoner in a timely fashion then perhaps harsher techniques might be considered. When the timeliness of that information being sought is no longer important then the use of coercive means is no longer justifiable.

That does not mean "Torture" but the use of psychological means and minor physical measures to break down the ability of the prisoner to withhold information. Making him uncomfortable, deprive him of sleep, altering of eating times, inducing mental stress....all harsh and unpleasant but far removed from what could be construed as "Torture".

Mr.Noritake

13th Dec 2014, 15:28

Once again, my sincere thanks to those (few) of you who offered a response to my original question.

As regards the thread drift into the rights and wrongs of the procedures outlined in the report, I would simply point out that many of my countrymen have, in the past, been vilified by the West for using exactly the same procedures.

A significant number of you have defended the use of these techniques. Does this mean you now understand why we used them, that we may consider ourselves absolved from any sense of guilt associated with their use and that they will henceforth be considered acceptable forms of prisoner interrogation?

If they're OK for you, they're OK for everyone else. And if they're OK for military prisoner interrogation, perhaps they're OK for certain forms of civil prisoner interrogation too?

Sun Who

13th Dec 2014, 16:38

Mr Noritake said:
what's the legal position regarding those pilots involved in rendition flights? It will depend on what they knew. My suspicion is the aircrew new very little. Move chap x from A to B.

Mr Noritake also said:

A significant number of you have defended the use of these techniques. Does this mean you now understand why we used them, that we may consider ourselves absolved from any sense of guilt associated with their use and that they will henceforth be considered acceptable forms of prisoner interrogation?No. It;s just as wrong and ineffective for them as for anyone else.

If they're OK for you, they're OK for everyone else. And if they're OK for military prisoner interrogation, perhaps they're OK for certain forms of civil prisoner interrogation too? Again, it's not ok for anyone because it's both morally bankrupt and ineffective. There is no upside to the use of torture.

Sun

ValMORNA

13th Dec 2014, 20:48

I may be simple in such matters, but can anyone enlighten me - what has happened to 'Truth Drugs' or has their use been outlawed?

Boudreaux Bob

13th Dec 2014, 20:57

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10849962_10205304500794805_3846833776826960873_n.jpg?oh=1a9b 427433eb2972bd55016135dfeb84&oe=54F99CBA

ShotOne

13th Dec 2014, 20:59

Bob, I agree with much of your post but hanging someone from a bar for 22 hours or chaining them naked to the floor until they die of hypothermia can't be construed " minor physical measures"

Toadstool

13th Dec 2014, 21:36

I am yet to see a single poster declare that they are more outraged with water boarding than they are at some lunatic cutting off a head.

Not one.

Its taking the discussion from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Utter tosh.

Sun Who

13th Dec 2014, 22:06

Bob,

Just once more, and re-phrased so as to be clear, I believe it was wrong for the CIA to use torture but I feel no less strongly about anyone elses use of torture. Both instances are legally and strategically ineffective.

By way of evidence, ISIS beheading have not furthered their strategic intent.

Sun.

Thelma Viaduct

14th Dec 2014, 00:52

Cutting off someone's head or being hit by a 500lb bomb from 25,000ft, hellfire from a UCAV or cut to ribbons via Apache cannon viewed on detailed TADS videos.

Ultimately, is there a difference?

They're all perpetrated by the weak.

Hempy

14th Dec 2014, 00:55

Trying to turn Pprune into Facebook, Bob? I'm sure you'd get lots of 'likes' from your good ole boy southern ttt brethren.

Can I play too?

http://media.cagle.com/139/2014/12/10/157268_600.jpg

http://media.cagle.com/46/2014/12/10/157272_600.jpg

http://media.cagle.com/152/2014/12/10/157281_600.jpg

:ok:

Lima Juliet

14th Dec 2014, 01:30

Maybe I should contact antibritishhumanrightslawyers4u.com to see if I have a multimillion pound claim against the government (of 30 years ago)!!

Me as well, please...and I had to 'volunteer' if I wanted to keep my job! That was introduced after the debrief of some of some of those aircrew captured in GW1 stated "we never had any training for this". I fail to see how you will ever train for this, as if you get a punch in the head it's still going to hurt - I don't need to do a training course to find it out either! These were the same techniques as the bleeding heart liberalists outlawed against the terrorists in another country not a million miles from my own. Definatley, not torture as I still have all my body parts and don't wake up each night screaming for my mum! It was still bloomin' uncomfortable, though!

I agree, this report is Obama's political game having just lost the last set of hustings. If we're talking psychological trickery, then this report is a classic example.

Whilst we're on the subject of psychology, I heard a funny anecdote on Radio 4 today. The comedian asked, does anyone know what the strategic intent is of the jihadist terrorist plot that led to the introduction of screening passengers and making them put their toiletries in bags with less than 100ml? If it was to terrorise the public and cause them a nuisance plus delays then they are winning! Whilst, this raised a laugh, I thought, "how very true"!

Finally, I don't like or agree with torture and I think that waterboarding is on (or maybe just over) the line between torture and physical/mental manipulation. Manipulation to gain intelligence is a fine art and using a 'sledgehammer to crack a nut' may not be the be the best way to get high-grade info - hold a Stanley knife to my ball-bag and I'll tell you anything and everything I can think of and I will leave you to work out what's true, half-true or a lie to stop you popping my testicles outside of my skin!

