On Torture

by: Kayla Williams

Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 13:58:47 PM EDT


I witnessed detainee abuse in Iraq and did not report it. This moral failing is my own burden, one I will carry with me for the rest of my life. But it has also influenced how I look at headlines about torture, from Abu Ghraib to the recent revelations about GITMO.

The detainees I saw being abused might have been guilty when they came in. But I am sure that after being treated the way they were, they walked out full of rage and more likely to attack Americans. On a larger scale, I believe that the ability of insurgents in Iraq and terrorists worldwide to use US treatment of detainees in Iraq and GITMO for propaganda has caused significant harm. According the Washington Post, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair agrees that waterboarding and other 'enhanced interrogation techniques' (read: torture) do more harm than good: "The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world. . .The damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

After the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, I talked to the Warrant Officer who was in charge of the Cage (what everyone called the detainee holding facility) where I witnessed detainee abuse. He told me that he had gotten the impression from friends and colleagues -- the Intel Community is a small world -- that those "at the highest levels" were sending out clear signals that detainees in the Global War on Terror did not need to be treated according to the standards required by the Geneva Conventions for enemy prisoners of war.

Well, the recently declassified Congressional report released Tuesday confirms this -- according to this New York Times article, the paper trail leads directly to Rumsfeld.

There have been lots of questions raised -- about the history and effectiveness of these techniques, the impact on those tortured, the larger foreign policy implications -- all of which are important considerations. There is, however, one aspect of the conversation that I believe has been neglected: What does this do to those committing the acts?

Some of those who participated in the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment (please check out that site -- it is totally fascinating!) struggled with their experiences later, one "felt sick at who he had become." Another said,

I had really thought that I was incapable of this kind of behavior. I was surprised, no I was dismayed to find out I could really be a-that I could act in a manner so absolutely unaccustomed to anything I would ever really dream of doing. And while I was doing it, I didn't feel any regret. I didn't feel any guilt. It was only after, afterwards when I began to reflect on what I had done. That this began to, this behavior began to dawn on me and I realized that this was a part of me I hadn't really noticed before.

In this experiment, "about a third of the guards were hostile, arbitrary, and inventive in their forms of prisoner humiliation. These guards appeared to thoroughly enjoy the power they wielded, yet none of our preliminary personality tests were able to predict this behavior." That was an experiment - now make it real life, knowing that your fellow Americans, your comrades in arms, are at risk, and that you may be able save lives by pushing those lines - it is no surprise at all that waterboarding happened, that Abu Ghraib happened. But what has it done to us?

If soldiers -- or CIA personnel, or anyone -- spend months demeaning, mistreating, or even torturing other human beings, what does that do to them in the long run? How do these people treat their spouses or small children when they come home? Do they have nightmares later? Do they begin to doubt themselves? In all of the high-level discussions, the debate on whether or not these documents should have been released, let us not lose sight of this: those who were encouraged by our highest levels of government to commit torture, they too are victims.  
Kayla Williams :: On Torture
Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

On Torture | 47 comments
AMEN Kayla, and it's what we've known for years (4.00 / 1)
and not just these recent years!!

American torture

There can be no "exceptionalism" when the rule of law is broken

The release of some of the Bush administration torture memos now presents the Obama administration with a crucial dilemma. President Obama at first exonerated CIA officials responsible for the euphemistic "enhanced interrogation" techniques. The White House has even expunged the word "torture" from its vocabulary. The bulk of corporate media favors a whitewash. Pepe Escobar argues the question is not that the memos should have been kept secret - as the CIA and former Vice-President Dick Cheney wanted. The question is that those who broke the rule of law must be held accountable. Responding to growing public outrage, the White House shifted gears and is now leaving the door open for the work of a Special Prosecutor.


'Hearts and Minds, "The ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live there." -- President Lyndon Johnson
I will add (0.00 / 0)
Nobody asks what happened to those who Actually did the Torture under Saddam, nor any other country that accepts and practices not only torture of political opponents, and others, but that given out as to punishment under the laws of any given country, especially in that region of the world!!

Are some of those who actually enjoy this form of treatring others, or got used to doing it well, still floating around in a country somewhere!!


'Hearts and Minds, "The ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live there." -- President Lyndon Johnson

[ Parent ]
The appropriate people ask, I'm sure. The people of (0.00 / 0)
those other countries.

We have our own to deal with, appropriately.

[ Parent ]
No surprise to you, Jim, I'm sure (0.00 / 0)
but I added "My Lai" to the tags because it's analogous to Abu Ghraib in many ways.

The way that it's also relevant to what we DO about Abu Ghraib and all the Abu Ghraibs, big and little--Kayla and CIB, so far, telling us about them--is that they're all the tip of the underwater volcano.  The one that dwarfs K2, if anybody got down underwater to look.

There were so many My Lais, and so many vets still suffer from being involved in one way or another--getting caught up and willingly participating, or desperately trying to stop them, or save a few people from them.

