Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Saturday April 16 2016, @05:57PM   Printer-friendly
from the involuntary-sleep-deprivation dept.

Eric Fair served as an interrogator in Iraq working as a military contractor for the private security firm CACI. [...] Fair writes about feeling haunted by what he did, what he saw and what he heard in Iraq, from the beating of prisoners to witnessing the use of sleep deprivation, stress positions and isolation to break prisoners.

[...] Raad Hussein is bound to the Palestinian chair. His hands are tied to his ankles. The chair forces him to lean forward in a crouch, forcing all of his weight onto his thighs. It's as if he's been trapped in the act of kneeling down to pray, his knees frozen just above the floor, his arms pinned below his legs. He is blindfolded. His head has collapsed into his chest. He wheezes and gasps for air. There is a pool of urine at his feet. He moans: too tired to cry, but in too much pain to remain silent.

[...] Sleep deprivation, as I've said before, can be accomplished in a matter of hours. You can let someone go to sleep in a dark room with no windows, and you can wake them up in 15 or 20 minutes. They have no idea how long they've been asleep. And with no windows, they have no idea what time of day it is. You can let them go back to sleep, and you can wake them up in 20 minutes. They still have no idea. And they've since—within 45 minutes, they've lost all sense of time. Two or three hours later, you can convince this person that he's been living for four or five days, when it's really only been an hour.

[...] [The purpose of sleep deprivation:] The complete lack of hope. It is to strip away someone's hope and to insert a different way of thinking into their mind, which would be my mind into theirs, so that they're going to cooperate with me.

Part 1: http://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/7/a_torturer_s_confession_former_abu

Part 2: http://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/7/ex_abu_ghraib_interrogator_israelis_trained


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by RamiK on Saturday April 16 2016, @08:50PM

    by RamiK (1813) on Saturday April 16 2016, @08:50PM (#332938)

    Why should he be sent to jail? It wasn't like he was some Nazi SS ghetto commander. It wasn't some big secret. Everyone knew about the tortures. CIA black sites been widely known to anyone who cared since at least 2005 and everyone knows what went, and still goes on there. There were, and are laws and rules allowing them. It was mentioned in the news. Much of public supported it. Most still do.

    Even outside the US you'd be hard pressed to find a blanket opposition to it: http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/23/global-publics-back-u-s-on-fighting-isis-but-are-critical-of-post-911-torture/bop-report-27/ [pewglobal.org]

    People believe it works. And they support it. Internally, where people should know better, they don't. The interrogators especially are cut off the feedback loop. Every time someone says anything, regardless of it being true or false, they believe they saved someone's life. CIA staff officers don't get a feel for it either. They fill in the reports and forward them to the DoD. The army doesn't know what's coming from whom. They receive intelligence, run a patrol, come up with nothing or something, and fill in a report to the DoD as well.
    The DoD knew about it soon enough, and raised up a whole investigatory committee way back in 2002 saying it's useless and illegal. What happened? The torture memos approved the practice without notifying the DoD officers it was still ongoing... That went on until the 2004 leaks to the British media.

    So, no. He shouldn't be sent to prison. He was following the rules and laws and when others better positioned to complain did oppose the tortures, they were ignored.

    Imprisoning him won't stop tortures. It will only discourage whistleblowing.

    --
    compiling...
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Offtopic=1, Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Saturday April 16 2016, @09:19PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Saturday April 16 2016, @09:19PM (#332950)

    Why should he be sent to jail?

    Because "I was following orders" is never a valid defense for war crimes. If you roll on your superiors, that should affect your sentencing quite a bit, but a public written confession (completely uncoerced, I might add) does not in any way absolve a criminal of their crime.

    However, coercion is a valid defense: If Mr Fair reasonably believed that he or his family would be killed if he didn't do it, for example, that would be a defense for his actions.

    The reason for these rules, if you are interested in preventing future torture, is that you want those who actually do the torture to refuse to follow those orders rather than put themselves in a position to go up in front of a war crimes tribunal.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday April 16 2016, @09:45PM

      by RamiK (1813) on Saturday April 16 2016, @09:45PM (#332958)

      Complete and utter nonsense. Disobeying orders is statistically insignificant especially after basic training when the "troublemakers" are weeded out. Even facing the worse atrocities, nice white soldiers marched on 999/1000 times. Expecting people to do anything but follow their orders like the cowardly brown-nosers we all are is as idiotic as leaving a wallet full of cash in the middle of the street hoping it still be there. This puritan attitude towards personal ethics only encourages not placing real checks and balances in the system on the premise of self-regulation.

