BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 09:08 AM

Lets go from hypothetical to reality.   There was an african american platoon leader in Iraq who got in trouble because he pointed a gun at the head of a prisoner and told him he would shoot the prisoner if the prisoner didn't give up information.   The Iraq prisinor told of an ambush against americans.   The information obtained saved the lives of many americans.

Nothing happedend until a month later.   Someone reading the reports noticed this method of "torture/interrogation".   The platoon leader was questioned and freely told what he did.   The army brought cout martial proceedings against him and threatened to cut off his pension.   (He had been in the army 30 years and was a few months away from retirement)   This became a big media story and public pressure caused the army to drop the case.

Was this man a hero or a villian.    He threatened to shoot a prisoner which could be considered torture.   On the other hand he obtianed information which absolutely saved the lives of his fellow soldiers.    You decide.    The american public came down about 80% in favor of his actions.

We don't need a hypothetical issue to debate when a real one exists.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 08:32 AM

but, what if the child is found alive?

Does that change the justification or lack thereof?

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 07:58 AM

Playing devil's advocate here--with the brucie theory, let us say that Person A has information about the child's kidnappers, but doesn't know where the child is being held, etc etc. Person A knows the kidnappers well, and let's say, hasn't seen the kidnappers since a couple of days before the child was taken. Person A has no reason to cooperate with the person wanting the information of the child's whereabouts, and in fact, can't stand them--is outright hostile to them.

The person who wants to torture Person A knows the above information, but because he is desperate, demands to know more from Person A, so some sadistic torture begins.

Plenty of information is finally gotten from Person A, just not the information that was needed to save the child, and the child is found dead.

Was the torture justified?

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: dianavan
Date: 01 Jun 04 - 10:28 PM

Whoa, brucie,

What do you mean I'm avoiding or denying the case? I'm not sure what a syllogism is or if I'm using one or not. Are you? I really don't understand your accusation.

Seems to me asking the question, "How do you know that person A knows the whereabouts of the child?" is a fair question if you want to argue that torture is justified in that case.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Peace
Date: 01 Jun 04 - 07:48 PM

You are dealing with the beginning of a syllogism by avoiding the case. Such is your right, but don't think I'm stupid enough to answer YOUR questions based on that denial.

People who stated that torture is not effective have made bland statements--with no proof of that either.

Have a good day.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: dianavan
Date: 01 Jun 04 - 02:14 AM

brucie - How do you know that person A knows the whereabouts of the child? If you torture suspects (people who have not been convicted of a crime) you leave the door open to all kinds of abuse. How can you be sure the torture victim really knows anything at all?

I'm sure most people would tell you anything you wanted to hear if they were being tortured. The information received by means of torture is very unreliable. Its been used since before the Inquisition and has never been an effective way of obtaining 'intelligence'.

Its the method most commonly used when you have no evidence at all but merely suspicions.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 01 Jun 04 - 12:41 AM

"Clint: I would argue that torture can BE effective (but not ever that it's decent). A child is abducted. Person A knows the whereabouts of the child. There is a deadline. Do you torture to get the information?"

I might, because I get emotional. But I couldn't complain if I got jailed for the maximum assualt/mayhem/whatever sentence. And

1. if you make that a policy, people soon stop being particular about making sure that A really knows, and

2. I have heard this argument before, but I have never heard of an actual case of this kind. They must be quite rare. None of the people who have presented this argument to me have cited any cases.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Peace
Date: 31 May 04 - 10:01 PM

OK, you are right. We both see that.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 May 04 - 07:52 PM

"No information" is just as useless if it has been obtained through torture.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Peace
Date: 31 May 04 - 07:48 PM

True, Mc G of H, but from a military perspective, no information isn't much help either. When the fighters in Afghanistan were cutting the balls off Russian troops, the troops no longer even considered surrendering. I agree with you on this, but then it's governments that have to agree, not you and I.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 May 04 - 07:37 PM

Torture is not reliably effective. People are liable to say anything. Inaccurate information produced by torture is not useful information. Torture also has other unwanted results - it helps to motivate adversaries, and it makes surrender a lot less likely.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Peace
Date: 31 May 04 - 07:05 PM

The people have been disowned by their government, and bad officials are taking your country from you. Take it back in the next election.

Clint: I would argue that torture can BE effective (but not ever that it's decent). A child is abducted. Person A knows the whereabouts of the child. There is a deadline. Do you torture to get the information?

