In Context

I heard it put this way in a letter to the editor to the sacbee. Paraphrasing "How fast do you think our government would be calling for heads to roll if it was, instead, the iraqis perpetrating abuse against US POWs? Do you think our government would buy the line that it was just the responsiblity of low level personal?"

I've heard calls by conservative radio talk show hosts, namely david gold and others, the defense department should not release additional evidence about abuses of prisoners to the public. It is confusing me as to why the public shouldn't know the truth.

No, wait, it's not confusing me. I know exactly why they want to withhold evidence. So that people don't lose the romantic view of patriotic and "civilized" war. You've all heard them; talking heads claiming this isn't the way Americans operate. No, of course not.... Then why on earth is the defense department withholding accounts of US actions, if the US doesn't do these things?

In my opinion, it is dangerous to believe you are above such conduct simply because you happened to be born in a certain country.
It is bad to let this idea exist. Oversight is necessary. Yeah, checks and balances. In this case the press is keeping the government in check, from doing and carrying out horrible things (not that our governments done anything too bad).

We need oversight. I believe the solution is increasing the freedom that the press has to operate in our country. Imagine if reporters had a right to be in every single detention center, military or civilian, and be present at the interrogation and detention of every prisoner. I'll tell you one consequence: their would never be any torture of prisoners in this country, period. Complain all you want about sensitive information getting out. As if that's more important than the well being of individuals and the behavior of our representative government.


Question for debate:
1. Should the defense department release any and all evidence it has of "abuse" (torture) of its prisoners?
2. Do you think we need more oversight of the detention of prisoners? If so, what's your solution?
3. Do you like my solution, that is allowing the press to be present at all prisons and interrogations?
4. Is any one "above" such behavior?

Definitely. Cockroaches hate daylight, abusers hate public scrutiny.
The best hope we have of preventing abuse is a transparent system of dealing with it- look at what happened with the Catholic Church shuttling abusive priests from parish to parish in secrecy.
I do. We need a clear chain of command, for starters. The warden should not be able to abdicate responsibility by saying these abuses took place in an "off limits" area.
Not really. Investigations of abuse need to be transparent, but involving the press in every aspect of it seems a bit extreme- it would be a hassle for everyone involved, information overload for the public, and possibly interfere with legitimate interrogation.
No, that is why everyone needs to be held accountable. The military chain of command should be a solid line with the CiC at the top, and he answers to the voters.
This business with outside contractors being involved with interrogating prisoners, and not being subject to military justice? Heads need to roll.

Regarding the question of whether the press should be present during interrogations: with all due respect, this is not the reporter's job -- they have neither the training nor the motivation to be unbiased watchdogs. If we were to pursue this approach, the obvious question is to "whose press" would we entrust such a job? the same press who held the story for weeks at the request of the Pentagon? Perhaps we could out-source interrogation supervision to Fox News?


From the Fairness and Acuracy In Reporting (FAIR), a stunning article on media's attitudes towards torture (www.fair.org/extra/0201/pro-pain.html):


The press has a legitimate job to do in reporting on pacification (er... excuse me) "liberation and democratization" of Iraq-- I for one hope that they start doing it, before they take on other responsibilities.

The problem apparently was not lack of supervision -- these abuses were hardly a secret. There are multitude of stories about attempts to report problems up the chain of command if one is to believe the Red Cross, the Iraqi Interior Minister, Amnesty International, and Paul Bremer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004May7.html:


The problem is one of accountability at the command level, and building a response mechanism to correct problems as they get escalated.


Of course, I could be wrong...

JACABO

You don't have to wonder. This is no theoretical happenstance. It happened. Exactly whose 'heads rolled' for the Iraqi abuse (including testicular electrocution, beatings, and rape) to our servicepeople? Did we charge them with war crimes and send them to the Hague?

