OT: Stress and Duress--warning: downer

Whistle
1

This story broke in the Washington Post
yesterday, the team of reporters that
wrote it was led by Bob Woodward.
Thousands of Al Qaeda suspects are
being held in detention centers abroad,
without access to anybody, not even
the Red Cross (the people held at
Guantanamo are the single exception).
As part of getting their cooperation,
the CIA subjects them to beatings,
they are blindfolded and thrown into walls,
shackled for long times in painful
positions with hoods over
their heads, and also deprived of sleep.
Apparently several people have died
as a result. Seriously wounded people
are denied pain medication until they
talk.

Those who won’t break are given
to the secret police in Morocco, Egypt,
or Jordan, condemned by the US government
itself for their brutality, with a
list of questions that need to be
answered–the understanding is that
the answers will be extracted by
whatever means necessary.

The program is called ‘stress and duress’.
An unnamed State Department source, who had
witnessed such interrogations, summed
up the policy this way: ‘If you aren’t
violating someone’s human rights
some time, you aren’t doing your job.’

I say this neither to condone it
nor condemn it, but to say it. When
things like this happen, there is
a tendency to look the other way.
One says such things where one can.
I believe the story.
Our government is torturing thousands
of people; you and I are funding it.


[ This Message was edited by: jim stone on 2002-12-27 10:54 ]

[ This Message was edited by: jim stone on 2002-12-27 10:56 ]

[ This Message was edited by: jim stone on 2002-12-27 11:00 ]

2

Jim,
Can you give us a published source for this information? This kind of behavior is so inhuman that it is hard to believe when it comes from an annonymous source.
Mike

3

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

  • More quotations on: [Freedom]

Educate your children to self-control, to the habit of holding passion and prejudice and evil tendencies subject to an upright and reasoning will, and you have done much to abolish misery from their future and crimes from society.
Benjamin Franklin

4

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37943-2002Dec25.html

Sorry if you can’t just click
on this. I’m awful at this computer
stuff. Best

5

Jim,
Thanks for the link. Lots to digest.
Mike

6

–quote–
Our government is torturing thousands
of people; you and I are funding it.
–endquote–

If the story is true.

And that’s a pretty big “if”.

Best,

–James
http://www.flutesite.com

7

So what else is new? People have been treating each other like donkey &%$# for eons. For all the glitz and splendour of modern technology, there’s still nothing fundamentally different between the man in the monkey suit and the monkey.

8

Why I believe it’s true. Bob Woodward
is probably the most respected
investigative reporter in the USA.
He was largely responsible for the
Watergate stories that brought down
Richard Nixon. The Washington Post
is famous for breaking stories
of this sort and its record for
accuracy is widely respected.
It’s unlikely that this stuff
is being made up; also the sources
are Americans who have witnessed
the interrogations, including
members of the State Department.
But please don’t take my word for it.
Read the story for yourself and
see what you think of it.

9

This is no secret. US is fairly strict in its interrogation, and the armed forces don’t push the limit much. The CIA, on the other hand does. And when it doesn’t get cooperation it farms out the interrogation to other countries that are even more ‘lax’ in human rights.

I see this as taking place in a HUGE grey area that is formed when individuals and organizations outside any semblance of law make themselves into bombs and missiles in order to wreak havoc on others. They do not operate within ‘Geneva conventions’ or international law, or human decency. It makes it hard to feel sorry that they are suffering sleep and sensory deprivation.

I don’t condone torture. I don’t condemn the strongest use of legal interrogation.

10

Webster’s defines ‘torture’ as
‘the inflicting of severe pain to force
information or confession; any method
by which such pain is inflicted.’

Beatings, blindfolding
people and throwing them against walls,
shackling them for long periods of
time in painful positions, in order
to force information is torture
pure and simple, at least by this
definition–which strikes
me as a good one.
It follows that
we are torturing people, if we
are doing these things.

One thing is certain–when we torture
people we will call it something else.
I feel that we have a duty to call
things by their rightful names,
especially morally difficult things.