LJ

golamv

14th Dec 2014, 08:58

Don't yell at terrorist suspects, soldiers told (http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/dont-yell-at-terrorist-suspects-soldiers-told/ar-BBgMjnU)

From MSN, featuring quotes from The Telegraph ...

"British soldiers have “lost their capability” to interrogate terrorist insurgents because of strict new rules on questioning that even ban shouting in captives’ ears, military chiefs have warned.

The rules — detailed in court papers obtained by The Telegraph — also prevent military intelligence officers from banging their fists on tables or walls, or using “insulting words” when interrogating a suspect."

Chugalug2

14th Dec 2014, 09:40

BB:-
You were quite happy to Area Bomb whole cities during World War II but you get squeamish about a few hundred folks getting roughed up during interrogation?That old chestnut! So were you, for the same reason we were, there was no real alternative given the weapon delivery limitations at the time. That is entirely different to one's treatment of prisoners. When the Gestapo plunged their detainees' heads into water for minutes at a time, often drowning them in the process, we rightly condemned it. When detainees are waterboarded it is also torture and also to be condemned. There is a high suspicion here that the redaction reference the UK is going to turn out to be a can of worms. This discussion isn't anti USA, it's anti (or pro) torture.

Red Line Entry

15th Dec 2014, 10:33

Toadstool,

I am yet to see a single poster declare that they are more outraged with water boarding than they are at some lunatic cutting off a head.

You have now - I am more outraged at 'us' using torture than I am at 'them' cutting peoples' heads off.

I expect 'them' to be immoral murdering b'stards and I expect 'us' to be bound by the rule of law. Otherwise, if we're both ethically the same, then it really doesn't matter who wins.

Finningley Boy

15th Dec 2014, 10:55

Hear Hear Red Line,

Although if the torture involves some busty Army Girl tying up and tickling the detainee, then I'm going off to sign up for jihad straight away!:E:E

FB:)

Hope this isn't beyond the limit?:ooh:

Al R

15th Dec 2014, 11:10

Sun Who,

Just once more, and re-phrased so as to be clear, I believe it was wrong for the CIA to use torture but I feel no less strongly about anyone elses use of torture. Both instances are legally and strategically ineffective.

By way of evidence, ISIS beheading have not furthered their strategic intent.

It might be argued that Abu Ghraib infamy didn't really undermine ours either? This is the sort of thread where 'less is more', but the horizons of strategic intent are variable of course. A friendly, or a firm friendly approach will nearly always produce long term reliability but sometimes, there isn't the luxury of that.

I offer absolutely no defence of torture but if I had loved ones going for a coffee in Sydney yesterday, I have to say, I'm glad I'm not in the shoes of those currently making the calls. I don't have the inclination to adopt the lofty high ground and I find it worrying that ignorant politicians use it as an opportunistic menu de la jour. I don't trust them in the first instance, and secondly, if we commit forces in defence of the country, it's an issue for the country to reconcile and evolve.

The solution and moral debate isn't as clear as it once was. Once more, I don't advocate torture (although I am lead to believe it can produce immediate results) but do sometimes we have to take 3 steps back to take 4 steps forward and suck up some horrific losses? In 2001, the scope and timeline of the long war wasn't as clearly defined as it is now and the world is a completely different place to the one where we subjected suspected Irish terrorists (and subsequently, proven innocent people) to white noise.

ShotOne

15th Dec 2014, 11:38

"opportunistic menu de jour.." Well put, Al. The trouble is, its not just ignorant politicians but wavering allies and, especially, our enemies who will use it as such. They have explicitly paralleled our behaviour, for instance with the orange jump suits they force their unfortunate victims to wear. On the other hand, I can't conceive any way in which torture will resolve Sydney's coffee shop incident although it's entirely likely to be used as justification for their next atrocity, whatever that may be.

Al R

15th Dec 2014, 12:11

On that specific point, and at the risk of drawing OP ire, the aussie response to that is looking magnificent. We fudge responsibility by introducing layer upon later of prevarication and hindsight review but it seems that over there, one or two seem to be grasping the nettle.

Australia hostage siege: Muslim leaders condemn 'criminal' act as IllRideWithYou trends worldwide - Australasia - World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australia-hostage-siege-muslim-leaders-condemn-criminal-act-as-illridewithyou-trends-worldwide-9925092.html)

Thank you for the gentle Franglais nudge. ;)

Roadster280

15th Dec 2014, 12:16

Can I turn this round?

Military conflict on the ground will produce prisoners. Some of those prisoners will have information vital to one's own war effort.

In the new world order, where "enhanced" interrogation techniques are off the table, how does one extract information from such high-value prisoners, if the prisoner is non-cooperative?

Is the view that these people must simply be left in peace to see out the war in captivity, if they won't play nicely when asked nicely?

Hempy

15th Dec 2014, 12:41

In the new world order, where "enhanced" interrogation techniques are off the table, how does one extract information from such high-value prisoners, if the prisoner is non-cooperative?

If the stories I read about the French Resistance are correct, I'll think you'll find that even the Gestapo discovered that if the prisoner is truly 'non-cooperative' even 'enhanced interrogation techniques' won't 'extract information'..

Jean Moulin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Moulin)

Soon enough, they learned that they had captured the head of the Resistance.