Do you think we need more oversight of the detention of prisoners? If so, what's your solution? I'd like to see the International Red Cross maintain a permanent presence at the detention facilities, rather than paying occasional visits, if that's possible. At the very least, they should have a war lawyer present to monitor the goings-on at each facility.
Do you like my solution, that is allowing the press to be present at all prisons and interrogations? No. Prisoners are supposed to be protected from 'public curiosity', under the Geneva conventions. I fail to see how violating one protocol under the conventions is justified to enforce another protocol.

That's a good point Mrs Pigpen. We shouldn't make them public curiosities. I like the idea you propose, about the red cross having a permanent pressence. Whatever happens, we certainly need more oversight.

No country is above committing atrocities.

I think this is an "of course". I would also caution that we need to create the possibility of a fair trial (or at least a fair military trial). How this information is released and how it's interpreted can all be very prejudicial.

I think it's a given that more oversight is required. I like the suggestion of the Red Cross to have a more permanent roll. This isn't enough, of course, but it's a start.

I wonder if the military -- trained to fight war -- can ever be good at maintaining the peace. Prisons (whether they contain POWs or law breakers) are not by their nature open or transparent. In war time without civil codes of conduct (i.e. you're trying kill each other), it is very easy to justify actions that within the context of war seem par for the course. This is inherently the problem with prisoners in war time.

Oversight like the Red Cross and Amnesty International are good things, but they can never be enough. Both of these groups reported major issues almost one year ago (and perhaps some action was taken then), but the torture didn't stop. These groups report the problems after they happen; they are not preventative. Within our civil system, prisoners have a way of airing their issues via lawsuits: the theory being that while some lawsuits are frivolous at least some are genuine and eventually you get a system where abuses are minimized.

If we wish to prevent torture of POWs in the future, such a system must be instituted. There is no other way as I see it. Of course, this leads to all sorts of other questions. But, I'll leave that for another debate.

Short answer, no. It's not the press' job to monitor prison abuses. It is the press' job to report on the torture itself, shedding light on awful and deeply shameful actions.

I agree with this. The military has been using the "privacy of the families" excuse to withhold even pictures of caskets of dead US soldiers from the press. The public sees only numbers of deaths or press releases saying "abuses have occurred". It wasn't until the public saw the photos of torture that serious investigation happened.

The public needs to understand the true cost of war. If our determination to war has faltered because of pictures of dead soldiers or tortured prisoners, then we obviously have not been as sure as we thought we were.

As more and more allegations, pictures evidence and testimony emerges about the relatively widespread nature of the abuse of the Iraqi people, it is clear that there is a real problem somewhere in the US military.

Lack of training, low morale and improper preparation for guard duty can explain isolated incidents of abuse. Combine that with a healthy dose of contempt the US seems to feel for the Iraqi people, and I could understand the occasional slip of individual soldiers.


Now it is becoming clear that this is a fairly widespread issue in both Afghanistan AND Iraq, with over a dozen prisons currently under investigation. Now it comes to light that several agencies were very aware of these abuses over the last year, such as the Red Cross, and they tried repeatedly to make the higher-powers in the US aware of what was going on, to little effect.

I do not accept lack of training or a negligent CO as excuses. I have never served in the military, nor gone through ANY military training, yet somehow I know that it is NOT ok to sodomise a prisoner with a broomstick. One negligent CO happens, but across a dozen bases? How does that happen?


If this pattern of cruelty is as widespread as it seems to be, as far as I can tell there are only two possible explanations:

1) Soldiers has implicit (if not explicit) permission to perform these brutalities from their superiors; or
2) The US officer corps is the most incompetent force in living memory.

How is a CO supposed to NOT be aware that significant numbers of soldiers are brutalising, and now possibly raping and even murdering, POWs in their prison while both filming and taking snapshots in open courtyards in broad daylight?


In my mind, a serious overhaul of the US military is warranted. Either US troops easily succumb to the temptation to brutalise, often and independently, or they are implicitly or explicitly told that this behaviour is acceptable. Either way there is a SERIOUS problem in the US military.

Many say that by no means are ALL Us troops like this, in fact it is likely a small minority.

But then I ask you this: where were the rest of the troops? The ones NOT prone to such excesses? Why were they not reporting these actions to their COs? Why were they not making a fuss? If the majority of US troops ARE decent people, why then did they not raise a fuss at the actrions of this apparent small minority?

