BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: GUEST,Eye on Europe
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 10:57 AM

Made so clear Danke.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 09:19 AM

Spike Milligan's version just had the first line:

"Germans have a sense of humour, Ja, Ja, Ja, Ja, Ja, Ja-a,Ja..."

Here's a site that contains national anthems of all countries, with the original words and English translations and sound files of the tunes. Some pretty weird ones, some pretty boring ones and a smatterng of rather good ones, especially the tunes. (Romania is one of my favourites.)

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 09:09 AM

Eye on Europe, a good question

When these lyrics were written the understanding of this line was completely different. What now is Germany, for centuries had been split in statelets, baronies, small kingdoms, earldoms etc. All these minor feudal rulers were seen by liberals and socialists in the 19th century as a major obstacle to the introduction of democracy. The revolution of 1848 had failed or was crushed by the Prussians.

The liberal and socialist Germans were dreaming of a united democratic Germany without feudalism. 'Germany first' or 'Germany above all' was easily understandable then as the war cry of liberals fighting against feudalism. Germany in their eyes was not above other countries but above the numerous statelets making up the 'German Union'.

In some statelets, this song was even forbidden then for fear of its subversive democratic character.

The wish to make this song the National anthem of Germany came from a a grassroot movement and the socialist government in 1918 did fulfill this wish of a broad movement.

The Nazis, like they have done with many other songs, have used these lyrics for their purposes. And many in those times may have understood Germany above other nations.

After the last war, the third verse of that tainted song ('unity and right and freedom...') has been made the national anthem. Some football hoolignas may sing the first verse, but as long as German hooligans only sing, we can be happy.

I personally would have preferred Brecht's alternative lyrics ('let us love our country as others love theirs...'), but seen in a historical context, the present hymn is not such a bad choice.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: GUEST,Eye on Europe
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 05:22 AM

Why do the Germans retain Deutchland Uber Alles as their national anthem, do they still retain visions of being "uber alles".

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 04:36 AM

Clint - you are exactly right! Anyone who thinks that it can even be compared to a child kidnapping case is comparing apples to oranges.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 04:07 AM

Brucie,

'fick Dich in's Knie' (fuck yourself in your knee) would be a possible, but rarely used German translation. However, I was rather amused than furious about 03 Jun 04 - 03:34 PM's post.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 03:13 AM

Call it torture, abuse, discourtesy. or fun, our soldiers should not have done what they did at Abu Ghraib.

I think everybody posting here knows that.

I think everybody posting here knows nobody was saving their kidnapped daughter.

And I think very few believe it was done by seven sadist goons (who were by pure chance assigned to the same job) without the knowledge of any of their superiors.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 06:15 PM

GAST: Gehen Sie fickt sich.

Does that work?

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 04:50 PM

Outside of the Mudcat, the name "Wolfgang" normally goes with Mozart in my experience.
.....................

Since the Convention completely bars the whole range of treatment included in that definition , I can't see what the point is of using different words for different degrees - it would just seem to invite people to go in for "it's not really torture, it's just abuse" sort of logic.

Whether it's called "torture" or "other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment", it's still criminal behaviour, and orders from a superior are specifically excluded as providing any kind of defence.

In fact, however, I note that in Article 16 of the Convention there are references to "other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1." This rather implies that the definition Article 1 is intended as a definition of torture as such, rather than "torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment", as Wolfgang suggested.

Either way, there seems a strong case that the USA has a binding obligation under the Convention, which it has ratified, to prosecute all those responsible for controlling and authorising what has been happening in places such as Guantanamo Bay. Treatment such as sleep deprivation, which have been given official, even if circumscribed, authorisation for use in such settings, pretty clearly fall within the range of activities totally barred under the Convention.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 04:48 PM

Outside of the Mudcat, the name "Wolfgang" normally goes with Mozart in my experience.
.....................

Since the Convention completely bars the whole range of treatment included in that definition , I can't see what the point is of using different words for different degrees - it would just seem to invite people to go in for "it's not really torture, it's just abuse" sort of logic.

Whether it's called "torture" or "other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment", it's still criminal behaviour, and orders from a superior are specifically excluded as providing any kind of defence.

In fact, however, I note that in Article 16 of the Convention there are references to other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1. This rather implies that the definition Article 1 is intended as a definition of torture as such, rather than "torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" as Wolfgang suggested.

Either way, there seems a strong case that the USA has a binding obligation under the Convention, which it has ratified, to prosecute all those responsible for controlling and authorising what has been happening in places such as Guantanamo Bay. Treatment such as sleep deprivation, which have been given official, even if circumscribed, authorisation for use in such settings, pretty clearly fall within the range of activities totally barred under the Convention.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 03:51 PM

There you are GUEST, in black and white.