Little good it did them. In the Montluc fort in Lyons, on the day that the Gestapo agent handed him writing materials because torture had left him unable to speak, Jean Moulin sketched a caricature of his torturer. As for what followed, let us turn to the stark words of his sister:

“His part was played, and his ordeal began. Jeered at, savagely beaten, his head bleeding, his internal organs ruptured, he attained the limits of human suffering without betraying a single secret, he who knew everything.”

Let us be quite clear that, for the days in which he was still able to speak or write, the fate of the whole Resistance hung on the courage of this one man. As Mademoiselle Moulin put it, he knew everything.

Lonewolf_50

15th Dec 2014, 12:52

Hempy, this is a good illustration of a piss poor argument (on your part) and the sterling example of how one person can defy his captors. (Stockdale was another sterling example).

What you might wish to remember is that each person is a different case, and you don't know what he'll do or not do until he is tested. Hell, he probably didn't know what he was capable of until he met that test.

The above doesn't mean that one should go on a default mode of "try and see" with the abuse. Not hardly, the narrow view of believing that "push button pain produces info" (like a vending machine) has been shown to be a bad basic assumption. Yet it sometimes works. Therefore other considerations have to be added if one is to arrive at actual criteria to base such a decision on. Policy, image, risk, what we do and don't do, and why ... all of that factors in.

This post is to remind you that oversimplifying the assessment based on an example of heroic defiance is a careless use of the halo effect.

Put another way, not every soldier is Alvin York.

Boudreaux Bob

15th Dec 2014, 13:01

Hempy,

For the One or very few who did not divulge information....how many others did in fact break and give up valuable information? Were not most arrests due to Collaborators acting out of fear of arrest, torture, and death, most having been arrested themselves?

You do understand the Instruction given to SOE and Resistance Fighters was to hold out for 24-48 hours in order to allow for the rest of the Cell's Members to learn of the Capture and to be able to effect their escape and evasion plan. After that time period there was no real value to giving up some information to take the pressure of the one in custody as the others not in custody could be on their way to hiding places and take actions to elude capture.

Hempy

15th Dec 2014, 13:14

I'm not presenting that as an 'argument', piss poor or otherwise (although cheers for the erudite post about...nothing). I'm sure if you trolled the Gestapo or Stasi etc archives you could find thousands of examples where torture turned up trumps, but who is to say any of those examples were 'non-cooperative'?? The fact that they gave up information would suggest they were cooperative. Via coercion.

It doesn't work on everyone. If you are going to lower your moral stamding to condone torture, any rational person would hope at least that

a. you're certain that the person about to be tortured actually has information worth torturing him for; and

b. you're certain the torture will work.

Or maybe I'm just too 'left wing huggy fluffy'. Or just not American.

melmothtw

15th Dec 2014, 13:33

Yep, this is where dehumanizing your enemy leads you. It starts with regarding them as no more than 'rag-heads', which leads to taking trophy photos of dead enemy combatants, which then progresses to individual soldiers murdering wounded prisoners on the battlefield, or the sanctioned and systematic torturing of detainees.

They're all just different points along the same sorry wedge.

Boudreaux Bob

15th Dec 2014, 13:45

One thing we are sure of Hempy is nothing....facts, reality, logic, and anything else is going to sway you from your own view of things.

We can point out the rules our American POW's lived by during their long years of real torture, the kind that results in horrible pain and permanent injuries and in some cases death, but you would ignore that in your calculations of results of toruture.

You do know our guys were told to resist as long as possible and endure what they could....but only to the point they did not incur lasting injuries or wounds.

That made the Vietnamese work for everything they got, met with our Military Code of Conduct, and protected our guys from having to suffer permanent injuries.

Sadly, the Vietnamese were not briefed in on the Rules as they had their own and far too many of our guys suffered permanent harm due to the Torture they endured.

But none of this matters to you.

All you see is some abstract moral construct of your own making and nothing matters to you beyond trying to force your own views on everyone else.

So do carry on ...but don't think you are going hold sway with the arguments you are presenting as they just are no persuasive to anyone with reasonable views of the issues.

Given your methods or Colonel Allen West's methods....I will walk alongside the good Colonel any Day of the Week as he totes those Gas Cans through Hell.

Hempy

15th Dec 2014, 13:50

How did this guy get a job?

General Says Less Coercion of Captives Yields Better Data (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/international/middleeast/07detain.html?fta=y)

Chugalug2

15th Dec 2014, 14:36

BB:-
All you see is some abstract moral construct of your own making and nothing matters to you beyond trying to force your own views on everyone else.Well, wrong there on all counts old man. Hempy's "abstract moral construct" is not solely of his making but shared with many others, myself included. No-one is forcing anybody to do anything or not to do anything, save for the legal restraints pertaining and one's own sense of what is right and what is wrong. In the UK torture is against the law, both civil and military (or was in my day, but that was of course many years ago. Has it changed?).

As has been alluded to here already, there are many ways to skin a cat. The processes of secrecy, deception, and monitoring helped us to win WW2, rather than resorting to a policy of torture. It was the opposite for the enemy. We did things differently to them and prevailed. If torture is official US policy then I suggest that is another thing that divides us, as well as a common language.

You may well agree with others that the Brits outshine all others in hypocrisy. When the lid is finally levered off this particular can you will possibly be proved right. There has been a lot of that here lately, and no doubt much more to come. No-one here can assume a holier than thou stance about anything, but we need to get back to being ourselves rather than assuming the mores and customs of others, be they friend or foe.