Are tgose that stand by, watch and say nothing any more innocent then those who perpetrate the crimes?

If they DID make a fuss and complain, how then can COs and higher officials claim to have been ignorant?

1. Should the defense department release any and all evidence it has of "abuse" (torture) of its prisoners?

Yes, but with the qualifications that public releases should be only to the extent that they will not compromise the judicial process or on-going investigations.

2. Do you think we need more oversight of the detention of prisoners? If so, what's your solution?
There is sufficient oversight built into current doctrine. But, as MG Taguba's report shows, supervision and oversight was severely lacking throughout.

The units in question were not aware of the provisions of prisoner-handling doctrine and were completely untrained in the mission they were tasked with. The MP Brigade also handled its resources very poorly - the HVD facility housed around 100 prisoners and was manned by one MP battalion; numbers at Abu Ghraib fluctuated from between 6,000 to 7,000 yet it was also manned by just one MP battalion.

The problem was incompetence at many levels, exacerbated by a lack of supervision and oversight - oversight that was supposed to be carried out in accordance with established procedures, but did not happen until the abuses had become systemic.

AR 190-8 Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees, and Other Detainees.

FM 3-19.40 Military Police Internment/Resettlement Operations

Regular Red Cross visits were taking place; but the command was paying no attention to their reports of systemic abuse. Again, there are procedures laid out for fixing this situation - they were not followed.

In the end, this is a serious leadership issue - at the highest levels. Why was a general officer with no experience in detainee operations placed in charge of overall prison operations in Iraq? Why were the MPs charged with running these prisons untrained? Why was the situation allowed to carry on, unchanged, for so long, despite repeated reports of abuse received by the highest levels?

The investigation into the 800th MP Brigade has resulted in a number of investigations being initiated - into Military Intelligence interrogation operations, as well as into the handling of the entire situation by the Coalition Forces Land Component Commander (CFLCC) and higher.

3. Do you like my solution, that is allowing the press to be present at all prisons and interrogations?
NO! The press has no place in a military detention facility under normal conditions. It may be helpful to conduct a press tour of Abu Ghraib under new command, to clearly show current procedures - under certain qualifying conditions. But that should be the maximum extent of it.

Regarding the conduct of interrogations, no one should be present at an interrogation other than the interrogator and perhaps an interpreter. Usually, a guard is present outside the room during the interrogation - sometimes the guard is in the same space. It varies. But that should be it.

The interrogations should be videotaped, and a record kept. We did this in the old days with VHS tapes, keyhole lenses for the interrogation rooms for unobtrusive recording, and a multiscreen monitor to enable supervisors to maintain control of the interrogations in progress. Now, with digital capability, it is that much easier to maintain large video archives of interrogations. The existence of the archive facilitates operational inspections.

As it becomes clear that the acts are not isolated and are a systemic problem which previous reporting had gone virtually ignored - it is also clear that ultimate responsibility lays at the highest level. The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff.

One of the sub-issues emerging from the prisoner abuse scandal is the notion of what defines abuse and torture versus what tactics might fall within the scope of legitimate interrogation. I'm not talking about prisoner abuse and torture for amusement and sadistic whims; clearly, that is always wrong, period. I'm talking about interrogation tactics that straddle the line and are now coming under renewed public scrutiny.

To most, it is fairly easy to discern what behavior falls at the extreme ends of what is permissible and what is wrong. For example, at one end of the spectrum you might have something simple like keeping detainees separated from each other to prevent them from fabricating information minimizing the effectiveness of questioning; at the other end of the spectrum, physically torturing someone to get them to talk can never be justified, ever. The only way to advocate that is to assert the ends justify the means, one of the greatest human fallacies ever. How sad it is that there are so many examples of it throughout human history.

Unlike the ends of the spectrum which are easy to discern right from wrong, what falls in the middle is murky, gray, and disturbing. We know that physical abuse is wrong but we seem to be more willing to contemplate applying psychological pressure, even though we know that it can easily slip into psychological abuse (and far worse).