      Let me know when you put Cheney and Bush in front of a criminal tribunal. Until then, don't talk to me about hanging G.I.Joe for not climbing on the cross.

      --
      compiling...
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday April 16 2016, @11:41PM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Saturday April 16 2016, @11:41PM (#332999)

        Disobeying orders is statistically insignificant

        So what? The statistics have nothing to do with whether a law was broken or whether 'Just Following Orders' is a valid defense. Which it isn't.

        like the cowardly brown-nosers we all are

        Speak for yourself. The way you've phrased it, even a single counterexample would prove you wrong. It's also irrelevant.

        This puritan attitude towards personal ethics only encourages not placing real checks and balances in the system on the premise of self-regulation.

        There's nothing puritan about expecting people to not commit war crimes. We should punish those who do and place real checks and balances in the system. Enough with your false dichotomies.

        Let me know when you put Cheney and Bush in front of a criminal tribunal. Until then, don't talk to me about hanging G.I.Joe for not climbing on the cross.

        We should put them in front of a criminal tribunal, but the fact that we haven't doesn't absolve others of their crimes.

        • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday April 17 2016, @04:41AM

          by RamiK (1813) on Sunday April 17 2016, @04:41AM (#333125)

          The statistics have nothing to do with whether a law

          This isn't about enforcement, this is about regulations and policy. The guy wasn't guilty to begin with since it was legal at the time and passed multiple committees as well as a presidential approval. A soldier is not a lawyer. There are ten of thousands of rules and regulations, some of which in complete contradiction with moral and common constitutional interpretation, that no one, solider or citizen, can be expected to follow. Half the time, soldiers aren't told why they're shooting their enemies or if it is even legal.
          Illusions of morality hinder constructive legislation and policy that actually has a change at stopping war crimes. You end up saying, "No. We don't need a week review of operation to be submitted to an external body to the regiment. People can submit complaints and grievances if something is wrong. And they can always say No if asked to do something illegal...".

          would prove you wrong. It's also irrelevant.

          Delude yourself all you want. There's enough social science experiments showing just how quickly humans comply with authority. We're all dogs that do well in math. We don't challenge authority until the leader shows weakness. We're hardwired to follow norms. The few that don't are either in jail or dead. And yes, I'm no different.

          There's nothing puritan about expecting people to not commit war crimes.

          But that's not what you're asking. They're not lawyers. They don't see it as war crimes. One day they get order to kill people. The next they get orders to torture people. These aren't college grads we're talking about here. They don't get mission briefings. They don't even see where they're shooting half the time. It's the middle of the night and they've been ordered to fire. People asking questions get shot first.

          should punish those who do and place real checks and balances

          Impossible. Once a person is punished, people stop caring. It's social catharsis. People immediately lose interest and public support wanes. You simply can't have it both ways. You either punish the guilty, or you try fixing the problem constructively. Humans are too stupid to do both. It's why whenever something wrong it's so easy for politicians to just wage war. A conflict satisfy people's demand for revenge. It doesn't have to be satisfied or reasonable. People are just out for blood and don't care who will pay.

          but the fact that we haven't doesn't absolve others of their crimes

          Yes it does. Lead by examples works both ways. And you should always start from the top. Otherwise nothing will get done since the same people will still remain in power and will pass the same laws and regulations.

          The key issues here is that you're trying to punish people as a means to an end. While I don't particularly care about that guy or the next. I'm concerned with the current war. And the next one after that. Which we all know is being handled by the same people following the same norms.

          --
          compiling...
          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @05:10AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @05:10AM (#333140)

            This isn't about enforcement, this is about regulations and policy. The guy wasn't guilty to begin with since it was legal at the time and passed multiple committees as well as a presidential approval.

            Bullshit. Torture is blatantly and obviously illegal, or if not that, then unethical and condemned by the international community.

            Delude yourself all you want.

            Put words in my mouth all you want. I don't deny that many people will simply obey authority figures. However, the degree in which someone will obey authority figures varies from individual to individual (i.e. not everyone will obey an order to torture someone, but they might obey orders that are less bad but still bad), and the effect doesn't apply to everyone in existence. That's what you fail to grasp. Your statement was an absolute, which makes it trivial to deny, and that is your fault. You seem to have corrected this, but that's not how you stated it before.