Romeo Oscar Golf

15th Dec 2014, 14:50

Geoffrey Miller | The Center for Torture Accountability (http://tortureaccountability.org/geoffrey_miller)

Some "interesting" revelations here

For what its worth I don't think there is much evidence of "torture", but then again my definition is probably different to yours.
These are bad dirty times as indeed they have been for many years and bad dirty actions must be taken.
The so called "moral high ground" is a meaningless phrase which means a thousand different thingsa to a thousand different people. We do not have to defend it because it doesn't exist in the reaL world

Have a nice day.

Boudreaux Bob

15th Dec 2014, 14:58

Chug,

Tell me about the London Cage thing. When it gets brought up all we heard is the sound of Crickets. Why no outcry over that?

That is the kind of hypocrisy that I talk about.

Pretending the UK has no skeletons in the closet is ignoring reality.

You too have used coercive interrogation techniques....and did so during that War.

Did not German Agents not get the fine choice of cooperating or being shot?

Of course they did, and under the concept of the way Spies get handled during Wartime I don't have much problem with it and you should not either.

But when One argues morality and makes it a very strict black and white construct then you leave yourself no wiggle room do you.

So...until you first admit the London Cage (and others existed and coercive techniques were used) then I shall have to consider you refusing to engage in any kind of true intellectual debate about this.

That is my problem with those who wish to see it in a one way fashion....not because of the nationalities that are involved but just the fact that you refuse to accept that your own side participated in exactly the same kind of conduct.

I guess that shoe pinches when it is on the other foot.

Chugalug2

15th Dec 2014, 15:27

BB
That is indeed the type of hypocrisy that I speak of. Tell you about the London Cage? It seems to me it would be more appropriate for you to tell us. All I can garnish is from that pillar of truth (bit of a Brit in-joke there, sorry), the Daily Mail:-
How Britain tortured Nazi PoWs: The horrifying interrogation methods that belie our proud boast that we fought a clean war | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223831/How-Britain-tortured-Nazi-PoWs-The-horrifying-interrogation-methods-belie-proud-boast-fought-clean-war.html)
It seems that is what you refer to, or was there worse than that? Either way I can't see any possible justification for it. Most of the complaints seem to come from captured German War criminals where there was more than enough evidence to hang them anyway. I must admit though that one complainant was a German anti Nazi refugee who had some justification for doing so. On the whole though I would characterise most of it as unjustifiable rough handling rather than torture per se, but then that is the default position of all called upon to justify the mishandling of prisoners so I concede your point.
Those responsible should have been charged, but of course they weren't. Were they acting under orders or merely abusing the power over those that they sought to interrogate? Such treatment was counter productive in my view, what good did any of it do us? What good does it do us now rather than make more people hate us and plan their revenge?
You are right, the London Cage scandal apparently shows us to be hypocrites. So what? Time we learned to be different.

KenV

15th Dec 2014, 15:56

A few random points:

1. The claim that "enhanced interogation does not work" flies in the face of numerous agencies who got lots of useful and valuable information using those techniques over multiple decades of experience.

2. The claim that all "enhanced interogation" is by definition "torture" is absolute rubbish. If this were true the US government has been "torturing" its own soldiers for decades. I myself have been water boarded five times and subject to many other ""enhanced interogation" techniques numerous times. The people in this report who used these techniques honed those skills and refined the techniques on their fellow service people. Being on the receiving end of such techniques was VERY unpleasant, but I never considered it torture.

3. This "Senate Report" is all about politics and not about "justice" nor "morality". The "Senate" did not produce it, A bunch of Senators from ONE political party produced it and released it. It's completely one sided and filled with inaccuracies and even some outright falsehoods.

Boudreaux Bob

15th Dec 2014, 16:02

Fair enough, now we can start on an even basis for debating what should be done as we accept that probably every government and military at some point has done things probably most of us would wish they had not.

I am on record as saying I do not endorse Torture or EIT Techniques for interrogations as a routine matter of procedure. In a combat situation or a very highly time critical situation say in a Terrorism event.....would I condemn our side scaring the crap out of someone in an effort to gain immediately actionable intelligence...well probably not. Shoot them in the knee or something like that ....absolutely not. Do something to make the guy think I would....perhaps.

But once in custody and confronted with a Criminal prosecution scenario then one stays well within established procedures.

The question is what do you do if there are no plans for Criminal Prosecution and you hold someone that is a known threat or proven threat?

KenV

15th Dec 2014, 16:08

But once in custody and confronted with a Criminal prosecution scenario then one stays well within established procedures.

FYI, none of the "torture" victims were in any kind of "criminal prosecution scenario." That's exactly why they were at secret locations OUTside of US legal jurisdiction.

Chugalug2

15th Dec 2014, 16:20

KenV:-
That's exactly why they were at secret locations OUTside of US legal jurisdiction. Unless you have a very weird legal code, I think that you will find that the perpetrators of any "torture" that happened in these "secret locations" are indeed in a "criminal prosecution scenario." Whether they be Service personnel, Civilian contractors, or local enthusiastic participants of such past times, they are all subject to law, be it Military or Civilian. Whether such law is ever enforced is of course another matter, hence the hypocrisy upon which BB and I concur.