Wolfgang, how would I say "GUEST, go fu#k yourself" in German?

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 03:38 PM

just to make further interpretations easier: my full name is

Wolfgang Hell

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 03:34 PM

Wolfgang, Your name would indicate you should be quite an expert on ways of making one talk.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 03:34 PM

McGrath, yes, it has. And rightly so.

The UN convention is about torture and several other treatments listed. So, in order not to have to repeat the longish Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment each time again, the wording of the part you have cited makes very clear that the word 'torture' in the context of this convention is used as a abbreviation for 'torture and...'. It makes no claim that outside of this convention the term torture should get a new meaning.

But I have noticed that in the 'It's torture not abuse' thread some posters have tried to water down the term 'torture'. Some even have cited the words of the UN convention as if it would support their position.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 03:12 PM

It appears that the European Court of Human Rights must have ben using a narrower definition of torture than that contained in the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment:

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "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.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 03:01 PM

Since the Jan 18th 1978 decision of the European Court of Human Rights has been mentioned in this thread about torture let me add that the court has ruled that the treatment was 'inhuman and degrading' but not 'torture'.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 02:47 PM

The CIA and one general are not the military, ya fu#kin' twit.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 02:46 PM

GUEST: I did read the click that started this thread. It isn't military-training policy.

Again GUEST shoots his mouth off.

Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 02:30 PM

brucie said, as McGrath also noted:

"It should not be used as a training method. But, it isn't that I'm aware of."

AGAIN brucie shoots off his mouth without engaging his brain. As is his usual practice here, brucie didn't bother to read the article linked to in the opening post of the thread. He just decided to leap in and start shooting off his mouth.

It's getting really tiresome.

The point of this thread was that the torture taking place wasn't an aberration, it was a Bush administration policy, taken from the CIA manuals of previous administrations.

The referendum on the use of torture was settled internationally when the Geneva Conventions were adopted. The US is a signatory. That means we don't have the option of using torture on prisoners. Even if it would be to our benefit to do so. Period. There is no debate. There are only violations of the Geneva Conventions, and war crimes. It appears the US is guilty of both.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 01:37 PM

Sorry I didn`t realise The European Court of Human Rights counted for nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 01:34 PM

Sorry, I didn`t realise The European Court of

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 01:31 PM

The distinction between actually knowing something and just believing something to be true is not a trivial word-game distinction, brucie. The inability to recognise that distinction is at the roots of why any number of terrible things have happened. The Inquisition, the Holocaust, September 11...

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 01:30 PM

The distinction between actually knowing something and just believing something to be true is not a trivial word-game distinction, brucie. The inability to recognise that distinction is at the roots of why any number of terrible things have happened. The Inquisition, the Holovaust, September 11...

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 11:13 AM

like with WMDs...

and reasons we went into Iraq...

IMO, of course...

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 11:12 AM

Mc G of H,

You are playing games with wording. What I said is clear. You don't agree. Just say that.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 11:09 AM

You are welcome, and remember to apply it to yourself as well, and everyone else as well.

If I ever give the impression that I think my belief in something is evidence of anything, other than my belief, that's because I have failed to add a qualification that seems so obvious it isn't really needed.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 11:02 AM

"Just because I believe something doesn't make it so, no matter how certain I may be."


I will be sure to remember that you said this.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 10:48 AM

"...given that I knew 100% that A had the information" When you start a sentence in this context "If I knew for certain", brucie, I think you are moving out of the real world.

"If I believed I knew for certain..." is a more realistic start for a hypothetical.

Just because I believe something doesn't make it so, no matter how certain I may be.
........................
"It should not be used as a training method. But, it isn't that I'm aware of."


From The Boston Globe Torture at Abu Ghraib followed CIA's manual

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 10:45 AM

Guest of 3 june 4:38

sounds like high school.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 10:17 AM

Oh, dianavan, I agree with you on that. It should not be used as a training method. But, it isn't that I'm aware of.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 09:32 AM

Jean McConville
The name did ring a bell but I didn't know why. Now I know.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 08:38 AM

Obtaining confessions under duress. Yes a person can be tortured into making confessions, and more recent than torturing people to confess to being witches, you have the case of Mrs Jean McConville.

Aye, GUEST 03 Jun 04 - 04:38 AM, I dare say she would have gladly accepted any of your 20 points (with the exception of point 6) had she been able to return to her family at the end of it.