            Also, I might add that these are the social sciences we're talking about. They're not exactly known to be very rigorous and you have to be cautious about them. But that is irrelevant to this discussion, because whether the individual studies are true or not, that changes nothing.

            People asking questions get shot first.

            If you're in danger of being shot, you don't have time to be torturing people. Usually, torturers are not in the middle of a battlefield, which means they have plenty of time to think about whether or not they should do it. Actually, that would take a few seconds at most: The answer is no, they should not.

            Impossible. Once a person is punished, people stop caring.

            You have not demonstrated that it is impossible, and there is no logical reason to think that it would be. Punishing torturers and setting up a system centered around preventing it are both possible. Just having one is not as effective as having both. You need accountability for the torturers, the ones who ordered the torture, and you need a system that discourages it.

            Yes it does. Lead by examples works both ways. And you should always start from the top.

            As I said, let's hold everyone involved accountable. Your false dichotomies are complete and utter bullshit.

            The key issues here is that you're trying to punish people as a means to an end.

            What I want is a system that discourages torture. Accountability for those who blindly follow orders is simply one part of that system.

            You seem to be mighty opposed to actually holding torturers accountable, and you use red herrings ("But! But! What about Dick Cheney!?") to justify this.

            • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday April 17 2016, @12:01PM

              by RamiK (1813) on Sunday April 17 2016, @12:01PM (#333230)

              Bullshit. Torture is blatantly and obviously illegal, or if not that, then unethical and condemned by the international community.

              Not it's not. Not even now. The US adopted the ticking time bomb exception from Israel and the current administration hasn't refuted it in paper or word. It's legal is torture to extract evidence and admissions of guilt for court. But if immediate and clear danger is shown, there are still rules, laws and procedures to apply force for the purpose of extracting information.

              the degree in which someone will obey authority figures varies from individual to individual

              Insignificantly so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment [wikipedia.org] Even if you're an optimist, just under 50% of people will unquestionably obey an order to torture a person from a guy they never met before who was telling them "It's Ok. I'm a doctor". Now imagine being under a military hierarchy that constantly reinforces obedience and a letter from your administration telling you it's ok. Oh, and they're not just any random person, the people volunteering for service aren't anti-authoritative by nature and are filtered to favor obedience during training. You can lecture on morals all you want, but war is murder and soldiers are people cherry picked via selection and elimination to do it no questions asked.

              there is no logical reason to think that it would be

              It's not logic. It's how people work. Someone gets murdered, people make a fuss, the person in charge finds someone to hang. No one asks where were the cops, who decided on the patrols, where did the police funding went to, why did the killer drop out of high school, why did he have a gun or why he could afford a gun but not afford his rent. There's a systematic use of scapegoating in society to avoid reforming and repairing problems.
              When a project fails, the easiest thing to do is to fire the guy who wrote the code. It's much harder to look at his manager that didn't use proper QA and his manager that didn't care enough.

              Accountability for those who blindly follow orders is simply one part of that system.

              No it's not. Soldiers will always be rewarded for following orders. And they didn't blindly followed orders. They tortured people and made them talk. They filled reports with information and were rewarded for their good work telling them they're saving lives at each step and turn. A few asked around and were shown the letters from the administration telling them it's legal and desired. The tourture training wasn't conducted in some dark dungeon. It was done in a classroom right in the US with no more secrecy involved than the M4 manual. They didn't hide what they were doing or felt shame about it. It was done by man. It was done by genders, races and creeds. They had an officer overlooking their work. They had a doctor standing next to them telling them it's ok. They had psychologists evaluating them and the prisoners to make sure everything is up and running. A few took pictures and smiled while doing it. It was such an institutionalized reinforced norm that making it sound like they were working outside what was considered acceptable and that they need to be found accountable for doing what every other soldier around them supported and did, is just plain wrong.