Boudreaux Bob

15th Dec 2014, 16:33

Chug, You do not get to just point fingers.

Tell us what you would do with those you hold who are known Terrorists and who are a bonafide threat to citizens of your country and others?

You are not going to file criminal charges for any number of reasons and you cannot release them as you know they shall find their way back into action.

So what do YOU do, Chug.

Tell us. No abstraction arguments....lay out Chug's Plan to protect his Society from Terrorists.

Sun Who

15th Dec 2014, 16:34

AI R,

I find nothing to disagree with mate.

Bob,

You seem to be working from an assumption that people's criticism of the CIA's behavior in this regard, is in some way a criticism of the US - it's not. Quite the opposite in fact. It's because of America's unique history and the efforts it's gone to in the past to 'do the right thing' (see what I did there?) that the world expects so much of it (although no more than is required by law).

Britain invented concentration camps (no need to say thanks) we're no more morally 'pure' than any other country. The points made on this thread, detailing why torture is a poor choice, are agnostic of the perpetrator.

Sun.

Boudreaux Bob

15th Dec 2014, 16:37

We got this Guy....what do we do with him?

He got waterboarded and given full benefit of EIT.

How do you prosecute him "Criminally" and how long do you hold him without a Trial....or do you turn him loose?

Can we argue the World is better off with him being a long term Resident of Gitmo?

These issues are not easy to address as there are no easy answers and pretending there is just does not countenance reality.

Lofty arguments about "Morality" are fine in the Classroom or over a Pint in the Pub but when it comes to dealing with Evil for real then it gets much more complex.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed - The Guantánamo Docket (http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/10024-khalid-shaikh-mohammed)

Sun,

A few have very much made it an "American" thing and my argument is every Nation has some skin in this game in their past.

The UK was confronted with this in the past when dealing with the IRA and other Terrorist groups.

The Clinton and Obama Administrations have tried to treat it as a Criminal Matter and the Bush Administration tried to approach it from a "War" perspective.

Which is the better way is in itself a real argument that is being thrashed around as well.

An example, we have approximately forty Terrorists convicted of Federal Crimes who are living out Life Sentences in the Colorado Super Max Prison and we have others who have not been prosecuted in a Criminal Court who are being held in Guantanamo Bay with Indefinite Status.

The End Result is pretty much the same. The Bad Guys are not going anywhere soon and most will never go any where but to the Prison Cemetery.

Sun Who

15th Dec 2014, 16:38

It's exceedingly rare, that any CPers holds information that is of immediate tactical advantage - despite what you may have seen at the movies. Obtaining reliable information from CPers can be done, legally, but it takes time. That might be an uncomfortable scenario, but it's unavoidable. I have sympathy with those who are tempted to use illegal methods in those (very) rare instances where time is of the essence, but any intel they obtain as a consequence of such methods will likely be unreliable, and will almost certainly have a negative impact on the strategic intent.

I'm aware I'm repeating myself now, so will politely bow out until and unless the conversation progresses.

Sun.

Sun Who

15th Dec 2014, 16:43

Oh Bob, I've got to step back in on this one. If you knew anything about Khalid Mohammed you wouldn't have picked that example. look him up on Google and pay particular attention to the prosecution options, quality of intel obtained and the review's observations on how it could have been done better. Fantastic own goal.:D

Sun.

Basil

15th Dec 2014, 16:56

Britain invented concentration camps
I trust you ARE aware of the difference between a concentration camp and a death camp.

I doubt that Britain actually invented the concept but it would appear to me to be more humane than just killing the farmers who were supplying enemy fighters.

Boudreaux Bob

15th Dec 2014, 17:02

Now why would that be Sun?

Basil,

Rumor has it that the Camps during the Boer War were not exactly Pleasure Palaces.

The Boers were winning by their use of Guerrilla Warfare and the British Army resorted to a campaign of Scorched Earth by burning farms and villages and relocating the population to Concentration Camps. All of this being fought over Gold finds in land given to the Boers and a fear they would become wealthy and show allegiance to the Germans.

The British Army created the concentration camps as part of a campaign against Boer guerrillas fighting against the takeover of their independent republic. Civilians were herded into the camps from their farms, but the insanitary conditions cost many their lives as hunger and disease ran rampant. Between June 1901 and May 1902, of the 115,000 people in the camps, almost 28,000 died, about 22,000 of them children. The death toll represented about 10 per cent of the Boer population. About 20,000 black people also died in other camps.

Chugalug2

15th Dec 2014, 17:03

BB, guess what? There is no sure way for Chug "to protect his Society from Terrorists". You just do your best, mainly with intelligence, by infiltrating, by using brains rather than brawn. I doubt very much if any plan involving extraordinary rendition (a glorious word with pseudo legal implications, when it is only really good old fashioned kidnapping) would have much facility. You do what you do with all bad people; investigate, arrest, and prosecute them. If they confess and plead guilty easy peasy, if not then do your work assiduously lest they slip the net.
As to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, I understood that he had confessed, so what's the problem? Oh, he only confessed under torture? Ah...

Sun Who

15th Dec 2014, 17:04

Basil,

Yes, I am, of course, aware of the distinction between concentration camps and 'death camps'.

See here (http://www.geni.com/projects/Anglo-Boere-Oorlog-Boer-War-1899-1902-British-Concentration-Camps/854) for a reasonably informative article on Britain's invention of the former. There are thousands of other easily available references, both on the web and at your local library - there is little challenge to the idea that Britain invented concentration camps.