It is amazing what petty crimes one will own up to after you have been beaten and abused for hours, then have people start cutting your fingers off. Of course no-one was brought before the European Court of Human Rights for that were they Guest?

But I will tell you this Guest, the rationale behind the exception to your point 6 noted above apart. Mrs Jean McConville had more balls than the sum total of those in the organisation that abducted her, tortured her and murdered her.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 04:38 AM

The following methods were used by Britain during 1971 and 1976 on both occasions they were found guilty by the European Court of Human Rights,
          1 Hair pulling

2Punching to back of head. Heavy slaps across the face and head.

3 Simultaneous slapping of ears with both hand sometimes perforating eardrums.

4 Strangling neck, chops to the throat, gripping and pulling of Adam`s apple. Pushing fingers into pressure points of neck.

5 Punches and kicks to stomach, buttocks, kidneys, spine, stiff finger prodding to ribs.

6 Manual squeezing of testicles, punching and kicking testicles, lifting naked prisoner by placing stick between his legs.

7 Arm twisting, Bending wrist backwards both above and below arm. Finger twisting.

8 Positions of stress - search position against wall, sitting on non-existent chairs, squatting on hunkers.

9 Press-ups to point of exhaustion, super press-ups, legs on chair, hands on ground. Running on spot to point of exhaustion.

10 Wrestling holds until prisoner vomits.

11 Strangling neck and forcing neck down to the point of asphyxiation.

12 Trailing alon floor; prone on floor while personnel stand and jump on back riding prisoner like a horse.

13 Made to lie centre back across a table or chair face backwards. Interrogators then jump on legs causing intense pain to back.

14 Placing plastic bag, hood, jacket, or underpants, over head to restrict flow of air.

15 Throwing prisoner from one interrogator to another.

16 Simulated execution by clicking gun behind the head, simulated electrouction by putting plug into mouth and putting on switch.

17 Singing skin with matches and cigarettes.

18 Degradations - making prisoner lick water or vomit of floor; behave like a dog; spitting in face; stripping prisoner naked and making obscene remarks about his body, his wife, his children.

19 Pouring liquid into ears.

20 Threats to shoot prisoner in lonely place, hand prisoner over to UVF, threats to parents and children.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: dianavan
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 12:40 AM

Me too. In fact, I would kill for my children.

That doesn't make it right to use torture as a method of training the military.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 12:39 AM

Appears the CIA lifted, purloined, and plagerized their manual from the parochial school teacher training sessions of the Boston ArchDiocies. No wonder he stepped down.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 12:17 AM

dianavan: Let me put it this way. If my child was the kidnapped youngster, and given that I knew 100% that A had the information that would save my child, and given that A was going to keep that information--no plea bargain, no nothin'--I would not hesitate for one second to commit the most heinous, revolting, disgusting and painful things imaginable on or to that individual to get my child back. I can't be any clearer than that. And believe me when I say heinous, revolting, disgusting and painful. It would NOT be an academic, moralizing exercise for me. I would not enjoy it, but as God is my judge, I would do it.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 08:46 PM

dianavan:

Can you define torture, please?

It appears to me that the threat has benn considered in this thread as torture up to this point.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 08:30 PM

brucie - If person A did know the whereabouts of the child, a plea bargain would probably work well.

Larry K - A threat is not the same thing as torture.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 04:58 PM

I believe the case of the US soldier in Iraq is being handled exactly as it should be. The guy deserved court martial. Torturing prisoners is a war crime, just as it should be.

Here is what gripes me about all the support for torture when it is our guys doing the torturing. When you use as an example that "our boys" were saved by obtaining the information, you still never know how many other people died as a result of you successfully getting information out of the prisoner. Their family perhaps?

So we are supposed to accept torture as fair and just, as long as we are the ones who benefit?

That seems to be what many people are saying here.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 04:31 PM

Any action is going to have a number of effects. We may be tempted to focus all our attention on a single "good" effect" - but it may be that this is outweighed by the other effects which we choose to ignore.

It is indeed possible to imagine cases where an isolated act of torture could extract information that saves one or more lives. But when an occupying army or police force accepts torture, it is not an isolated act, and the price for that acceptance is liable to be a heightened and more motivated level of violence against it, and a greatly increased level of popular support.

And that is just one of the consequences. There is also likely to be a profoundly damaging impact on the nature of the civil society back home.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 03:13 PM

No question, folks. As a policy it is intolerable, criminal and bestial.

As a fact of life in the heat of war, when normal people are driven to intolerance, criminality and bestiality in the pressure of fighting for their lives, it may seem understandable when an individual is driven to it. That does not make it right.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Peace
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 02:41 PM

A policy of torture IS wrong. Very.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 01:33 PM

A lot of people confessed to witchcraft under torture & corroborated each other's testimony.