Psychological pressure has been standard practice for interrogators for a long time. For example, our domestic police use it routinely. Police are allowed to obscure the truth, distort facts, and outright lie to suspects in criminal investigations, and the confessions are admissible even when the suspects are tricked into making them. Police also manipulate the environment in which the questioning takes place. They isolate people in individual rooms so they can not talk with accomplices; they can turn up the thermostat in the interrogation room to increase discomfort and heighten anxiety. They play out psychology routines with the suspect including classics like Good-Cop-Bad-Cop, Ego-Up/Ego-Down, or Your-accomplice-is-squealing, so-you'd-better-cut-a-deal-now, etc. All of these things are designed to apply psychological pressure to make a suspect crack and tell the police what they want to know. Of course, sometimes a suspect cracks because their guilty, and sometimes they crack for other reasons when they are actually innocent. The foregoing is not meant as an indictment of police interrogation techniques; its only to highlight that our society allows it and by allowing it we are tacitly condoning it on the whole.

All of this makes me wonder, then, exactly where we should draw the lines and put measures in place to make sure people don't get abused in war time situations like the one that exists in Iraq with the detention centers. It doesn't really matter if the suspects are really innocent or guilty; it seems like there should be some sort of line that must be drawn to ensure that past this point, we won't condone any further psychological interrogation techniques, even if the suspect might provide information the interrogators really want to know, because it slips into the realm of the "end justifies the means."

When considering where to draw that line, we also need to contemplate the practical considerations involved in regulating and enforcing the limits. We know that in a less than ideal situation, volatile and with minimal supervision or oversight, and no checks or balances, the tendency is for the line to slide away from humane treatment and towards abuse. Much of this springs from the dehumanizing element involved in all prisoner-captor situations, when we see one group of people as "the enemy" and less like fellow human beings; a poster in a prior thread referenced a link to the Stanford Prison Experiment which exposes how easily such a thing happens. One of my favorite all-time quotes (although I don't know who to attribute it to) is "Never deny anyone their humanity. When you do, you begin to deny your own." This applies to every human being, no matter how much they disgust you or what you think of them; once you start down the path of dehumanizing them and justifying to yourself why they deserve to be treated as less than human, you've begun to dilute your own humanity.

On the flip side of the coin, we know we can not hamstring interrogation techniques such that there is no psychological pressure whatsover for prisoners to turn over important information. Otherwise, we might as well not even have any interrogators; guards can tell prisoners upon detention to let them know if a prisoner feels like providing any useful information, and that's the end of the story.

I'm not sure exactly sure where we should draw that line, but I think we need to think about it some more. We need to look at it closely, and examine the existing rules, trying to take into account all the factors that can make those rules subject to abuse. Maybe that is better left for discussion in a separate thread, but it is what keeps going through my mind of late.

1. Should the defense department release any and all evidence it has of "abuse" (torture) of its prisoners?
Yes, but must those photos be released today? Tomorrow? I am all for full-disclosure, but for the safety of our troops and their overall mission, timing had better be considered. We know that our guys screwed up, and the size of that screw up will eventually be disclosed, but I am not sure that more photos being released right now is good for the overall cause.

2. Do you think we need more oversight of the detention of prisoners? If so, what's your solution?
Yes. The answer is a true international coalition. This is a great opportunity for a county like FRANCE to step in and take over the detention functions from our troops with the assistance of the Red Cross. They would not be engaged with front-line confrontations, and would be seen in a very positive light by both that Iraqis (who they are coming to save from the barbaric American captures), and by most Americans who have wanted the to "join the party" in any capacity.

3. Do you like my solution, that is allowing the press to be present at all prisons and interrogations?
Allowing the Press at interrogations would be counterproductive. You would have to limit what they report, (Not very democratic) or consider every bit of intel that they do report as old news.

4. Is any one "above" such behavior?
God I hope not.

Law Enforcement interviews and interrogations conducted in the process of a criminal investigation are very different than Military Intelligence interrogations - they fall under very different rules and regulations. The biggest difference, of course, is Miranda.