I am not willing to watch waters rise over this again.  They'll still be there to cover up future mountains of abuse and massacre in other countries and in our own troops' tortured memories.

[ Parent ]
Kayla, great point about those who were encouraged to torture being victims. (4.00 / 2)
The difference between Yoo being a tenured law professor, Bybee being a Federal Judge, and all the decision makers and Lyndie England who is paying a heavy price for their down the chain "leadership" is pretty apparent. She seemed to be a person of both limited talents and skills put into a situation that she could not function credibly in without very strong positive support-leadership.

From what has occurred so far, it seems that not much will be done. Historically these fact finding committees have been a bad joke of washing dirty laundry and cover-up. My bet is that anything the DoJ pursues will end up like My Lai and Iran-Contra with a large dose of the "24" defense.

Kayla, great point about those who were encouraged to torture being victims. (4.00 / 2)
The difference between Yoo being a tenured law professor, Bybee being a Federal Judge, and all the decision makers and Lyndie England who is paying a heavy price for their down the chain "leadership" is pretty apparent. She seemed to be a person of both limited talents and skills put into a situation that she could not function credibly in without very strong positive support-leadership.

From what has occurred so far, it seems that not much will be done. Historically these fact finding committees have been a bad joke of washing dirty laundry and cover-up. My bet is that anything the DoJ pursues will end up like My Lai and Iran-Contra with a large dose of the "24" defense.

Kayla, (0.00 / 0)
you have got to be the gutsiest soldier that ever lived.  I salute your incredible honesty.  And your writing excellence.  Which are connected. You contributed so much by turning your experience into truth for everyone.  

Now here's something not so well written, by someone who has a reputation of getting off-track--
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
It was posted on Daily Kos very recently.

None of what is written about Peterson is new and most is speculation as far as I have ever heard.  Can you say anything of what you might know and do think about her death?  If you can.  Whatever happened to her, it's incredibly sad and deserves truth.

[ Parent ]
I knew her (4.00 / 2)
and there was a lot more going on than this acknowledges.  
[ Parent ]
You've been through some serious shit. (0.00 / 0)
War. This is what makes this third-hand observer lose her mind with regularity.  Once or twice, literally.   I thought my hating the Vietnam one so bitterly might have helped it end and there wouldn't be any more beatup veterans to break my heart.  Then those fighter-bombers went over Baghdad and uncounted hearts bit the dust again.   Before and since; surround one vet at a time with caring because war isn't going away.

Keep writing.  Take care of yourself.

[ Parent ]
Better article, with (0.00 / 0)
a statement from Alyssa's brother.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

Tell me if you don't want to follow this.

[ Parent ]
Comment: your posted link (0.00 / 0)
Hey there....
First, I appreciate reading your postings.  Sincere stuff.

I went to the Kos link you posted and it was interesting, and sad.  Unfortunately, I once made the horrible mistake of placing a message on Kos that was "moderate" at most and got kicked off, and can't join in.  Even my IP Internet address has been flagged.  Nice, huh, but doesn't bother me much, since they put much blame on Cheney for the 9-11 attacks!  So much for credibility.

In any case, if the Peterson story is true, its a pathetic state of affairs.  The media has been silent about this, unless I missed it again.  The guilt that many carry over their actions in OIF will haunt them the rest of their lives.  As you say in a follow-up message: War!

[ Parent ]
A great comment both times. (0.00 / 0)
John Yoo is still arguing that he was right.  He is a jerk.  I know that's not a legal term, but he did exactly what lawyers in Germany did to help the Nazis justify their actions--and were convicted in Nuremberg by the Allies (= US) and it stinks.   Besides being Constitutional perversion.

They deserve to be hoisted by their own petard(s).  Their claims that the Geneva Convention, the Nuremberg decisions, the U.N. Security Council decisions, and the Constitution itself were irrelevant just BEG for their convictions on the basis of just those Constitutionally ratified documents (in other words, the law).

The president's statements yesterday give a little hope that it'll happen.

[ Parent ]
Thank you (0.00 / 0)
for further reinforcing my point that any such investigation would turn into a partisan driven media circus. And please spare us the Nazi comparisons. I strongly question the judgement calls made and want a clear cut ban on such behavior in the future, but to compare what we did to what the Nazis did is a clear cut  insult the real victims of the Nazis.  
[ Parent ]
You don't understand, Fred. (0.00 / 0)
It's not a "Nazi comparison."  Law is 99% precedent, and this precedent was written into U.S. law by U.S. judges in the court at Nuremberg.  Forgive me if I don't remember the case name, but it exists.

I don't understand your last sentence, but it seems that you think you can compare not-so-bad torture and really-bad-torture and make a legal decision based on your necessarily uninformed opinion--as most of ours would be-- of what was done.

Allowing criminals to go free to avoid a "media circus"--which is up to the media after all--is your suggestion??  You think that courts and judges appointed, probably, by a Republican administration (or a moderate Democratic one) would be partisan? You don't think the crimes were partisan when they were committed?