Britain's behavior during the Boer war was not our finest hour although, in a pre-global comms, pre-internet era, where it was possible to control the message to a large extent, those tactics could be said to have achieved the strategic aim. Those tactics would not work today.

Sun.

Romeo Oscar Golf

15th Dec 2014, 17:18

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, I understood that he had confessed, so what's the problem? Oh, he only confessed under torture? Ah...

But of course, as many here maintain, torture does not work...ergo his confession was made because he was guilty?:ok:

KenV

15th Dec 2014, 17:34

Unless you have a very weird legal code, I think that you will find that the perpetrators of any "torture" that happened in these "secret locations" are indeed in a "criminal prosecution scenario."The US legal system has little, if any, jurisdiction outside of US territory. If the "perpetrators" were in the military, then UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) applies. If they were civilians, then things get mighty murky legal wise. Of course local law applies as does international law. Who's going to enforce the local laws and/or international laws that apply here?

Boudreaux Bob

15th Dec 2014, 17:56

One of my points is simply the Criminal Prosecution suffers from the use of EIT's which are followed by "Confessions". You still hold the Prisoner but any Criminal Prosecution becomes very risky. If he is found Not Guilty or the Charges are Dismissed....you are compelled to turn him loose.

If you do not pursue Criminal charges just what do you do with the Prisoner after he "Confesses"?

KenV

15th Dec 2014, 18:06

There appears to be a lot of confusion here. Any "confession" is totally irrelevant. The enhanced interogation had NOTHING to do with wringing confessions from these guys, but obtaining information from them. These guys will almost surely never be brought within US legal jurisdiction and tried. Never.

Chugalug2

15th Dec 2014, 19:37

Oh there's lots of confusion all right, KenV. Could you please answer BB's question, what do you do with a Guantanamo/wherever inmate after you've drained him of information, confessions, or none of the above? What do you do with him? You tell us that:-
These guys will almost surely never be brought within US legal jurisdiction and tried. Never. So what are you going to do with them?

As to the "perpetrators":-
Who's going to enforce the local laws and/or international laws that apply here? Well obviously not the US legal system, for what it's worth. Has it ever occurred though that what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander? If rendition to foreign climes is OK for those suspected of outrages against the US, is it not also OK for those who were complicit in the torture of those suspects? There are UK Nationals held at Guantanamo without trial, for years now. What are you going to do with them? The US has lost dearly in its declared War on Terror. The UK has lost dearly in being complicit in it, but is now counting the cost and reviewing its position:-
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/rendition-abduction-kidnapping/8709
Not a moment too soon in my view.

rh200

15th Dec 2014, 19:41

As usual a political tit for tack, with meaningless back and forth.

Torture doesn't work, in effect a meaningless statement in the modern world. Every one knows that. Thats why enhanced interrogation techniques is used in conjunction with other methods.

Did they even get tortured? who here has seen a technical description of each incident? Who here can then go though each incident with the various legal codes? Or are you saying that you just like Bin laden etc wants us to just act on moral codes, as long as there your moral codes.

As for legal action, that depends on each countries legal codes and the peoples involved counties legal code. As such, who's law do you follow and be responsible for, the country you are in, or the country you are from? A very stick problem if you are forced to follow your own countries laws in another land.

Mr.Noritake

15th Dec 2014, 19:52

Dear god, my post actually caused all this nonsense. May I summarise, and then have the thread confined to a dark hole somewhere? Gitmo perhaps?

Americans think Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (aka torture) are fine as long as they're the perpetrator not the victim. If they're the victim they constitute inhumane torture and will go off into a lengthy rant about the Vietnamese, the Japanese and any other army which gave them a hard time.

The Brits think the whole thing is awful, conveniently ignoring the fact that they were a) observers b) advisers c) facilitators and d) probably participants (which will, of course, have been redacted).

The Aussies are fretting over a shootout in Sydney and are a mite preoccupied at the moment.

The remainder of the civilised world are rolling their eyes going, 'WTF are these guys on?'.

End of thread.

Boudreaux Bob

15th Dec 2014, 20:03

Chugs,

I posed that question to you. What is your answer?

What becomes of the UK Citizens at Gitmo (assuming that is true statement)?

Why has the UK not asked to have them back?

NutLoose

15th Dec 2014, 20:05

The Brits think the whole thing is awful, conveniently ignoring the fact that they were a) observers b) advisers c) facilitators and d) probably participants (which will, of course, have been redacted).

Not totally true, we are looking at it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30467471

If guilty, one hopes any of our politicians etc would be brought to account, they are servants of the law, not above it.

Boudreaux Bob

15th Dec 2014, 20:19

Nutty,

One thing Politicians say is they shall walk a straight line on such issues but we know the Truth is those currently in power don't want to actually do anything to the last bunch to sit in their Chairs as what goes around comes around.

You notice Mr. Obama is staying well away from any prosecution of perceived wrong doing in this CIA EIT Program (and anything else that has cropped up in his own Administration).

Just as strained as the EIT Legal Finding was for the DOJ, so is the current DOJ Legal Finding that allowed the killing of US Citizens by Drone Strikes without any legal attention to Judicial proceedings and our Constitutional Right to Due Process.

