Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Hell, Bob Crane practically invented the mail-order porn racket.

did he like torture films? at least light S&M?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by nononono
So, since you didn't say so here (sheesh, I was asking for facts, not editorial), did the Lt. Gen. specifically refer to those guidelines, in detail, about which physical or other activities are considered "abusive" (and I repeat, I'm asking about "abusive," as it isn't 100% clear that what is included in that category overlaps seamlessly with "anything outside the Guidelines" and with the Convention).

I previously posted a link to a page which linked to this page (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090601442.html), the transcript of the press conference. Are you irked that I'm not reading the page to you and summarizing, would you rather I just quoted it at length, or did you not realize I already gave you the way to get these facts?

Here is what another Army official said:

• STIMSON: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Cully Stimson. I'm the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs.
  
  Today I'm pleased to announce the revised and re-issued DOD directive 2310.01E -- or echo -- entitled "The Department of Defense Detainee Program."
  
  This revised directive provides the overarching DOD policy guidance on detention operations conducted by DOD worldwide. This directive, which I'll refer to as 2310, represents the culmination of over a year of discussion and debate within the department and the U.S. government in developing a solid foundation upon which to build future detention operations policy.
  
  It represents the considered effort of many people in the United States government and the various components of the Department of Defense. It reaffirms our commitment in DOD to treat humanely those individuals under DOD control.
  
  The revision of 2310 took time, and it took time because it was important to get it right, and we did get it right.
  
  This directive historically has defined how the department conducts detention operations in a traditional war. The revised version, the version before you today, sets forth the policies and responsibilities for all detention operations conducted by DOD, but provides the flexibility we need to fight any foe, while, as I said, affirming the values and practices that are at the heart of what we do.
  
  STIMSON: This directive is the cornerstone of DOD detention policy. And that's important to understand. The Army Field Manual, for instance, falls under this DOD directive.
  
  It sets out policy guidance for all DOD detention operations that is necessary and appropriate to ensure the safe, secure and humane detention of enemy combatants, both lawful and unlawful, regardless of the nature of the conflict.
  
  It consolidates existing direction and instructions of the president and the secretary of defense and incorporates the lessons we have learned over the past few years in waging the global war on terror.
  
  It does so in a number of ways: It incorporates key policy changes recommended in the 12 major investigations conducted by DOD over the past two years. In fact, by publishing this document and the Army Field Manual, we will have addressed over 95 percent of the recommendations from those 12 major investigations since Abu Ghraib.
  
  I want to highlight five key elements of 2310. First and foremost, the directive describes the core policies that this department believes are critical in ensuring that all detainees are treated humanely and that the laws pertaining to detainee care and treatment are implemented.
  
  It incorporates the prohibitions against cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment of the Detainee Treatment Act and articulates, for the first time in DOD history, a minimum standard for the care and treatment of all detainees.
  
  These minimum standards of care and treatment can be found in Enclosures 3 and 4. Enclosure 3, which you should have in front of you and on the screen, contains the text of Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, verbatim.
  
  Enclosure 4 contains other requirements of the law of war we believe, as a department, are essential to ensure humane care and treatment of all detainees.
  
  Taken together, this is the baseline standard for care and treatment for all detainees in the custody and control of the Department of Defense.
  
  In addition to the baseline standard of care and treatment articulated in those two enclosures, some detainees, obviously those such as enemy prisoners of war or others with protected status in the Geneva Conventions, are entitled to additional protections.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Was he the freaky sex guy? Or is that someone else?

Yup, Bob Crane. Greg Kinnear just did the movie about him -- Auto Focus, or something like that.

I have no idea if he was a New Deal Democrat. His character probably was, though.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The Army just released extensive guidelines about what is and what is not permitted. So, yes. The Army is happy to abide by the Geneva Conventions without the White House's proposed legislation.