Militaries have, do and will continue to obtain information in any way they can to prevent the deaths of their personnel. War is a very dirty business. However, when the use of torture is strategic/non-time sensitive as opposed to tactical/time sensitive, the 'nature' of the abuse changes. We are then left wondering about the motivations of the people involved.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Sorcha
Date: 30 May 04 - 10:13 PM

Why am I not surprised? Yet another reason to leave this 'great country'....but I probably won't. Just disown it instead.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 May 04 - 10:10 PM

Oh yeah - torture is OK - as long as it is not me receiving it.... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Strick
Date: 30 May 04 - 09:41 PM

"In the 10 years between the last known use of these manuals in the early 1990s and the arrest of Al Qaeda suspects since September 2001, torture was maintained as a US intelligence practice by delivering suspects to foreign agencies, including the Philippine National Police, who broke a bomb plot in 1995."

My appologies. The article is a little unclear on when and how the CIA stopped using the practice. It is clear from this passage that during the Clinton administration they intentionally delivered prisoners to foreign countries precisely to see that they revealed what they knew through US developed torture techniques. That is much better than actually torturing anyone yourself.

"What Strick is also conveniently ignoring, is that the Clinton administration never made any attempt to publicly acknowledge or justify the use of these torture methods by our "allies", and in fact, never condoned the use of torture by any US agents, for military or intelligence purposes..."

No, they just took advantage of our allies who use them whenever they thought they needed them. How would acknowledging the practices have made the Clinton administration any less co-conspirators in their use, Guest?

I agree with you and others, Clint. Stop the practice. And don't go around it by using surrogates, that's just as heinous.

(Kudzuman, I type too fast sometimes, but I'm curious. Do you think "Just wondering if that is a possibility?" is a complete sentence or were you trying to be ironic?)

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 30 May 04 - 08:34 PM

Strick, honey, just because something happened during Clinton's administration don't make it ok.

I hate to break it to you this way, but the idea is for all of America, Demos or Repubs, civilians or military or cops or frat boys -- whatever -- to STOP TORTURING PEOPLE.

It is neither decent nor effective. It's wrong and it's evil.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 30 May 04 - 08:26 PM

"It's only an issue when your opponents do it?"

it is an issue now because it's happening now and NOW is when we might be able to do something about it. george w bush happens to be president NOW and has condoned these acts by allowing them and punishing no one but enlisted men/women. no matter how much we dislike the fact that previous administrations seem to have engaged in this disgraceful and unamerican crap there is no political will to call any of them to account. but if we act NOW on information that shows bush admin. evil practices we might be able to put a stop to such things. if all we do is keep up the partisan hogwash that resembles first grade logic and debating skills (wahhh!! he did it too!! they did it first!!! wahhh!!!!) then we will watch the door close on a brilliant historical experiment (american democracy). we live in a dark time.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Peace
Date: 30 May 04 - 06:13 PM

Sorry. You meant the adjective and not the verb.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Peace
Date: 30 May 04 - 06:08 PM

Why do you want him to correct spelling?

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Kudzuman
Date: 30 May 04 - 05:59 PM

Can Strick speak in full sentences and correct spelling. Just wondering if that is a possibility?

Kudzuman

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 04 - 05:09 PM

Right Ebbie. The article also says, just before the quote you give:

"After codification in the CIA's "Kubark Counterintelligence Interrogation" manual in 1963, the new method was disseminated globally to police in Asia and Latin America through USAID's Office of Public Safety. Following allegations of torture by USAID's police trainees in Brazil, the US Senate closed down the office in 1975.

After it was abolished, the agency continued to disseminate its torture methods through the US Army's Mobile Training Teams, which were active in Central America during the 1980s. In 1997, the Baltimore Sun published chilling extracts of the "Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual" that had been distributed to allied militaries for 20 years."

What Strick obviously isn't taken into account was the fact that the US Senate was compelled to act against the US intelligence agencies, most notably the CIA funded USAID Office of Public Safety, under Nixon's watch, because of it's excesses in Southeast Asia.

What Strick is also conveniently ignoring, is that the Clinton administration never made any attempt to publicly acknowledge or justify the use of these torture methods by our "allies", and in fact, never condoned the use of torture by any US agents, for military or intelligence purposes, much less make torture de facto US policy, which is what happened under Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.

Republicans keep trying to paint the division in American society into a culture war. It isn't. It is a war for the heart and soul of who and what we are as the most powerful nation on earth: brutes or pragmatic idealists.

The Republicans have always chosen the former. Unfortunately, it cannot be said the Democrats have always chosen the latter. Choosing the latter has always been the province of the independent progressive left, which in this and the 2000 election, has been represented by leaders like Nader, Kucinich, and Russ Feingold of Wisconin.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 May 04 - 04:28 PM

Quote from the link: In the 10 years between the last known use of these manuals in the early 1990s and the arrest of Al Qaeda suspects since September 2001, torture was maintained as a US intelligence practice by delivering suspects to foreign agencies, including the Philippine National Police, who broke a bomb plot in 1995.