To condone the practices described
in Woodard’s article is to
condone torture, I submit.
If so, the question
remains whether torture under these
circumstances can be condoned. Best

11

On 2002-12-27 12:05, jim stone wrote:
The Washington Post
is famous for breaking stories
of this sort and its record for
accuracy is widely respected.

Respected among liberals, maybe. I generally stay out of these sorts of discussions, but anyone with anything like a balanced perspective has to acknowledge that the Post consistently displays the most liberal bias of any major paper in the country!

The Post goes far beyond reporting the facts, into liberal activism as evidenced over and over by the judgemental tone of articles. It’s often the language, not the facts addressed, that carry the meaning of an article.

“The picture that emerges is of a brass-knuckled quest for information, often in concert with allies of dubious human rights reputation, in which the traditional lines between right and wrong, legal and inhumane, are evolving and blurred.” That isn’t news, it’s activism.

“Although no direct evidence of mistreatment of prisoners in U.S. custody has come to light, the prisoners are denied access to lawyers or organizations, such as the Red Cross, that could independently assess their treatment. Even their names are secret.” Again, activism. If you want to report the facts, you say something like, “there has been no evidence of mistreatment of prisoners.” If you want to imply that the evidence is there but well concealed, you say something like the “Although no direct evidence…has come to light…”

Sadly, such bias in one direction or the other is present in just about all of our so-called media these days, but the Post is one of the most blatant. Just as sadly, it seems darn few people (liberal or conservative) bother to read (or listen) critically. Facts and biased activism are swallowed whole as “news” without anyone bothering to put forth the effort to distinguish one from another.

Of particular note in this article is that not one shred of evidence was confirmed by anything other than the word of “several anonymous former and current officials.” This article is what my old formal writing professor would have called, “pure fluff.” That’s what he called our assignments when it was obvious we’d done no research and were just writing off the top of our heads.

Are we turning prisoners over for questioning to governments that are less “civilized” than we are? I certainly hope so, particularly when those prisoners in many cases were captured in those very countries.

The folks that really turn my stomach though are the hypocrits that say the intelligence community didn’t do enough to prevent 9/11, then turn right around and criticize everything the agencies are now doing in attempting to prevent a similar tragedy in the future.

These aren’t American citizens being deprived of consitutional rights. These are enemies who want to kill American citizens and I for one am not going to lose any sleep over their lost sleep or because their poor little muslim psyches are having to endure the “indignity” of being questioned by a woman in a position of control!

John

12

Thanks Jim for posting this.
Thanks God your majority is not all obediently silent, as you prove.
I refrained from doing same.

NB: cumulation of uncomfortable positions, cold, heat, sensory deprivation (hoods, etc.) are all part of a very elaborate modern form of torture, scientifically elaborated, guaranteed to leave no physical traces if there’s some independent observers (i.e. red Cross for instance) drop down on a casual inspection. Amnesty Int’l is not fooled by it. In our Western “free” world*, it’s reputed to have been first experimented by English secret services against IRA suspected activists in the 70’s.

These comments of mine will be thought by some as totally irrelevant in this thread, and in this forum.

I maintain it’s on topic, in the right board.

  • Russians are known to be more straightforward, but nowadays they got our blessing for whatever they do… They’re on the right side of the oil crusade.
13

Right, the sentence of mine that
you quoted isn’t clear.

I wrote:
‘The WP is famous for breaking stories
of this sort and its record for
accuracy is widely respected.’
It sounds as though I’m saying the
general accuracy of the WP is
widely respected, which I didn’t
mean to say. I meant the accuracy
of the investigative reporting
of Bob Woodward, as published in
the WP. I’ve seen what I can only
take to be liberal bias in the
WP in the past, though that has
been exceeded considerably by
the bias of the NYTimes, especially
on social issues. But not Woodward–
I see him as fairminded and careful.
Let me add that I’m a conservative
Republican, and I voted for Bush.
I agree with Tygress that what’s
going on is no secret.