You can bet Mr. Obama is never going to allow any prosecution of Bush Administration Officials because he damn sure does not want that same precedent applied to Him and His.

Courtney Mil

15th Dec 2014, 20:24

End of thread? Really?

Mr.Noritake

15th Dec 2014, 20:26

Hopefully.

Chugalug2

15th Dec 2014, 21:56

OP, I'm sorry that the thread hasn't fulfilled your expectations. What was it you asked? Oh yes, what's the legal position of pilots involved in rendition flights? I don't have a clue, best ask your lawyer if you are concerned. I shouldn't worry though, it seems that international, local, or US jurisdictions are not seen as much of an issue.

BB, it's no use asking me what should be done about people being held under extraordinary rendition, you need to ask the people holding them. What are they going to do with them?

As to the UK (ie the UK Government) not asking for their nationals to be released, well they wouldn't would they? This whole mess relies on a web of complicity whereby the CIA has compromised us all, and we are all paying the price for it. When (if?) they are released, I imagine that any chance of prosecuting them through the UK Courts will be zero given the detention and treatment they have already received. On the contrary they are more likely to be pursuing HMG through the Courts instead. Funny old world, isn't it?

jonw66

16th Dec 2014, 11:40

Mr Noritlake
If you look at post number 4 the hint was there.:ouch:
Cheers
Jon

Mr.Noritake

16th Dec 2014, 14:37

jonw66:

Indeed it was.

In future I shall pay closer attention to your advice.

Al R

16th Dec 2014, 21:32

Americans - more pragmatic about harsh interrogation.

WSJ/NBC Poll: Most Americans Say CIA ?Harsh Interrogation? Acceptable - Washington Wire - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/12/16/wsjnbc-poll-americans-say-cia-harsh-interrogation-acceptable/)

Boudreaux Bob

16th Dec 2014, 22:30

Pragmatic or still remembering 911 when 3,000 of our Fellows were murdered by Terrorists and knowing there were other attacks coming if we did not find a way to stop them?

Al R

16th Dec 2014, 22:32

Maybe that's why they are pragmatic, Bob?

Basil

17th Dec 2014, 09:17

OK, I'll say it again for those who obfuscate in their postings:

Do NOT conflate CONCENTRATION CAMP with DEATH CAMP.

The concentration camp was used to deny support to irregular fighters.
Tragically, disease killed some detainees.

The death camp was set up to murder 100% of the inmates.

Boudreaux Bob

17th Dec 2014, 12:06

Basil,

We get your point.

But when you burn the house and barn, lock the people (men, women, and children) in Concentration Camps where disease 28,000 of 115,000 who are incarcerated, the difference gets awfully thin.

The Intent might differ but the end result approaches the same and that is what matters.

Look at what we did to the Japanese in WWII in our own country when FDR ordered them rounded up on the West Coast in comparison. We had no where the Death Rate and we did not burn down their Homes and destroy their Farms.

Basil

17th Dec 2014, 12:50

BB, Look at what we did to the Japanese in WWII in our own country when FDR ordered them rounded up on the West Coast in comparison. We had no where the Death Rate and we did not burn down their Homes and destroy their Farms.
Different time with better standards of food and hygiene.
You didn't have irregulars fighting against you.

I think the US had every right to be concerned then just as are we now when attacked from within by Islamists who object to our foreign policy.

Boudreaux Bob

17th Dec 2014, 12:59

The Western Countries do have a difficult situation re Radical islamics don't we.

Trying to assimilate those who shall not assimilate but are living within our Societies is not going to end well for anyone.

The solution to the problem is known but is not acceptable to either side.

They are not going to change and we are not going to return them to Sender.

So the problem just gets worse each day.

Basil

17th Dec 2014, 16:08

BBC News - Al-Sweady Inquiry: UK army murder claims 'deliberate lies' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30515369)

Allegations of murder and torture made against British soldiers by Iraqi detainees were "deliberate lies", a five-year public inquiry has ruled.

The £31m Al-Sweady Inquiry found claims that up to 20 Iraqis were killed and mutilated after a 2004 battle were "reckless speculation".

The hearing took evidence about the actions of soldiers from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment, who were ambushed by insurgents, leading to a three-hour gun battle that became known as the Battle of Danny Boy.

Sir Thayne, a former High Court judge, found there had been instances of ill-treatment during "tactical questioning" of the detainees at Camp Abu Naji, near Majar-al-Kabir in southern Iraq, on the night of 14 May.

These included blindfolding the prisoners, depriving them of food and sleep and using threatening interrogation techniques contrary to the Geneva Convention.

But Sir Thayne said Iraqi detainees who alleged they were tortured and abused - and subjected to mock executions - had given evidence that was "unprincipled in the extreme" and "wholly without regard to the truth".

blindfolding the prisoners, depriving them of food and sleep and using threatening interrogation techniques*
Poor dears!
The A&SH must have calmed down a bit since I was attached to a TA regiment.
Historical note: The A&SH did very well against the Japs in Malaya.

*Although "See you, ya bas; dae ye waant a malky in the jaksy." may, due to misunderstanding, have failed to intimidate as intended.

Mr.Noritake

17th Dec 2014, 17:02

Another historical note:

In fact the A&SH did so well that most of the battalion spent the remainder of the war as POW's after the surrender of an entire, intact and functional British Army under Percival.