My very last question--law, the Constitution.  Isn't this what you yourself fought (USMC?) to defend?????  

[ Parent ]
Actually (0.00 / 0)
I read the Geneva Conventions and I can see where al Qaeda could be classified as either "unlawful combatants" or mercenaries, whom rate no such protections. AQ isn't exactly made up of American citizens either, so American law wasn't entirely relevant either. It has now been proven that such tactics do not work and cause more harm than good. Therefore they should be banned. But at the same end, do you think I am going to push for Al Qaeda to get the same Constitutional rights as American citizens? Absolutely not. As far as the legal argument goes, I am calling this partisan until I see evidence to say otherwise. Would those on the Left pushing for such an investigation be willing to pursue the enforcement of immigration laws in such a manner? Immigration laws are much more spelled out than the laws for AQ were back in 2002 and they are the law.  

[ Parent ]
What "immigration laws" are you talking about? (0.00 / 0)
If you're alluding to whether or not Constitutional rights apply to non-citizens in the U.S., that one's been taken care of.  A 1908 Supreme Court decision said yes.
[ Parent ]
I was alluding to (0.00 / 0)
the deportation of Illegal aliens and to the enforcement of immigration laws regarding the legality of immigrants in this country.  
[ Parent ]
Fred, you're making the unfounded assumption (0.00 / 0)
that the detainees in Gitmo have some link to AQ. The greater majority of them have never had any link to any terrorist organization.  More than 85% of them were not captured by US troops, but were transferred to us by other countries for in exchange for monetary payoffs.  Yeah, they're not American citizens, but most of them have never seen Afghanistan, and don't speak Arabic.  Essentially, when we first started the detention center there we started paying anyone and everyone to send us supposed "terrorists".  We then kept them for years, waterboarded them, deprived them of sleep, and held them in confined boxes with insects poured over them.  All because their neighbor or tribal leader wanted the payoff.  

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama
[ Parent ]
That's not entirely (0.00 / 0)
accurate. What you probably should have said was some of them had no links and/or were sold out for tribal payoffs. 66 percent were reportedly captured by Pakistani authorities in Pakistan, 20 percent were captured by Afghans, we caught 8 percent and other Coalition forces caught 3 percent. The majority of them were captured in Pakistan, then Afghanistan. Now, I can buy the fact that some of the Afghans/Pakis were sold out and/or were conscripts. On the other hand, how does that explain

http://www.swivel.com/data_set...

all those Arabs, especially the Saudis and Yemenis. These were Saudis in places they didn't exactly belong and the Saudi government never hands detainees to us, ever.  

[ Parent ]
Just one thing: (0.00 / 0)
AMERICAN LAW IS RELEVANT WHEN IT'S AMERICAN ACTIONS THAT ARE BEING EXAMINED.

OR:  AMERICANS ARE GOVERNED BY AMERICAN LAW

OR:  AD INFINITUM

I think you should pull back a little and examine everything you write for consistency and rationality.

[ Parent ]
Like I said (0.00 / 0)
Until those(mostly the Left) pushing hardest for this investigation prove that they really do care about enforcing the law vice using it for partisan gains, I am calling the push for prosecutions absolute bullshit. Besides, we already have a torture ban in place now. Any legal gray areas have been effectively cleared up and yes there were legal gray areas. I actually read them.  
[ Parent ]
Kayla, (4.00 / 3)
This diary just breaks my heart. You were very young and in a difficult position, and it seems you learned a lot from your experiences.
I am far more dismayed by the lack of action by medical personnel, especially the doctors and mental health officers, who were there. Why didn't any of them speak out? They knew the standards of treatment of detainees required by the  Geneva Conventions. They violated professional ethics as well, and they were in a much stronger position to do something about the treatment of detainees than you were.
Technically speaking ... (0.00 / 0)
while I can manage some empathy, I only agree with folks being labeled as "victims" if-when they can convince me of the reasons for listening  to second-, third-, 20th-hand info from whomever telling them that these people were not protected by the Geneva Conventions (or, if not the GC, that a myriad of treatments wouldn't simply be unlawful under international law in general).  Sorry, but I want to see a Command bulletin about this stuff before I'm going to just go along to get along, even if the alternative is to spend my time in the brig for insubordination or be ridiculed no end.  But that's just me.

It's also not as though the Army typically gives inductees zippy orientation with regard to treatment of prisoners.  Just because someone isn't wearing a particular country's uniform doesn't mean one is free to do whatever one pleases.

What scares me is that I know for a fact that the public hasn't heard/seen or focused on the worst of it as to Abu Ghraib and our treatment of detainees in general -- and likely never will.  There are many (including Darth Cheney) who are only to happy to let the public and media fixate waterboarding in particular when far worse things were perpetrated (including deaths, but even that is not the worst of it, in my mind).  