I have just been reading stuff on this book that is pretty interesting:

"In a war with no precedent, where the rules are being written even while combat operations unfold, knowing the enemy's secrets is only way to win. You cannot learn enough to root him out by means of satellite imagery alone. No amount of eavesdropping will betray the balance of his treachery. To defeat our new and cunning enemy, he must be outwitted in grueling, desperate, one-on-one confrontations."

So it is clear that these interrogations are really important. But then again this is coming from a guy that is an interrogator so I don't think we should scrap the NSA and satellites just yet - but on the other hand, it is clear that getting information from prisoners is really, really, important.

The critics of the book, mainly liberal commentators, think that the guy is lying or splitting hairs when they say they didn't commit torture. Many liberal commentators pointed out that the book was vetted by the Pentagon and therefore there was a strong incentive to keep out any reference to torture. They believe that the book was part of a propaganda ploy to clean up the Army's image after Abu Graib. In addition, there are scenes where evidence of torture slips out. In one interrogation he admits that the man is dressed in a burlap bag and nothing else. Burlap bags are a common torture technique where the prisoner is given the choice of the bag, which if worn over time causes all sorts of sores and cuts, or going naked. I guess the guy just drops on the floor after a few questions and starts crying. One particularl commentator just didn't think the questions were enough to get a man crying on the floor unless something else was being done.

There are also admission to sleep deprivation (as Menachem Begin admits was the most effective tool) and threats of torture. The camps are also incredibly squalid and lack of water and food are also used as tools. Through the whole book they are trying to argue that they did not breach the Geneva Convention yet what they admit to is in the Grey Area - strongly suggesting they went over the line. In addition, some commentators think the detainees fell way too easily to the tricks.

Another commentator said that the one question the author does not answer is if they are faced with a prisoner that had critical information and he wouldn't break how far would they go to get him to break. In the book, I guess they were faced with a lot of people they knew had information that was critical and they got them to break. It seems rather convenient that they all eventually broke and they were never in the position where one with critical information wouldn't break.

But of course this is just opinion of liberal commentators so all of the above has to be taken with a grain of salt. Actually twenty bags of salt.


So the question is the Army saying they don't need to use torture because they don't really need to, or because they are trying to look good and clean up its image after Abu Grab.

However, I think all the liberal critics are blown out of the water by his point that torture just stiffens the detainees resolve. So my conclusion is that (until someone shows me where serious torture has worked):

1) The key to winning the war is extracting information from prisoners.
2) The interrogation techniques do not need to include outright torture to be effective. So at least we can openly claim we do not use torture.

I guess this guy just goes off on the CIA and their interrogating techniques. Has the CIA responded to this guy's accusations or defended their use of stronger techiques?

[nononono]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I previously posted a link to a page which linked to this page (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090601442.html), the transcript of the press conference. Are you irked that I'm not reading the page to you and summarizing, would you rather I just quoted it at length, or did you not realize I already gave you the way to get these facts?

Here is what another Army official said:
etc.

Well, no, I was looking to see what the Lt. Gen. who spoke about abusive practices had to say, not a descrition by someone else of what is in the guidelines, so this doesn't get there. But thanks! (sincerely) It seems to me before saying the various departments are at odds, it's important to make sure they actually are.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
1) The key to winning the war is extracting information from prisoners.

I'm not saying it doesn't help, but this strikes me as a little over the top.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have just been reading stuff on this book that is pretty interesting:

Is the the book you dissed me for linking?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not saying it doesn't help, but this strikes me as a little over the top.

Well that is what the author tried to argue. And as I said, he is an interrogator so it is in his egos interest to argue that. I believe it is extremely important, but not the entire solution.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Is the the book you dissed me for linking?

That exact one. :bounce:

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
That exact one. :bounce:

:boots:

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
II guess this guy just goes off on the CIA and their interrogating techniques. Has the CIA responded to this guy's accusations or defended their use of stronger techiques?