There is also a big difference in LE between investigative interviewing, to gain information to assist in the investigation, and the suspect interrogation, when LE is attempting to elicit a confession or admission of guilt from the source - without compromising that confession in a manner which would result in it being thrown out of court.

In interrogations in Iraq, we're not looking for confessions - we're looking for intelligence information that will enable us to stop or prevent attacks and to identify and roll up the insurgent network. Although the communications skills used in military interrogations are essentially the same as in LE interrogation, the manner in which they are used is very different. The Cognitive Interview method, which is now replacing the Reid Technique in many agencies, contains many elements which have been part of the training of military interrogators for decades.

But for a long time, most LE interrogation has been based upon the Reid Technique, which doesn't parse over very well into intelligence interrogation. The Reid Technique involves a theme which offers moral justification for the suspect's crime. The theme is presented as a monologue and the suspect is discouraged from offering denials or explanations for the incriminating evidence. This technique is successful because it establishes a level of rapport between the interrogator and suspect, and - due to human nature - the suspect begins to believe that the LE officer conducting the interview may be more lenient since he obviously understands the crime.... This is definitely a form of psychological manipulation, and is very effective when used by a skilled LE interrogator.

Setting the environment to the advantage of the interrogator is common sense, and done whenever possible - both in LE and in military operations. Segregating prisoners so they can not concoct stories or plan a course of action is also a very simple preventative measure. I don't believe there is any controversy in either principle.

This only becomes an issue when it crosses the line between heightening anxiety into causing severe discomfort. There does exist the gray area here in the space between psychological pressure and torture. For example, exposure for prolonged periods to extreme heat in an enclosed room with no air-flow definitely steps well over the line, as does stripping prisoners naked and leaving them for prolonged periods in extreme cold.

These are all very simplistic methods, which are still effective when tied in with the afore-mentioned structured environment and a skilled interrogator. But I don't see any link with those basic approaches and the formation of naked pyramids, simulated sex-acts, psuedo-electrification, and all the other, far more brutal methods, that have come out thus far in the investigation.

In the military, we do "draw the line", we do have policies and procedures in place to ensure that we do not slip through the gray areas into committing blatant violations of the Law of Land Warfare in the handling, treatment, and interrogation of prisoners. If you get an opportunity to read through Army Regulations and Field Manuals on this subject, you will see that quite clearly. What we have had in Iraq is a massive systemic failure in training, conduct of operations and leadership.

Thanks for responding, Mustang, although I fear my post really goes in a different direction than the topic of the thread in general.

I get the feeling you may have felt that I was implying civilian law enforcement interrogations and military intelligence interrogations were roughly one and the same; I was not. The police were highlighted as an example of the fact that our society does condone psychological tactics to get someone to talk; I assume you would agree military interrogation tactics are also designed to encourage someone to talk.

From there, I was raising the general issue of whether or not we should re-examine what rules we currently feel are permissible in the context of using psychological coercion. I take it from your post that you feel those rules are already clearly spelled out, and that our personnel are clearly trained on the subject. What I am getting at is that perhaps we should re-examine those rules again, with more emphasis placed on weighing the factors that can stress or influence our personnel into breaking those rules. If you disagree, that's fine.


Exactly... these are accepted principles. We have to use them to be effective.


Agreed, there is no link; in my first paragraph I stated I was not talking about abuse for amusement and sadistic whims


Right. I certainly wasn't suggesting we don't have any rules at all.

We already have oversight, we just need to let international NGOs do their jobs. We opened up Guantanamo and other bases and just held peole in limbo without red cross inspections and the like. Supposedly doing so would hurt the "war on terror" and would somehow compromise interrogation techniques with people(i.e.-we can't twist their arms and make them talk)

I don't like the option of having the press around-if a person is drugged or is treated roughly, I don't think that should make the nightly news. Now by roughed up, I don't mean stripped naked, being attacked by a dog, or put into a compromising position with a hood on. What they got out of the prisoners due to that is something that I'd like to know.