Also, On Torture (0.00 / 0)
There are a host of aspects, opinions, and angles to this debate, and of course, I'll likely get tortured here for my thoughts.  

Anyway, the President has stopped past practices.  Those past practices were engineered after the 9-11 attacks when the country was highly charged and angry at the thought of past and future attacks.  As K. Williams wrote, she witnessed these practices but didn't report them, and as our soldiers were killed, and as some very unfortunate ones were subjected to "extreme torture" by the enemy, our emotions here and there ran wild.  Now that the violence has abated significantly, the thoughts of what once was is now surfacing in the political debate.  Could it be that we should just move on, now that this is a past, hard-learned lesson in our history?

Personally, I clearly despise our recent "torture" techniques, but historically, this clouds much of our military history, and certainly that of the rest of the world.  Practically every other country we have relations with have, or still practice, torture.  We are not alone in our misdeeds.  Nevertheless, our water-boarding, sleep deprivations, slapping, etc., pales in comparison with Russia's, China's, Mexico's, etc., civil  practices.  Then let's move to our past heroes: George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower....  History shows these leaders have many skeletons in their closets regarding treatment of enemies.  Should we now go after them too?  Why not?

I previously posted about the nature of torture: our non-surgical air strikes that kill and wound civilians, our cluster bombs that maim more than just kill, Kerry's assertions that our soldiers stormed civilians in the night, and on and on.  We don't consider this "torture, do we?  Shouldn't we?  Shouldn't war be sterile?

I think the current debate is more about "getting" someone, about politics, than anything else.  I may be wrong -- it may be about settling guilt.  But whatever it is, maybe we should just get past this without searching for a sacrificial lamb.

E.R.

... (0.00 / 0)
"Those past practices were engineered after the 9-11 attacks when the country was highly charged and angry at the thought of past and future attacks."

Technically speaking,you know these practices have have been around for forever and, in the event you didn't know this, our government has in the past (repeatedly) trained other governments for decades in the art of psychological and physical torture techniques.  You speak of this as though these acts came out of the clear blue sky, spur of the moment.  Having been attacked and being "angry" or "emotional" is no excuse.  We certainly didn't accept those excuses when we (the international community) have tried and imprisoned people for doing the same things in the past.  :)

"Could it be that we should just move on, now that this is a past, hard-learned lesson in our history?"

Could it be?  Sure.  But it isn't.  It's not a question of having learned lessons -- clearly members of a certain administration have not.  Those who gain power need to understand that breaking the law has consequences, same as it does for virtually every private citizen.  

It's about holding people accountable for willfully and deliberately flouting both U.S. and international law.  Doing something to ensure that future administrations do not take the Bush Example as one they may follow without consequence.  

You can't simply sit back and sigh and say "Oh well.  It happened.  Let's move on."  Would you sit back and say "OK, now I know what happened" if some private citizen whackjob down the street tortured a family member because it was government-sanctioned?  If you say "Yes", you lie (or you're bonkers).

This isn't terribly complicated.  Let's say someone invaded our country to depose Bush (arguably with much better reason than we had for invading Iraq), and had tortured a family member of yours who fought back (labeled an "unlawful combatant" because he-she was not wearing a U.S. military uniform, or who was turned in by some neighbor down the street with whom he-she had a problem, in return for a bounty).  Once that country came to its senses and its citizens learned what had been done, you'd expect the people who ordered and participated to eventually be held accountable vs. everyone "just moving on".  Is this true or untrue?  

"Practically every other country we have relations with have, or still practice, torture.  We are not alone in our misdeeds."

I can't fathom what your point is here with this blanket statement, other than a juvenile argument of "but he did it/still does it!"  That's more than a little sad.  Do you use that argument if your employer has a problem with your coming in late?  "But Jane does it!"  I'm afraid it's an inane, irrelevant argument.  

"Nevertheless, our water-boarding, sleep deprivations, slapping, etc., pales in comparison with Russia's, China's, Mexico's, etc., civil  practices."

But it paling in comparison isn't the point (and, again, we did worse than things I've read about in mainstream media).  

"Should we now go after them too?  Why not?"

Hon, you realize the folks you mentioned have been dead for a while, right?  It was up to the folks of the day to address this; a little late now.

"We don't consider this "torture, do we?  Shouldn't we?  Shouldn't war be sterile?"

You're getting off track here.  We're not talking about military engagements.  We're talking about cold, calculated, methodical acts taking place over years and years, not minutes.

"I think the current debate is more about "getting" someone, about politics, than anything else."

Some of it is, some of it isn't.

In the end, it is not about retribution or blame, as Obama suggested, in the context of not wanting to prosecute those who actually committed the acts in "good faith" (yeesh) relying on tortured (no pun intended), erroneous legal opinions.  It's about justice and the law.  