Let me appeal to people–the issue
isn’t the indignity of being questioned
by a woman or ‘lost sleep’ or
‘sensory deprivation.’ There is
a tendency to look the other way
at the last moment.

14

John
"These aren’t American citizens being deprived of consitutional rights. These are enemies who want to kill American citizens and I for one am not going to lose any sleep over their lost sleep or because their poor little muslim psyches are having to endure the “indignity” of being questioned by a woman in a position of control! "

We all hate those that will kill or injure anyone. We expect to be treated as human beings and if we allow others or we our selves do not respect the dignity of others we lower our selves to their standard.
It is in these trying times when we are torn between doing what is right and protecting our loved ones from harm that the beauty of American people and our system of government come out.
We stand behind our boys and girls who are in the field risking their lives doing what few are really willing to do. We learn from their example that standing up for the principles in our bill of rights and spreading this philosophy to the far corners of the globe. They have been the ambassadors of the US all over the world, There one on one contact with the many different people they meet and their interactions with them is what has won this country the respect is has in the world. This is what has made the US the most desirable place in the world to live.
We as a country are only hurt when we take the quick easy road and instead of making more admires we make more enemies because we are short sited or simplistic in our approach to world problems.
As a veteran I know what it is like to spend this time of year away from family and friends in a less than friendly situation. The uncertainty and the depression weigh heavy on the troops. So lets make sure they are well protected. If any of them do go to battle and are captured we expect and demand that they be treated with dignity.
We must remember that all life is precious and that the only way for us to win the battle that we are in at present is to win the hearts and minds off those who hate us. We must create the circumstance were these people and their children do not want to do harm to Americans or anyone else. If we do not resolve these issues with in a short few years I fear our Grand children will be dealing with the same problems.
Remember our own history of the Great hunger when we were treated as less than human and millions were forced to flee the country or died. We need not do to these people what we suffered. The bitter hatreds that are bread take many generation to work out and the scars do permanent to our social fiber.

15

Even though I’m generally thought to be an honest-to-god card-carrying liberal, I find it hard to generate much moral outrage in this case.

The Taliban conducted one of the most brutal, oppressive regimes on the last century. They drove large segments of their own people into deprivation and starvation and ignorance. They murdered thousands of people and destroyed thousands of irreplaceable cultural relics in the name of their fanaticism. OK, so the Norhern alliance troops shot a few dozen they captured. We didn’t do it - and if we didn’t stop them, so? And if a few of their king rats are forced to live in less than 4-star accomodations at Guantanamo Bay, they’re still living better than most of the impoverished country they left behind.

As for the al-Qaeda animals, these are a bunch of crazed religious fanatics seeking nothing less than the murder of our people and the destruction of our land and way of life. Why in the world should I fret if they don’t receive all of the protections of the political system they hate and seek to destroy? Look at it this way - by their own benighted standards, their treatment is absolutely humane. They are still eating and breathing and presumably physically intact. Compare that to the fate of reporter Daniel Pearl. Or a few humdred Kenyans killed when our embassy was bombed. Or, of ourse, the World Trade Center.

I, for one, will save my tears for human beings who really need them.

16

(snip)
I meant the accuracy
of the investigative reporting
of Bob Woodward, as published in
the WP. I’ve seen what I can only
take to be liberal bias in the
WP in the past, though that has
been exceeded considerably by
the bias of the NYTimes, especially
on social issues. But not Woodward–
I see him as fairminded and careful.
(snip)

Thanks for the post and link. I would observe that while Woodward isn’t quite as left-leaning as the Washington Post in general, which isn’t quite as left-leaning as the New York Times, that’s not saying much. The problem with the article, which is a problem with most things Woodward writes, is the heavy reliance on unnamed sources, which makes the information given somewhat suspect. Because Woodward feels his sources are good we are asked to trust him that they really are.
I too have a tough time generating a lot of sympathy for people who would gladly kill me along with my wife and kids.