              You seem to be mighty opposed to actually holding torturers accountable

              You keep bringing up accountability here... You seem to misunderstand something. The Geneva Conventions requires certain laws to be enacted and enforced regarding the treatment of enemy soldiers. The requirement only applies to individuals who identify themselves as soldiers, and wear an insignia. Breaches of the treaties, such as failure to enforce or legislate, are resolved through UN committees and if the UN council finds a country in breach, they can decide it's signature is invalid and they're no longer under the protection of the treaty. Individual breaches of the treaties, such as torturing, are left to local courts. Finally, when a country is defeated in a war, an International Criminal Tribunal is held in Hague.
              When the US made it legal to torture suspected terrorists, the Geneva Conventions wasn't violated since the terrorists weren't signed under the convention or wearing an insignia. What was violated is a separate human rights treaty that doesn't hold individuals responsible, but rather, holds administrations and countries in breach. The problem was that the US operated black site in every single major NATO country so an International Criminal Tribunal would have found everyone guilty so no one asked for one.
              Back to the individual level, I'll say it again. Soldiers aren't accountable for following orders for the most part. Only very few cases, mostly dealing with high ranking officers that systematically signed on grave breaches against properly dressed and identified war prisoners are ever charged.
              In this case, they followed US laws and didn't breach the Geneva Conventions since their enemies weren't wearing insignia. They violated humanitarian laws regarding the handling of foreign citizens and human rights were violated, but those kind of violations are on the nation and administration level. Especially in this case where the orders and laws came all the way from the president's office.

              • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday April 17 2016, @07:57PM

                by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Sunday April 17 2016, @07:57PM (#333369)

                Not it's not.

                At the very least, it is deeply unethical. I think it is illegal under international law.

                But if we're talking about what we should do, then it definitely should be illegal in the US, and the torturers definitely should be held accountable.

                Insignificantly so.

                For one, that is a famous social science experiment, but still social science; it's hard to conclude anything from it. Also, how does that relate to directly torturing someone right in front of you?

                And as I said, I don't give a fuck about how likely someone is to obey orders from authority figures. It's irrelevant to whether or not they should be punished. If we had a society that punished people who blindly obeyed evil orders and discouraged people from doing so, that type of behavior might be less likely.

                Oh, and they're not just any random person, the people volunteering for service aren't anti-authoritative by nature and are filtered to favor obedience during training.

                Okay. I am absolutely fine with punishing them, because this attitude should not be encouraged.

                It's not logic.

                I fully understand that, because you never actually demonstrated that something as simple as punishing people and having a better system in place are impossible to do at once. You only stated that it was. I have no interest in magical false dichotomies.

                No it's not. Soldiers will always be rewarded for following orders.

                Yes, it is. No, they don't have to be rewarded for following *any* order. Following some orders can and should result in punishment. I don't care how they rationalize it, how many people told them what they're doing is okay, etc. All these silly, transparent excuses are irrelevant.

                You keep bringing up accountability here...

                What the law currently may be is irrelevant, because then I am simply advocating changing it so that we actually punish torturers.

                • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday April 17 2016, @09:47PM

                  by RamiK (1813) on Sunday April 17 2016, @09:47PM (#333426)

                  it is deeply unethical

                  Oh? It is? A guy straps a couple of kids next to a time bomb that's about to go off any minute now. The door is locked with a pin number or you just don't know where he hid the kids. You got the guy. Would kindly wait while the bomb goes off or will you smack the guy silly until he gives you the password?
                  This is the time bomb exception. It passed both international and US moral and legal scrutiny. You can argue on the fine details of the example and how it relates to reality, but there have been well documented cases justifying it.

                  it's hard to conclude anything from it.

                  Seems pretty straight forward to me. But sure, your millage may vary.

                  how likely someone is to obey orders from authority figures

                  Sure you do. If a traffic light\officer aimed you towards the headlight of a truck you'd be furious. If a doctor told you you should have a surgery that you really shouldn't, you'd be furious. You'd consider your situation unfair since those authority figures were in a position of trust that they violated by steering you in the wrong. Now, imagine the officer, doctor, or whatever saying you should have doubled checked so you're just as guilty as he is and should be dragged to court and sent to prison.
                  Look, even your knowledge of the law is authoritative. Are you a lawyer? How do you know it's illegal? How does a soldier suppose to know? He asks his commander, and he tells him it ok. He asks again, and he shows him a letter from the attorney general. He asks if it's moral, and they tell him about that time bomb exception. This isn't black and white. And no person should be punished for doing something most other people would likely do if they were in their shoes.

                  you never actually demonstrated that something as simple as punishing people and having a better system in place are impossible to do at once

                  I didn't demonstrate pigs can't fly either by throwing each and every one of them off the roof. However, it's not that I'm against punishing people, I'm against punishing people for the sake of revenge. There's no point to this. No utility. No justice. No ethics. It doesn't improve society. It only excuses keeping things as is since the system worked and justice prevailed at the end.