Funny, the global community tried and convicted German judges for putting a judicial-legal rubber-stamp on many illegal acts, including murder.  Whether they did it because they feared what would happen to them if they did not or out of their own personal beliefs is irrelevant.  The lawyers at the OLC were told to come up with a legal argument geared toward a particular pre-determined conclusion.  They should be held accountable, as should the government officials who ordered and sanctioned these actions.  

I don't expect any of the asshats to actually wind up in jail, but they certainly shouldn't be waltzing around being allowed to pretend as though they did nothing illegal or heinous.  Leave the oft-mentioned waterboarding out of it.  Any of them brave enough to declare what they did wasn't torture should be sent somewhere to be hung by their arms from the ceiling for hours at a time, deprived of anything but a few moments here and there of sleep for months on end, frozen with cold air, starved, smacked, had their religion degraded, had their hearing impaired by weeks of loud music, and on and on and on.  I say if they come out of there sane (doubtful) and can honestly declare it (still) isn't torture, they don't have to go to prison.  :)

I'd urge folks not to be led off-track by emotional arguments made by either side.  

[ Parent ]
Great reply, but... (0.00 / 0)
... don't call me "hon," sweetie.  ;-))

Anyway, I appreciate your well-worded reply, but I simply disagree with many of your assertions.  I don't want to rehash my previous message, but I think there's a lot there you missed.  Bottom line: I don't think our past actions were intended to be malicious -- they were driven from a long-past American history and from the psychology of the day.  That's not an excuse, but it's an explanation.

Another bottom line: I agree with President Obama in trying to keep this dialogue down to a mild roar.  What we don't need now is another partisan and ruptured American citizenry.

Ernest Redding

[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
we should just ban anything resembling torture and leave it at that. I actually read the Geneva Conventions and AQ struck me as being "unlawful combatants". Needless to say, pass a clear cut law banning torture written in words a 15 year old can understand and the problem is solved. But at the same end, I am only recommending such a ban because we are the good guys and anything resembling torture has been proven to hurt our cause vice help it. I do not and will not ever feel any sympathy to AQ, the Muslim Brotherhood, Taliban, and/or the rest of the Wahhabis. Unless they specifically raise a white flag of surrender, then we should kill the bastards. And for those we do capture, everyone can just forget the ludicrous, bullshit idea of giving AQ and Co. the same rights as US criminal defendants. They can have the same rights as the Nazis did.  
[ Parent ]
It's not just a matter of the Geneva Convention(s)/treaties ... (0.00 / 0)
but also international and U.S. law in general.

Again, soldiers know what would be unlawful to do to them if they were to become captured, so it isn't rocket science to know what is considered unlawful.  

It shouldn't simply be members of the FBI who have the moral fortitude to walk out and refuse to participate.  The command structure of the Army broke down here and "just followed (illegal) orders" (that'd be the excuse, though I'm sure a percentage were more than happy to have at it).  Either we need to re-educate the officer corps, prosecute or replace.  There are enough effwits within the ranks in general, but when everyone just goes along (or retires in silent protest), Houston, we have a problem.  

"They can have the same rights as the Nazis did."

Uhm, outside of the battlefield (or unlawful actions by individuals), the Nazis were given the same rights as any other criminal defendant.  :)  They were tried and brought to justice wherever practicable, including those who said they "[were] just following orders."

[ Parent ]
There is no real comparison (0.00 / 0)
between soldiers and AQ. Soldiers carry their weapons in the open and wear uniforms. AQ wears no uniform, straps concealed explosive vests on kids, uses cell phones and boxcutters as weapons, etc. Besides, these guys are not American criminals either. The law is real vague here, and I could just as easily see where AQ could be qualified as mercenaries who basically get no protections under the Geneva Conventions. Well, Eisenhower ordered the partisans shot in World War II. But hey, torture has been proven ineffective and makes us look bad. Let's pass a clear cut ban and be done with it.

Although the Nazis did not receive the same rights as US criminal defendents and we held them without trial until the war was over.  

[ Parent ]
More tortuous talk... (0.00 / 0)
we should just ban anything resembling torture and leave it at that. I actually read the Geneva Conventions and AQ struck me as being "unlawful combatants".

Yeppir, I thought Obama had recently provided the ban:
http://www.breitbart.com/artic...
along with trying to put a lid on this whole issue.  

I even read today (or heard on cable TV news) that some  Democratic leaders in Congress wish the same.  So why all the hard leftist furor about an issue that the President doesn't want to explode?

Anyway, sorry for straying from your points.  I'm totally with you on treating the "AQ, the Muslim Brotherhood, Taliban, and/or the rest of the Wahhabis" as the enemy, and not as anecdotal straw-men to use for gaining political points.

[ Parent ]
Probably (0.00 / 0)
because Obama actually made the right call in clarifying any gray areas and then moving forward. Although I think we have now seen that such an investigation's real objective would be to win political points vice real justice. Oh well. Who cares if AQ randomly pulls small children out of their yards and douses them in gasoline, or kidnaps female Kurdish college students, rapes them for several days,then slaughters them in a bathtub, so long as GW Bush and Dick Cheney are the root of all evil.
[ Parent ]
Last time I checked ... (4.00 / 1)
it was still a free country (despite all the efforts to destroy that basic fact over the last decade).  :)

"I don't think our past actions were intended to be malicious ...