Which - one more time (and despite all the protestations to the contrary around here) - is the actual issue here:

Nice summation from over at the Weekly Standard

The president has a sound substantive position. Some legislation is needed (at least arguably) because of the Supreme Court's (ill-advised) Hamdan decision. That decision suggests that detained terrorists might enjoy the protection of the vague Article 3 standards of the Geneva Convention. CIA agents could not, therefore, use short-of-torture interrogation techniques that might be thought "humiliating and degrading." Unless the CIA were to abandon all techniques that a judge might construe as contrary to Article 3, the door would be open for agents to be held legally liable. The Bush-backed legislation would stipulate that compliance with U.S. law would constitute fulfillment of our obligations under Geneva. This would permit an effective interrogation program to go forward with confidence.

ETS - this is perhaps the first issue over which the WSJ, NRO and WS are in full agreement since the Clinton era.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
An army interrogator.

ETA: Another army interrogator.

Both served in Iraq. One just reupped, the other is dealing with PTSD.

Adding one more thing, that I think is interesting. Again, I have a bias for Terry because he's a friend, but I think this is sorta relevant from someone who actually has to do this stuff.

Terry Karney ::: (view all by) ::: May 04, 2004, 09:33 AM:

Hey, it's your party, and highjacking a conversation, which is what it feels like (and I confess, I am feeling a tad sensitive at the moment) seems rude.

The main trick of interrogation is to get the subject talking. The prime difference between military and police interrogation is intent. The cop is asking questions to which he thinks he has the answer. He also has the club of punishment to wave at the subject.

I don't have those. In a classic war, the guy across the table is going to be here until he is exchanged, or the war ends. Gives me very little leverage.

So we use a bit of head game. Take advantage of the shock of capture, the silence he's been kept in, the segregation he's undergone, and the sense of loss, shame, helplessness, and fear that go with it.

We look for clues, his attitude, his rank, the condition of his gear; his uniform, how much ammo he had (and how much it was, relative to the rest of the dead and the captured) how many people were killed and wounded in the fight, his pocket trash (which includes things like letters and photos).

We then make nice, offer him a cup of coffee, a cigarette. Engage in chit-chat. Feel him out. Ride the clues.

Is he an officer? Did his unit get stomped? is he actinf proud anyway? Then maybe I belittle him, tell him a trained chimp could've done better, get him angry enough to blurt out information.

Maybe his unit was stomped, but he seems at a loss... ashamed. Then I tell him no one could've stopped it, build him up. Get him to tell me why I'm right.

The trick (and it's the only trick we really need) is to get them talking and, to not make them think we want anything other than a truthful answer. Once they start to talk, I will get everything he knows, or at least everything my commander wants.

I may offer him things... like the chance to write a letter home the instant we get done talking. This is half a lie. He gets to write home when I let him out... well no. He gets to write a given number of letters a month, and I might, were I inclined to be cruel see to it that he had to wait three weeks to do so, but easier to promise him things he's entitled to, because most people are not trained in what their rights are, as a POW.

Once he starts to talk I'll use what I already know (order of battle information, previously fond information, weather/road conditions) to verify the things he says. That's called, "using control questions," and it's one of the hardest things to teach a new interrogator.

He says he's in an armored unit, and the patch on his sleeve matches that... OK. Half a control. He says they have tanks, I ask what kind. He says T-72s. I know (or check) that unit has that type of tank. That's a better control question.

I ask how many and he says his platoon has five... DING alarm bells go off, because the Order of Battle for his army has four tanks in a platoon. I ask how long they've had four tanks. He says one week. I ask why they have four tanks, and he says the Company Commander attached himself to the unit. It all makes a certain amount of sense, so I write up the change in the OB, and go on.

Later I ask him questions about the Company Commander and when they match what he said before, I consider that to be a repeat question. I'll ask any number of questions, to which I have an expectation of answer, based on what I've been told, by the subject. Consistency (and I'm taking notes) is a sign of honest recall by the prisoner. He may be wrong, but it is as he remembers it, and that's what matters.