Even if the German kidnapper had been tortured it wouldn't have saved the child.

It's been admitted officially that there wasn't much information gotten from the Iraqi prisoners, and some of them appear to have been tortured to death. We no doubt recruited a lot of Iraqis for anti-American movements.

I heard that platoon leader fired the gun against the prisoner's head; this would hurt pretty bad and cause permanent deafness. Had he treated any other prisoners that way, & what was his success rate?

Torture may work once in a while, but it is piss-poor as a policy.

If you have a suspect who is resistant to torture you can torture & kill his family; that often works. You all in favor of that?

Blood feuds work sometimes too.

For the United States to have a policy of torture is wrong, and will work against us. Because sooner or later, we will torture the wrong man or woman.

clint



clint

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 11:11 AM

Intell in a hot operations scenario such as the ambush incident described above is a different situation with different rules than academic or scientific information. When you are fighting for your own life and the lives of your friends, all bets are off, and you can make a lot of differnece with very little information if you know how to use it correctly.

This is not meant as a rationalization for torture. I am simply saying that extreme conditions bring out extreme measures and solutions.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 10:54 AM

"the whole concept of information gathering through gossip collecting, innuendo, accusation, leading to torture - these are all medieval methods fuelled by bias and necessity.

but they are not accurate."

But under certain circumstances in the light of absolutely nothing else, while not being necessarily accurate - it is a damn sight better than nothing.

Oh and your first part about "intelligence" being "such a useless word, describing information gained through any ways but through verifiable evidence." What about independent corroboration Freda? In interrogating a large number of people who are kept apart the likelyhood of them holding to a lie while under pressure is a great deal less likely than than coming out with something that is true. Because when someone is disorientated, tired and apprehensive to tell a lie is something you have to think about and have the mental discipline to tell that same lie the same way time after time. The truth on the other hand just comes out.

Situations vary as do time scales for getting results an ordinary soldier captured will probably have to remain quiet for about six hours before any information he had becomes useless - dark, quiet, no means of marking the passage of time, let his own fear and apprehension get the better of him. Wheel him out after a couple of hours into a prepared environment make him think and believe that it is later than it is, sit him down give him something to drink and talk quietly to him - you will get information that you can use.

Another instance - an attack swimmer pulled out of a naval anchorage - now the information he has got you need to get rather faster, otherwise a ship and it's crew could be lost. This individual is going to be handled that much rougher, if placed with the choice of bruising someones feelings or suffering the loss of a ship and her ships company - them feelings is going to get rather severely bruised.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 10:49 AM

Wolfgang:

A good point. When does a person feel the moral rightness of an action (or lack of inaction) reguires the violation of the law, and acceptance of punishment?

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 10:42 AM

The torture and kidnapped child case has actually happened in Germany quite recently.

A young boy had been kidnapped and his banker father had paid 1,000,000 ransom. The boy didn't come back. The police arrested a suspect, well, let's say they had not the slightest doubt they had the right man: This man had already admitted the kidnapping and collecting the ransom money at that time but refused to tell where the boy could be found.

Then the deputy leader of Frankfurt police decided to threaten the suspect with torture by one of his policemen. The threat was very believable and the suspect gave in and led the police to the place where the boy was found. It then became clear why he had not told before: The boy had been dead since very short after the kidnapping.

Several things are unusual about this case: In the trial, the judge told the defendant explicitely that all his confessions in police custody might perhaps not be useable due to the threat of torture. The defendant insisted on repeating the confessions in court. The deputy police leader could make his case easier for himself by saying it was only a threat and he would not have done it. But he insists in several interview that it was not an empty threat and that he would have ordered to actually start the torture. He says he would do it again in similar circumstances.

I think he'll has to be punished (and will be; no trial yet) but I would act like he has acted. Some things have to be forbidden by law but I can picture me doing them in extreme circumstances.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: freda underhill
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 10:17 AM

people will say anything when tortured.

and "intelligence" is such a useless word, describing information gained through any ways but through verifiable evidence.

the whole concept of information gathering through gossip collecting, innuendo, accusation, leading to torture - these are all medieval methods fuelled by bias and necessity.

but they are not accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Peace
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 10:06 AM

dianavan: Wasn't accusing you of anything. I had prefaced the remark with the implication (fact) that person A KNEW> Now, what's your answer?

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 09:14 AM

True... Good case. WHat do people have to say?

I think that he acted in a responsible manner, to protect his men. He made no attempt to conceal his action, and obviously thought that he was doing the right thing.