It.  Doesn't.  Matter.

"... they were driven from a long-past American history and from the psychology of the day."

They were driven by a man who wanted to prove to his daddy that he could be Somebody, had a longer penis and wanted to get back at the guy who bombasticly declared he wanted papi dead -- aided by people who prefered the Nixonian belief that "If the President does-orders it, it's not illegal."  To believe otherwise is not to have been paying much attention for years (I think the Senate Intelligence Cmte. report sums up the witness testimony quite well).

"What we don't need now is another partisan and ruptured American citizenry. "

We already have that, and it's not a good reason to avoid prosecutions.  

[ Parent ]
Sorry, my bad ... make that Senate Armed Svcs. Cmte. report (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Fool me once... (0.00 / 0)
I only wanted to have a civil discussion without all the hysteria and partisanship that apparently motivates you.  Will know better next time.
[ Parent ]
Er, "hysteria" -- from where do you get "hysteria" -- (4.00 / 1)
and "partisanship"?  It's not "partisanship" to give a damn about the law and what this country at least used to stand for, and about what has happened and may in the future happen to our citizens and soldiers because of the personal motivations and the unlawful acts of a few -- and because we let it go.  There are a few ways to help mitigate the damage we've allowed to occur, and holding people accountable for their lawlessness is one of them.

Among other things, I'd rather not see our soldiers tortured in future because other countries and citizens ask themselves why they should abide by the law when we, of all people, have bastardized, rationalized and tossed it aside like a snotty kleenex as and when we found it expedient.

But that's just my humble opinion.

[ Parent ]
Al Qaeda and Co. (0.00 / 0)
drew first blood, not us. The other side of the coin is that protections under the Geneva Convention are given in order to encourage all combatants to play by the rules. You play by the rules, you get fair treatment. So I could just as easily make the argument that giving AQ full rights under the Geneva Conventions is actually rewarding bad behavior, especially given that they drew first blood.  
[ Parent ]
Because we need to stop the cycle which I mentally refer to as the (4.00 / 1)
Nixon Virus.

Ex.: When things started to get sticky for W, he dropped Harriet and hired Fred Fielding as his personal legal counsel. Check out Fred's record during Watergate and Iran-Contra.

Where were folks like Cheney and Rummy during these times? Trace their history through government and the private sector.

Yoo, who wrote one of the legal opinions that supported 'torture', is now a tenured law professor at Berkeley. Many legal experts not only disagree with his 'opinion', but consider it not of good enough quality to pass a Law School course. One of his memo buddies, Bybee is now a Federal Judge who can only be removed by death, resignation or impeachment.

Why should these people continue to be in positions of influence when a not too bright with depression issues National Guardsman, Lyndie England spends much, much more time in jail than Lt. Calley of My Lai fame?

Should vets like Kayla be the ones who carry the guilt, 'cause I don't believe those who implemented these policies feel any guilt. They only fear loss of power, image, comforts, retirement benefits, and money.

We have doctors who violated so much to help with the torture. Should they be allowed to practice if they so easily can be swayed to perform in this manner?

Sure we would all wish it was NOT true or that it will all just go away. The problem is there are laws as well as a moral responsibility as a citizen to demand this crap stops. That actions like 'torture' [breaking the law] have consequences. They will continue to do the crime, if they don't have to do the time.

[ Parent ]
Regrets (4.00 / 2)
As a trained Army Interrogator I know we are trained in the Law of War and are required to follow it, that means no torture.  However, as far as I know ONLY interrogators are trained in this, so if they pull non-interrogators into a booth with a prisoner they may just do what they're told.  That being said I tried to follow the Law of War to the best of my abilities and one occassion still sticks with me.  We were at an air assault out in a far-off village waiting with detainees (who weren't really bad in my opinion) for the Chinook to take us back to the FOB.  It was cold and we waited for 6 hours I think for the Chinook and the detainees had been restrained for 12 hours in flexi-cuffs.  They were in their barefeet, a thin dishdasha and hadn't eaten or had water all day.  I was an E-4 with two gung-ho hooah Army dude E-6's, I was able to get them to let me give the prisoners water and let them to move their arms for about one minute, but then they were flexi-cuffed again.  This qualifies as a stress position.  I was not allowed to give them food, which they are entitled to.  As an E-4 I folded under the E-6's and to this day I wish I had pushed harder.  I have no doubt those men lost any faith they had in the US that day.
... (0.00 / 0)
Er, my understanding of basic curriculum in the Army (at least combat training) is that Geneva Convention is covered as a subject.  If the Army tells the soldiers about the Geneva Conventions -- and it does (though perhaps not 40 hours' worth of orientation)  -- then they automatically know what they should not be doing to others.  