Author:

"Alfred W. McCoy, a professor in the History Department, has spent the past quarter-century studying modern Southeast Asian history. In his writing about the region, he has focused on two topics--modern Philippines history and the politics of opium in the Golden Triangle. He is the author of several books on Philippine history, two of which have won that country's National Book Award--Philippine Cartoons (Manila, 1985) and Anarchy of Families (Manila, 1994). Recently, he has completed a book manuscript titled Closer Than Brothers: Manhood at the Philippine Military Academy (New Haven, forthcoming, 1999), examining the impact of torture and authoritarian rule upon the country's officer corps. "

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 May 04 - 03:46 PM

I'm not clear - does Strick think that, if Clinton's lot went in for torturing people, that means it's not so bad if the Bush crowd do it?

A bit like saying "it's alright Nixon bombing Indochina, because Johnson did that stuff too?

Fair enough, anyone assuming that everything will automatically change if Bush gets thrown out would be a bit naive. But does anybody assume that? Getting rid of Bush would be a good first step towards sanity, (electing him would be a step over a precipice), but there'd still be a long way to go.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Strick
Date: 30 May 04 - 03:17 PM

Fair enough. Then this much change. Next question?

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Peace
Date: 30 May 04 - 03:16 PM

Anyone who doubts that torture was employed throughout the years--and throughout all administrations--needs a better grip on reality. Every administration will deny it, but every administration has done it. Whether it was through the use of mercs or CIA 'specialists', it was and is used. To deny that is foolish. As my dear departed pappy used to say, "There's no point talkin' morals in a whorehouse."

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Strick
Date: 30 May 04 - 03:07 PM

If this is the GUEST I think it is, I'm always grateful for advise on looking foolish from an expert like you.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 04 - 02:59 PM

Strick, how about you read the linked article FIRST, and then comment? That way you won't look so foolish and ill-informed while participating in the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Strick
Date: 30 May 04 - 02:56 PM

Last one I smoked was some 10 years ago. A Cuban in Toronto. Bad experience (but good cigar), so I gave up that sort of self indulgence.

So are you trying to tell me that the administration between the two Bushes didn't rely on torture, then? That they outlawed this manual when they were completely restructuring the military and the present administration reintroduced it? Strange, that's not what the article says. Clearly suggests they used it when it was convenient, too.

How odd. It's only an issue when your opponents do it?

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 04 - 02:56 PM

The issue of the use of torture indeed spans both Democrat and Republican administrations. However Strick, did you not read the part of the article that talked about the US Congress banning the use of these torture methods? I think that is the larger issue.

People often ask why so much of the world hates us, since our nation's military adventurism has been much more controlled since Vietnam. The answer is: these very excesses of the CIA and the intelligence bureacracy abroad.

Thanks for the correction on Negroponte's ambassadorship. Costa Rica wasn't very cooperative with the US government's attempts to overthrow the democratically elected governments in Central America in the 1980s. And Honduras and El Salvador were the staging countries for the US intelligence adventurism in that region.

There are STILL annual demonstrations at the School of the Americas in Georgia every year, protesting this very training of "allied" militaries by US paramilitary and intelligence forces.

Surely, this post-WWII era has been the most despicable, vile, shameful era in US history.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Peace
Date: 30 May 04 - 02:49 PM

Strick: Do you smoke cigars? (Had ta ask.)

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Strick
Date: 30 May 04 - 02:41 PM

Absolutely this is pathological. You see the administrations on either side his named and acts that occured during his administration but no mention of him. No sign of bias in that report. Clearly this is purely a Republican issue.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 30 May 04 - 02:33 PM

once again, strick is incapable of posting anything that does not refer to bill clinton. this seems pathological, don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: michaelr
Date: 30 May 04 - 02:20 PM

Thanks for that link, Guest. The torture we saw is indeed systemic. No civilized nation should emply such tactics.   

One correction: John Negroponte was US ambassador to Honduras (1981-85), not Costa Rica. Here is his UN bio.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Strick
Date: 30 May 04 - 02:18 PM

And as the article suggests, this manual was actively used all through the Clinton years, too. Amazing.

Subject: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 04 - 12:51 PM

I must have missed this article from the Boston Globe, which I often read. I found it at the MichaelMoore.com website. It makes for chilling reading, and it confirms my suspicion that the US has adapted the brutal Latin American strategy of the Reagan/Bush era, and is now applying it in the Middle East. The confirmation of the new US ambassador to Iraq, who was the notorious ambassador to Costa Rica during the US wars on Central and Latin American countries in the 1970s and 1980s, along with the renewed use of the CIA's torture techniques from that era, certainly confirms this.

"Torture at Abu Ghraib followed CIA's manual"