If he tries to tell lies, I'm going to spot the discrepancies, esp. if I'm doing a complete OB interrogation. The lowliest of privates takes about two and-a-half hours to give up everything a full OB takes. An officer can take a couple of days, and when one gets to COL and above, it becomes a serious project.

Before I go into the booth I get a briefing from the OB NCO (which was the job I did in the box). He is responsible for keeping track of the battlefield, as best it is known at the time.

What booth time I got in Iraq was to get some fast controls in, when the interrogators (we used two, with an MP for guard) weren't sure about the guys story. It was easier for me to go in and ask the questions, than it was to try and brief them enough (they hadn't been keeping up with events as well as I, but then I spent about four hours a day tracking things, so...) to get the answers.

There are other types of interrogations, ones which are faster, because rather than try to get everything he knows, we are only interested in certain types of information.

We also had a larger repetoire of inducements to talk. Because we had so many who were no more than farmers, who got swept up my nervous MPs we could tell them that, barring some evidence they were just farmers, the MPs would take them to Talil, or Basra. Talil was the nearest and that was something like 100 miles away.

I recall one interrogation where the source wasn't talking. Which is a pain, because we were pretty sure he was nothing more than a tomato farmer, and if he continued to stonewall, the MPs were going to take him to Talil, and he's be there for a couple of days, and then left to make his own way home.

The lead interrogator drew a stick figure of a man, and of a woman, in the dust on the table. They were holding hands. He then said, if you don't talk to us... and rubbed out the connected hands.

The man started t cry, and then to talk. We sent him home four hours later.

On the down side... there were guys who liked to make the sources cry, who worked at it.

And we did keep them isolated, until after we'd talked to them, which was a problem when we had a lot of them, because (as I said last April, in Making Light) we didn't have enough shade.

Done right, it's effective, and doesn't need torture, because if the subject is willing to talk to me, about anything... I can eventually get him to start talking about the army, and then I can get everything. In for a penny, in for a pound. The only defense is to answer nothing but the big four.

Name
Rank
Date of birth
Service Number.

If you talk about anything else... you'll talk about everything else.

And that's why the situation at Abu Ghraib bothers me. These were not that time sensitive, these guys didn't need to go off the reservation. If they had as many prisoners as they say they did (and this is just in April, when the fighting in Falluja was the primary thing on the agenda) they could afford to take the extra hour or so it might have taken to get a guy talking.

And before April... they had all the time in the world, because the more prisoners one has to work with, the easier it is to get them to talk. You can play on fears. I come to talk to A: Ten minutes later I come to talk to B:, along about the time I get to G, he will be afraid, because A-F have not been seen since. He's probably been told we will torture, and then kill, him. He's convinced himself this is happening. When all I want to do is ask questions, he tells all he knows, because in his mind he's saving his life.

On the flip side, if I start to hit him, he resists, because that is what he's been trained to do, avoid giving up information in exchange for pain.

And we know this doesn't work. If you think torture is useful in breaking people, and thus garnering information, talk to John McCain, or anyone else who had a room at the Hanoi Hilton.

I guess that'll do for now.

Terry

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Well that is what the author tried to argue. And as I said, he is an interrogator so it is in his egos interest to argue that. I believe it is extremely important, but not the entire solution.

Try to put that claim in the context of Vietnam or World War II, and it starts to sound fairly overblown.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Nice summation from over at the Weekly Standard

How odd that the Army has promulgated specific regulations about what can and cannot be done and doesn't seem so worried about the dread liberal activist judges raining on their parade.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore


ETS - this is perhaps the first issue over which the WSJ, NRO and WS are in full agreement since the Clinton era.

I don't think any of those rags have comics, Ann Landers or a sports page. Let alone Sedoku or a cross word puzzle.