Even if they were not given orientation on the Geneva Conventions, while I do understand the standards for intelligence may have been lowered quite a bit in recent years, this isn't rocket science.  The reality is that there are as many or arguably more vicious screw-ups who've wormed their way in the military as there are in mainstream population.  

There's also a rigid system in place to deal with it, when utilized.  But when the command structure condones and even encourages illegal behavior, however, the service is screwed (or has screwed the pooch).  But this problem has been around for a while and won't be disappearing anytime soon (we need a couple more generations to lay down and die before it's a matter of course that a soldier gets their ass thrown in the brig for raping a colleague, for instance, and that the victim isn't penalized for reporting it).  

It's sad to think the only segment of the government that might still have a systemic, ingrained sense of right and wrong is the DOJ (particularly the FBI).  And what the Bush administration did to DOJ will take years and years to correct.  

[ Parent ]
And there you go--when can you defy orders? Or hoo-rahs? (0.00 / 0)
When do you weigh the options and make your sad but reasonable decision?

If you had pushed harder, would your prisoners have been fed?  Would the E-6 have reconsidered?  If not that day, the next time a prisoner needed help he/she was entitled to?

How much guidance does the Army give about ignoring/defying illegal orders and the results?  How much is realistic?

E-6:  translate for me--you call them SGT, don't you?  Were they noncoms?  You were right to do as much as you did.  I think it was as much as you could.  Did it make a difference what you did the next time you were in a similar situation -- if it  ever did?


[ Parent ]
Good topic: About "orders" (4.00 / 1)
How much guidance does the Army give about ignoring/defying illegal orders and the results?  How much is realistic?

This is a major sticking point for many subordinates: just what are perceived "illegal orders?"  If one considers his/her military duties as being illegal, and doesn't comply, that person would likely face charges per the UCMJ.  It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" dilemma.  But the military couldn't function effectively without the strict discipline of following orders.  Who knows, maybe the mucky-mucks know something I don't!

In my 30 years of active duty I've seen much of this.  A Major Command directive was given me, I followed it, then a 3-Star sub commander chewed my butt for doing so.  Fuck me, but I didn't get fired.  

In the military, you follow orders related to military duties, not personal conscience or morals.  If not, one should get out honorably ASAP.  It can be done.

Note to self: that idiot Lt. Gen. was wrong!

[ Parent ]
Do you mean "orders related to military duties" to be (0.00 / 0)
the objective, quantifiable, action type orders?  And that they are distinguishable from those emanating from or applicable to "personal conscience or morals?"

I'm not sure if that's what you meant ,and that the former are clearly to be followed but that the latter are more a matter of choice, but it's a great distinction.

You remind me of my dad (30 years in, 30 years out, and only stopped getting into an airplane and into the sky every day just a few years ago!).  

There are a number of idiot general officers around, evidently--especially if you couldn't care less about military politics, just want to fly, and are inveterately candid.  He had his run-ins, regularly.  Still consulted by active duty types, still slaps his knee and tells me "I LOVED my career!"

And I won't be explicit about what my son (LTCDR USN--and being educated for command) thought about his recently departed Commander-in-Chief.  

I learned a lot as a kid, just listening.  Now I do the same as a mom!

[ Parent ]
Good....! (4.00 / 1)
Enjoyed your reply!  Good chat material.  But I need to quit while I'm only slightly behind for today.  I've already misplaced a message, hacked off several leftists here, and my Internet connection is burping again.  More later...............
[ Parent ]
:) (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
exactly (0.00 / 0)
We were all given an "introduction" to the Geneva Conventions - I had a vague, general idea of what was and wasn't OK as regarded EPWs - but here we were being told these guys were not EPWs.

I too was an E4/SPC in the situation I witnessed. I pulled the E5/SGT in charge of that interrogation aside later and said, "I think what you're doing might be violating the Geneva Conventions - and it's definitely turning anyone who may be innocent into a terrorist by the time they leave. I won't participate ever again." He said, "I know" - and never asked me to participate again. He was the only trained interrogator, who actually knew what was in the manual, in the room - the others were me, some other non-HUMNT intel guys, and a civilian contractor.

Do I bear personal responsibility for not reporting what I witnessed? Absolutely, 100%. Do the NCOIC of that interrogation, the WO in charge of the Cage, and the CPT in charge of the unit also bear responsibility? Definitely.

But I also think that those at the highest levels should be forced to shoulder a piece of the burden as well. And as we (as a country) debate what should or should not be acceptable, I also want us to remember that those who commit these acts may pay a psychological price years down the road when the adrenaline wears off, the urgency fades, and the full knowledge of what they have done sinks in.

[ Parent ]
I get it but ... (0.00 / 0)
Just because one is told someone isn't a goose doesn't mean they aren't a goose.  I wouldn't care if a god gave me a pass and said it was okay.   (Lord knows how many hundreds of millions have died in the history of mankind because some asshats declared their god(s) told him-her it was the right thing to do -- sound like anyone?  George somebody?)