The Brits had their revenge, ensuring the execution of the Japanese commander in circumstances which did the presiding authority little credit, and in consequence establishing the Yama****a Standard. This has never been overruled and, if enacted today, would leave the Commanders-in-Chief and Heads-of-Agencies of many Western organisations squirming in their comfy seats.

As an aside, a visit to the Battle Box where Percival decided to throw in the towel is well worth it, if only for a stroll around the surrounding grounds.

Basil

17th Dec 2014, 17:48

Mr.Noritake, I am well aware of the circumstances surrounding the fall of Singapore.
That event does not detract from the performance of the A&SH in the Malay jungle.

Mr.Noritake

17th Dec 2014, 18:04

Dear Basil,

I disagree.

Lauding the performance of a small unit in a disastrous and humiliating defeat lacks credibility. Private Bloggs may well fight alone in his foxhole until he's overrun, but if his unit collapses without offering equally stiff resistance, his actions could be described as pointless. Scale that up and you have the actions of A&SH placed in the context of the actions of the British Army in Singapore - pointless.

And my main point was - in the context of this thread - regarding the existence of the Yama****a Standard as it relates to command responsibility for the actions of subordinates, whether knowledge of their actions exist or not.

Basil

17th Dec 2014, 19:29

No, lauding the performance of the A&SH in Malaya is completely divorced from Singapore. If you cannot see that then I will make no further attempt to enlighten you.
I re-iterate: "blindfolding the prisoners, depriving them of food and sleep and using threatening interrogation techniques" is nothing compared with the actions of the Japanese Imperial Army everywhere they went.
They behaved like savages.
Why this conduct should take place escapes me. I guess that the Japanese soldiery were rather less civilised than I'd expect.

Ask the Chinese about Nanking.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Chinese_civilians_to_be_buried_alive.jpg

Allegedly Chinese civilians being buried alive.
The one of a tied-up man being bayoneted seems to have been withdrawn.

Sorry about this but you did ask for it.

Anyhoo - the message appears to be: "Don't f**kin' lose!"
Then you get to write the history.
Oh, so sorry; I forgot that sort of stuff doesn't appear in Japanese history books anyway.

Boudreaux Bob

17th Dec 2014, 19:50

Lauding the performance of a small unit in a disastrous and humiliating defeat lacks credibility. Private Bloggs may well fight alone in his foxhole until he's overrun, but if his unit collapses without offering equally stiff resistance, his actions could be described as pointless.

Really? I mean like....Really?

Mr.Noritake

17th Dec 2014, 20:02

Dearest Basil,

If you find something noble in dying for a lost cause then you have more in common with the members of the IJA than you seem to realise.

I don't need to ask the Chinese about Nanjing. I lived there for ten months in 2004 and heard the stories first hand.

I've neither the time nor inclination to educate you on Japanese culture in the early-to-mid 20th century, but before you set off on rants which do you little credit you may care to educate yourself about this subject in greater detail. Understanding a culture does not equate to approval of its actions, but it does offer insight into why events occur, and once you understand the 'why's' life becomes a little less black and white.

In the context of this thread there are those who have suggested precisely this; that actions are based on circumstance, and that circumstance can create approval for actions which would, in other situations, be abhorrent.

I have a considerable personal dislike of Japanese culture. My dislike is based on an understanding of Japanese society, yet this understanding permits me to place atrocities such as Nanjing into a context where individual actions, though reprehensible by my standards, fall within the parameters of the culture of the perpetrators.

Does that make sense to you? Probably not. I'm guessing you're a black and white soul. Shades of grey are an anathema to you.

Ho hum.

Mr.Noritake

17th Dec 2014, 20:05

Dear Bob,

Any time you care to pose a sentence I can understand I'll be happy to respond. Until then, please forgive the perplexed expression on my face.

Basil

17th Dec 2014, 20:17

Mr.Noritake,
I am aware of everything to which you refer.
I have worked with Japanese and visited Japan on numerous occasions.
I will not descend to ad hominem attack other than to suggest that you may be a troll.

Mr.Noritake

17th Dec 2014, 20:28

Pointing out where your argument contains obvious flaws or noting that you seem to adopt a simplistic view of complex circumstances does not, to me, suggest an ad hominem attack. But we're all different. If you felt personally slighted, please accept my sincere apology for my choice of words.

Nevertheless, the basis of my argument stands.

Chugalug2

18th Dec 2014, 12:47

OP:-
The Brits had their revenge, ensuring the execution of the Japanese commander in circumstances which did the presiding authority little credit, and in consequence establishing the Yama****a Standard. The General in question was General Seishiro Itagaki and the Tribunal that tried him (principally for War Crimes in Manchuria, as well as the catch all of waging aggressive war), was held under the authority of Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (ie MacArthur) rather than Supreme Commander South East Asia Command (ie Mountbatten). If the British were out for revenge for surrendering Singapore they would have hung Yama****a, they didn't, the Americans did.

Tomohisa Yama****a - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomohisa_Yama****a)

Seishir? Itagaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seishir%C5%8D_Itagaki)

Rather bemused by this departure from the thread OP re pilots involved in Extraordinary Rendition, or even the wider theme of the legality (none!) of Extraordinary Rendition itself and what is to become of those still held in Extraordinary Rendition, but you are the OP and the mods are the mods so...

PS Did I mention Extraordinary Rendition?