17

Bob Woodward did not have the byline for this article, he’s one of four who didn’t get the byline cited as “contributing to” it, so he’s probably a few percent responsible for its content.

The Ombudsman column in the Post last weekend cited an incredible article that exceeded this one in terms of its absence of verifiability. This may or may not be a case where the Post has gone out on a limb that breaks.

I’ve read the Post for 20 years now, and I consider it a damn good newspaper, but only for the person who can distinguish between innuendo and fact, and those who can discriminate between rumored sources and verifiable sources.

Charlie

“There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats.” – Albert Schweitzer

[ This Message was edited by: chas on 2002-12-27 22:15 ]

18

I take the point that Woodward didn’t
have the byline but only contributed
to the article. The article says the authors
talked to 10 current US national
security officers, several involved
in the handling of the prisoners.

It’s highly probable that current US
national security officers–several
of whom are quoted at length, would
speak to the Post about American
torture of Al Qaeda suspects under
the condition of anonymity; imagine
if they didn’t. To demand that the ten
officer be named–so that they can
be contacted by the general media and
asked ‘Did you really say that?!’ is
to invoke an unreasonably high
standard for taking investigative
reporting seriously, IMHO, especially
about something as sensitive as this.
Same goes
for refusing to take investigative
reporting seriously if the authors
may be left of center. I don’t believe
that Woodward et al are lying about
the ten national security officers,
or making up the quotations. It’s conceivable that they’re
lying, of course, because they hate the Bush
administration so bad, but that does
strike me as a long shot.

The article does quote Cofer Black’s
testimony to congress on 26 Sept.
He was then head of the CIA counterterrorist
center. He spoke about the agency’s
new forms of ‘operational flexibility’
in dealing with suspected terrorists.
‘This is a highly classified area,
but what I have to say is all you
need to know: there was a before 9/11,
and there was an after 9/11. After 9/11
the gloves came off.’ What do you
think ‘the gloves came off’ amounts to?
The story gives a pretty reasonable
account of what one would expect.
Why isn’t the Red Cross being allowed
in? Why is the matter ‘highly classified?’ Certainly the story has the ring
of truth–to my ears anyway.

People are saying that they
find it hard to get outraged about
these allegations, they have little
sympathy for people who want to
murder us, and so on. Fine. There
remains this question, however:

Can torturing people under these
circumstances be condoned? Is there
any limit to ‘what goes’ in the treatment
of other human beings under these
circumstances and is torture
over the line?

Even if one has no
sympathy for these people, and finds
it hard to be outraged, the answer
to the first question may be No,
and the answer to the second
question may be Yes.

The question,
‘Should one have sympathy for the people who are being tortured?’ is easier to answer,
but different and, if I may say so,
less important than ‘Should we
torture them?’. Questions of right and
wrong are much more pressing when
they concern people for whom we
have no sympathy. (For instance,
‘Thou shalt not kill’ concerns people
we detest, not the ones we like.)
What shall constrain our behaviour,
if anything, toward people for whom
we have no sympathy?

Finally, an assumption that deserves
attention is that all of the suspects
we are torturing are Al Qaeda affiliates.
As thousands are involved, it’s likely that
some of the suspects are innocent.
People get denounced and accused for
all sorts of reasons, after all–somebody
wants your business, or hates you, or
you get confused with somebody else…
If you say you’re innocent, well, that’s what all the suspects
say–and so you’re likely to be tortured.
They want names of other Al Qaeda members,
probably. Sooner or later
you will name names, and they had
better be the names of real people,
and you don’t know any terrorists, in
fact. And then those innocent
people will name
names, when protesting their innocence
can’t stop the pain… And so it goes.

[ This Message was edited by: jim stone on 2002-12-28 01:35 ]

19

Nothing like a little liberal hand-wringing to brighten the holidays…

20

I don’t understand why being opposed to torture makes one a liberal, but if it does, then I guess I must be counted as a liberal.

If you’re going to claim to have the high moral ground, you better take the high moral road.