I wish all unlawful orders were black and white, but they just aren't.  Folks either have a backbone and a compass or they don't.  Most will go along to get along and turn a blind eye.  It is what it is.  Some folks just have to learn there may be consequences for that.

"But I also think that those at the highest levels should be forced to shoulder a piece of the burden as well."

Absolutely; in fact, it's even more important.  That's what you and everyone should pester their Congressional representatives about on a regular basis.  In writing.  Not that it isn't their already legal obligation to uphold the law and not that we should have to pester them, but it's best to let them know you're out there paying attention and will hold them accountable with your vote.

"... I also want us to remember that those who commit these acts may pay a psychological price years down the road when the adrenaline wears off, the urgency fades, and the full knowledge of what they have done sinks in."

I should think if it were to happen, it has already happened. As for any sense of "urgency", folks need to keep in mind the primary reason behind most of the torture had zippity-do-dah to do with any impending attack scenarios.  

There are some I will feel sorry for, but many for whom I cannot feel sorry.  Those folks were "lost causes" long before they ever actually tortured someone, and will never feel any remorse or be able to recognize what they did was wrong.  No sense wasting sympathy on folks so damaged that they're just, well, "gone".  

[ Parent ]
Rumsfeld--he announced exactly who had brought (0.00 / 0)
the Abu Ghraib incidents to his attention, on TV, watched by the soldier's unit while everyone was in the mess hall.

Yeah, Rumsfeld.  What a surprise.

On Torture | 47 comments
VetVoice on Social Media
Follow rockrichard on Twitter

VoteVets.org on Facebook
    		•
    VetVoice Recommends

    "The War I Always Wanted,"
    By Brandon Friedman

    "The welcome mat for memoirs by veterans of operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom might never wear out so long as they write with the savvy of Brandon Friedman . . . Friedman's take is vivid, frank, precise and dramatic." --Military Times

    "Add Brandon Friedman's The War I Always Wanted to the ranks of outstanding non-fiction produced by officers from elite combat units in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Always truthful, often excruciatingly so, The War I Always Wanted rises at numerous points to the level of literature." --Steven Pressfield, author of Gates of Fire

    Buy The War I Always Wanted here.

    "A Time To Lead,"
    By General (Ret.) Wesley K. Clark

    "A Time To Lead confirms the rewarding benefits of military service at a time when such service is experiencing considerable strain. It also includes a comprehensive description of America's current national imperatives, which deserve serious consideration." --General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., former Secretary of State

    "This is a primer on leadership forged in battle and by decades of experience. . .This isn't just a book; it's a manual for leading people and living a good life." --Barry McCaffrey, General, USA (ret.)

    Buy A Time to Lead here.

    "Love My Rifle More Than You,"
    By Kayla Williams

    "Whip smart, sassy, with a mouth as foul as a sailor's, 28-year-old Sergeant Kayla Williams. . .tells what it's like to be a female soldier in Iraq." --Booklist

    ". . .echoes military memoirists from Julius Caesar to Ernie Pyle." --Publishers Weekly

    ". . .a shocking, on-the-ground view of one military woman's experience in Iraq." --Bookmarks Magazine

    Buy Love My Rifle More Than You here.

    "How to Break a Terrorist,"
    By Matthew Alexander

    "...a riveting, fast-paced account that reads like a first-rate thriller." --Publisher's Weekly

    " ...an absorbing behind-the-scenes look at the secret intelligence war within a war." --Military.com

    Buy How to Break a Terrorist here.
    Search

    Advanced Search
    RSS Feed Links

    Subscribe to VetVoice in a feed reader!

    Subscribe to VetVoice by Email!
    Diaries and comments at VetVoice do not necessarily represent the views of VoteVets.org. VetVoice will strive to remove any illegal material as soon as it is flagged. Similarly, VetVoice will use its discretion in determining whether to remove exceedingly offensive material. However, between posting and removal, any offensive or illegal material does not reflect the condoning or endorsing of said material by VoteVets.org or VetVoice.
    Similarly, the views expressed on this website are those of the authors alone. Opinions on this website do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components.
    Menu

    Make a New Account

    Username:

    Password:


    Forget your username or password?

    Front Page Writers
    PTSD Resources
    TBI Resources
    IRR Information
    Casualty Reports
    VA Information
    Support the Troops
    Veteran Candidates We Support
    Congressional Committees
    Contact Your Elected Leaders
    Sites We Like

    Paid for VoteVets Political Action Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. VoteVets Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on behalf veterans and their families. VoteVets Political Action Committee is a federal political committee which primarily helps elect Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran candidates and educates about veterans and military issues aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election.

    Site Design: Articulated Man

    VoteVets Political Action and Vote Vets Action Fund are separate organizations.

    Powered by: SoapBlox