Most of the foreign fighters went to Iraq for torture payback. It is bad for our own soldiers, period.
Would force reading our troll's posts to a prisoner come under "enhanced torture" or "brainwashing"?
Posted by TIKI AL at December 6, 2008 04:54 PMThe only time torture techniques could ever be successful and reliable is when they are used on an individual who is KNOWN to have specific information, in order to gain that information. Combination to the safe, where's your leader now, where does he/she live, that kind of thing. Any other use is, by any other name, sadism.
Posted by ig0at at December 7, 2008 06:50 AMDon't worry. Feinstein is going to do away with torture come January by introducing a bill opposing it.
Posted by Judith at December 7, 2008 09:35 AM"Most of the foreign fighters went to Iraq for torture payback. It is bad for our own soldiers, period."
No disagreement that using torture is counterproductive in just about every way (except for allowing sadistic interrogators and onlookers an outlook for their baser urges), and bad for your own soldiers. It is, of course, far, far worse for the torture victims and their loved ones, but somehow that seems to matter less to most Americans, so I'll go with the "it's bad for our soldiers" theme.
Did you get that first bit of information from the former interrogator with a recently-published book? Last week I heard a couple of interviews of this guy, and had problems with some of his claims.
I don't doubt that he is sincere in what he believes, and I am glad he is taking on this issue, despite the fact that he seems to base everything on the assumption that for the U.S. to invade and dominate another country is quite OK as long as they "do it the right way".
One of the things I take strong issue with is his implicit discounting of the significance of the Iraqi resistance in favour of so-called "foreign fighters". Following the logic of his statements, he appears to be saying that the overwhelming majority of U.S. military deaths have been at the hands of "foreign fighters" who went to Iraq because they were outraged that the U.S. was torturing people. This does not ring at all true, and does not fit with the best information we have on the relatively miniscule numbers of "foreign fighters" versus Iraqi resistance fighters. It also does not fit with the military's and others' consistent characterizations of the "foreign fighters" as terrorists who mainly targeted Iraqi civilians, and tried to foment civil war rather than fighting against occupation forces. Further, given that Iraqis and not foreigners have been overwhelmingly the primary victims of American detention and torture (and other abuses), it stands to reason that the greatest response to torture would be on the part of Iraqis, not "foreign fighters".
The guy also greatly overstates Zarqawi's significance. Zarqawi was far more important as a propaganda subject than anything else, including the author's "foreign fighters". In fact, the subtitle of the book exaggerates enormously when it calls Zarqawi "the most dangerous man in Iraq". That's just repeating a bunch of standard propagandistic processed bull food (and no, I do not blame the author for that - those decisions are nearly always made by the publisher, sometimes against the wishes of the author).
So, while torture is unarguably wrong on its face, and unquestionably bad for your own soldiers, the author bases his case on very questionable premises to say the least.
Posted by Shirin at December 7, 2008 05:44 PMThe commonest response by unthinking people to attacks on the use of torture, is to go on about the awful things the subject of the torture has done, or is said to have done. Such people have no grasp of the word "principle". Suppose you have a ten-year-old daughter, and some evil guy rapes her, and you know he has a ten-year-old daughter. Do you make it your business to rape her in reprisal? Of course not (I hope). Why? Because raping little girls is wrong. Always and without exception.
There is ironic news today, that the alleged chief of the remaining prisoners at Guantanamo wants to plead guilty. Ironic because, if he is executed, he becomes a martyr, which is exactly what he wanted in the first place.
Regarding the whole topic of these men being held, Winston Churchill, whom Bush is said to admire, condemned the use of executive power to imprison people without charge, as an odious crime such as existed in Nazi and Communist societies. He said this in the middle of World War II, when Britain was under vastly greater threat than America is now, or probably ever has been.
The Times made it impossible for me to continue subscribing during the Judith Miller treachery. Now, every time I think maybe I should start supporting them again, I can't bring myself to, because they so reliably continue to make themselves a useful platform for the military hardware, oil and Israel lobbies. That mindset permeates the paper, despite the liberal smatterings. Reporters who want to stay until the ship sinks need to show proper deference to the Times' party lines.
Posted by Roger W at December 8, 2008 07:27 PM