So how did the waterboarding happen?

[jmcvann]

I've heard/read people saying the U.S. has never tortured. I don't know if I believe this. I'm referring to "approved" torture, not the random, in-the-field torturing that I've seen in at least one video clip of waterboarding from Viet Nam. What do we really know about the history of torture as conducted by the U.S.?

Furthermore, assuming that modern/recent U.S. policy has been to not torture, how did the Iraq War torture come about? Did Bush/Cheney say it should be used, and even though every military person down the line disapproved, they just followed orders? Or were there military types who honestly believer in the effectiveness of some techniques saying: "Finally! We get to use that method I've always said would work." Or, perhaps: "Muahahaha! I've always wanted to torture somebody. Here's my chance." (These are not the only options, just topic starters.)

Personally, I believe that there is a dark underbelly to global conflict that most of us sitting on our couches typing on our computers like to believe doesn't exist, but some in the military - who may or may not know more than we do - have made the hard - or perhaps not so hard, for them - choice that they were willing to do what most people don't even want to think about.

 

[Beerina]

Letting the power hungry take a step down the slippery slope, starting with letting them sit people under a single bright light, or forcing them to stand, for days? Lots of light physical stress that becomes intolerable but is not otherwise physically damaging or of tremendous pain.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Same way arms>hostages>sandinistas happened. Those under the POTUS knew what was wanted and did it while maintaining his plausible deniability.

 

[theprestige]

... how did the Iraq War torture come about?

What "Iraq War torture" are you referring to?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Probably means "the torture that occurred with regards to the current war (Mission Accomplished) in Iraq, and the torture resulting from "extraordinary renditions" directly or loosely related."

Underlings given a long leash and too little discipline.

 

[jmcvann]

Letting the power hungry take a step down the slippery slope, starting with letting them sit people under a single bright light, or forcing them to stand, for days? Lots of light physical stress that becomes intolerable but is not otherwise physically damaging or of tremendous pain.

Did the sitting under a single bright light start with the Bush administration? Who "let the power hungry" do that? And the other question remains: Were there people in the military establishment who believed that "enhanced" methods really do work? And might they have experience/knowledge that goes against what some in the non-military world believe?

 

[jmcvann]

Same way arms>hostages>sandinistas happened. Those under the POTUS knew what was wanted and did it while maintaining his plausible deniability.

"Same way" -- Meaning there are military leaders, now and then, who are willing to ignore the law and do what they think needs to be done? Does this mean we probably have tortured in the past? And did these military leaders break the law because they are rebels/sadists? Or did they do it reluctantly, believing there were larger issues at stake?

 

[jmcvann]

Probably means "the torture that occurred with regards to the current war (Mission Accomplished) in Iraq, and the torture resulting from "extraordinary renditions" directly or loosely related."

Underlings given a long leash and too little discipline.

Underlings? How many steps of the military leadership chain did this skip? Are the Joint Chiefs of Staff off the hook? How many high-ranking officers did not know this was going on?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

"Same way" -- Meaning there are military leaders, now and then, who are willing to ignore the law and do what they think needs to be done? Does this mean we probably have tortured in the past? And did these military leaders break the law because they are rebels/sadists? Or did they do it reluctantly, believing there were larger issues at stake?

NKWITA (Not Knowing What I'm Talking About) (everyone does it, I admit it)

Yah, I think torture by military and related agencies happens all the time. My opinion is, in several recent cases, people got sloppy and things were made public.

As to your other questions, it takes a combination of leaders who feel pressured to set aside the rights of prisoners for the sake of US lives. Some did it with no qualms, some felt weird about it. Those who felt weird probably were noticed and removed from the situation.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Underlings? How many steps of the military leadership chain did this skip?

Good question! IMO, low-level guards and their CO's, nobody indisposable.

Are the Joint Chiefs of Staff off the hook?

Most likely, they can say they gave no such orders and are off any hook. Those "on the hook" are most likely far beneath them.

How many high-ranking officers did not know this was going on?

Not many who can't deny it?

 

[theprestige]

Underlings? How many steps of the military leadership chain did this skip? Are the Joint Chiefs of Staff off the hook? How many high-ranking officers did not know this was going on?

For the second time, what "this" are you referring to?

 

[jmcvann]

NKWITA (Not Knowing What I'm Talking About) (everyone does it, I admit it)

Yah, I think torture by military and related agencies happens all the time. My opinion is, in several recent cases, people got sloppy and things were made public.

As to your other questions, it takes a combination of leaders who feel pressured to set aside the rights of prisoners for the sake of US lives. Some did it with no qualms, some felt weird about it. Those who felt weird probably were noticed and removed from the situation.

This what I believe as well, though I, too, could well be guilty of NKWITA.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

For the second time, what "this" are you referring to?

Whatever "this" you will immediately toss off as being nonexistent or unimportant?

 

[jmcvann]

For the second time, what "this" are you referring to?

The "is it torture or isn't it" discussion is going on in other threads. I have seen your participation there.

My question is, whether it's "torture" or not, how did it happen. Did a proud U.S. military that doesn't believe in "enhanced interrogation techniques" have a lapse? Was there a search, from the top down, to find people who were willing to go along? Or is it something we do as a matter of course?

 

[theprestige]

Whatever "this" you will immediately toss off as being nonexistent or unimportant?

Probably not.

The "is it torture or isn't it" discussion is going on in other threads. I have seen your participation there.

My question is, whether it's "torture" or not, how did it happen. Did a proud U.S. military that doesn't believe in "enhanced interrogation techniques" have a lapse? Was there a search, from the top down, to find people who were willing to go along? Or is it something we do as a matter of course?

I think it's probably a question that's going to have to be answered on a case by case basis.

For example, we have a very well-documented account of how certain interrogation techniques came to be used on some of the people involved in planning the 9/11 attack. Are you still unsure about those specific cases?

By contrast, it looks like the shenanigans at Abu Ghraib were undertaken on the initiative of low-ranking soldiers, in the absence of adequate supervision and oversight, for no other purpose than their own amusement.

So why not start with one specific instance, and then we can see whether or not there's any evidence of how it came about?

 

[theprestige]

My question is, whether it's "torture" or not, how did it happen. Did a proud U.S. military that doesn't believe in "enhanced interrogation techniques" have a lapse? Was there a search, from the top down, to find people who were willing to go along? Or is it something we do as a matter of course?

On a separate note, you're being self-contradictory here. The question of whether it's "torture" or not has a direct bearing on the question of how it happened. If it's not "torture", then there was no "lapse" by "a proud U.S. military". You need to resolve the first question before you can implicitly assert an answer to the second.

Which is, again, why I'd like to know what specific incident(s) you have in mind. Leaving aside the question of whether or not they involved "torture", we can then look at the specific evidence of how those specific decisions were made and how those specific situations came about.

If you're going to separate the question of "torture" from the question of "decision-making in interrogation scenarios", you really do need to separate them.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Which is, again, why I'd like to know what specific incident(s) you have in mind. Leaving aside the question of whether or not they involved "torture", we can then look at the specific evidence of how those specific decisions were made and how those specific situations came about.

Not to answer on someone else's behalf, but based on the question he's presenting, he's talking about the now well-known cases of waterboarding, for sure. Also the cases where detainees died (that is, they were tortured to death) while in "strapado" after being beaten.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I love it when people are stubbornly obtuse.

 

[jmcvann]

What Joe said. (Thanks, Joe)

 

[theprestige]

jmcvann, are you saying that the "torture memos" recently released by the Obama administration, don't sufficiently explain who knew what, and when, in the cases to which they pertain?