So how did the waterboarding happen?

[JoeTheJuggler]

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?

I don't think they do. Since they've been released, we've had several other news stories about who knew what and when. Disclosures that didn't come from the memos themselves.

I think it's a good question. How did it go so far?

I think there are a number of answers, but I think we really need an in-depth investigation, or rather investigations.

I think each alleged incident (especially the deaths where we've got autopsy evidence of torture) should be investigated more or less from the bottom up.

At the same time, I think the big picture should be investigated from the top down. How do Bush's lawyers defend their outrageous re-definition of torture as only being about pain that is equivalent to organ failure, loss of bodily function and death? How can anyone consider that a reasonable legal interpretation that one could base policy decisions on?

 

[jmcvann]

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?

They do seem to explain much of the who, what, when and where. But not the "how did this happen" question.

I don't think they do. Since they've been released, we've had several other news stories about who knew what and when. Disclosures that didn't come from the memos themselves.

I think it's a good question. How did it go so far?

I think there are a number of answers, but I think we really need an in-depth investigation, or rather investigations.

I think each alleged incident (especially the deaths where we've got autopsy evidence of torture) should be investigated more or less from the bottom up.

At the same time, I think the big picture should be investigated from the top down. How do Bush's lawyers defend their outrageous re-definition of torture as only being about pain that is equivalent to organ failure, loss of bodily function and death? How can anyone consider that a reasonable legal interpretation that one could base policy decisions on?

Exactly. Were these lawyers that base? And further, just because there were rulings doesn't mean the military HAD to act on them. I've never been in the service, but isn't a soldier allowed to disobey an unlawful order? I find it hard to imagine some CO telling his charge to go waterboard some guy and adding, "Oh, and here's the memo from a White House lawyer saying it's OK, so you don't have to worry about that." On the other hand, maybe that did happen.

 

[egslim]

Furthermore, assuming that modern/recent U.S. policy has been to not torture, how did the Iraq War torture come about?

The little secret about wars is they always start dirty, and then they get worse. The concept of a clean, high-tech war is a popular myth.

There's also the psychological effect that prolonged exposure to such horrors gradually transforms ordinary people into scum. Some people are more resistant to this effect than others, proper discipline helps, as do safe relaxation areas, rotation schedules, etc. But the basic effect is that the more horrors someone experiences, the less empathy he'll have toward a designated enemy - even after their surrender.

Considering that the US military and intelligence agencies have been more or less continuously involved in all kinds of dirty little conflicts for decades. They probably employ a number of people who, either because of the horrors they experienced in those conflicts, or because they were sociopaths to begin with, lack basic humanity.

If war is hell, then it's no wonder it produces demons.

 

[Kestrel]

They do seem to explain much of the who, what, when and where. But not the "how did this happen" question.

Exactly. Were these lawyers that base? And further, just because there were rulings doesn't mean the military HAD to act on them. I've never been in the service, but isn't a soldier allowed to disobey an unlawful order? I find it hard to imagine some CO telling his charge to go waterboard some guy and adding, "Oh, and here's the memo from a White House lawyer saying it's OK, so you don't have to worry about that." On the other hand, maybe that did happen.

Considering that the memos were secret, they probably were not shown to individual soldiers.

It also takes an exceptionally brave soldier to refuse a direct order on the grounds that it is illegal.

In August of 2003, Captain William Ponce, a Military Intelligence officer serving in Iraq sent this in an email:

The gloves are coming off gentlemen regarding these detainees, Col Boltz has made it clear that we want these individuals broken. Casualties are mounting and we need to start gathering info to help protect our fellow soldiers from further attacks. I thank you for your hard work and your dedication.

The message to the grunts is rather clear.

 

[jmcvann]

There have only been a few responders, but most seem to agree that "torture" takes place and always has. So Obama (and others) have been lying, right? He surely must know the truth of this situation. How could he possibly expect to get away with this? I don't see this issue going away.