                  But really. I'm done. If you can't see how much gray there's in this issue and how damaging it is to set the standard for morality as low as "You shouldn't because it's not nice and you wouldn't like it done to you" then I really don't know what more to say.

                  --
                  compiling...
                  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday April 17 2016, @10:19PM

                    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Sunday April 17 2016, @10:19PM (#333435)

                    Oh? It is?

                    I think so, yes. I don't care what hypothetical scenarios you put forth, either. I'd rather we go down sticking to our principles than become barbaric torturers.

                    Seems pretty straight forward to me. But sure, your millage may vary.

                    That's the best part about the social sciences.

                    Sure you do.

                    It's foolish for you to tell other people what they think. The same can be done to you. For instance, by telling you that you don't actually believe any of the arguments you've put forth and that you agree with me in your heart.

                    All I can say is that your characterization of me is incorrect in a number of ways and many of your examples simply do not describe me.

                    And no person should be punished for doing something most other people would likely do if they were in their shoes.

                    It's a popular course of action, so we shouldn't punish them? I don't think so. We're not going to fix the problem by letting people get away with engaging in the bad behavior, that's for sure. Cultures can and do change, and we should try to change the bad aspects of our culture.

                    Do you also think that the results of the Nuremberg trials were wrong, or is that magically different because the people using the 'Just following orders' excuse happened to be in positions of power? The logic is the same, and the situations are mostly the same. Maybe most people would have even done the same thing, which, as we all know, absolves them.

                    I didn't demonstrate pigs can't fly either by throwing each and every one of them off the roof.

                    I don't see your point.

                    I'm against punishing people for the sake of revenge.

                    Well, so am I, but this isn't merely for revenge. It's part of the reforms to make torture less likely.

                    It only excuses keeping things as is since the system worked and justice prevailed at the end.

                    Right, right. It's either one or the other, because you said so.

                    But really. I'm done. If you can't see how much gray there's in this issue and how damaging it is to set the standard for morality as low as "You shouldn't because it's not nice and you wouldn't like it done to you" then I really don't know what more to say.

                    Well, if you don't think that torture is bad or think that we shouldn't punish individual torturers, then our goals are simply irreconcilable.

                    • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday April 18 2016, @08:57AM

                      by RamiK (1813) on Monday April 18 2016, @08:57AM (#333667)

                      It's foolish for you to tell other people what they think.

                      I'm using plural you and me. Most people trust authority and feel violated when it fails them. And to be clear, I was the troublemaker that was disobeying orders when I was in the service over what I thought was right which eventually got me kicked out. But I would never presume to hold other people to my personal convictions or expect them to follow what they know is right when it means standing up to the whole chain of command as a simple grunt. I would, however, hold high ranking officers and politicians accountable since, at that point, they're in the positions of power and influence to do something about it.

                      if you don't think that torture is bad

                      I don't think it's immoral. I think it's impossible to regulate since proper oversight and check and balances failed and fail so I'm in favor of banning torture altogether which is inline with your goals.
                      However, the laws, rules and regulations at the time, and now, allow it. And there are morally justifiable conditions for it. So I'm not in favor of witch trials.
                      But for the sake of writing enforceable and practical laws, I'm willing to risk the odd criminal getting away \ terrorist blowing himself up. However, it's not a moral position. It's a technical positions that relates to my personal experience with how rare it is for people to step up and do the right thing when facing direct orders as well as everything I read on the subject.

                      --
                      compiling...
                      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 18 2016, @09:54PM

                        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday April 18 2016, @09:54PM (#333968)

                        I would, however, hold high ranking officers and politicians accountable since, at that point, they're in the positions of power and influence to do something about it.

                        Not always. Also, your standard was: "And no person should be punished for doing something most other people would likely do if they were in their shoes." Since it's based on how popular a given course of action is, if we find out that those high-ranking officers and politicians took actions that most other people would take were they in their shoes, we can't hold them accountable.

                        And there are morally justifiable conditions for it.

                        I reject this altogether.

                        So I'm not in favor of witch trials.

                        The difference between a witch trial and this is that the torturer is real.

                        It's a technical positions that relates to my personal experience with how rare it is for people to step up and do the right thing when facing direct orders as well as everything I read on the subject.

                        And we have to discourage that type of behavior as best we can. Punishment is simply part of that.

                  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Sunday April 17 2016, @11:52PM

                    by Thexalon (636) on Sunday April 17 2016, @11:52PM (#333481)

                    A guy straps a couple of kids next to a time bomb that's about to go off any minute now. The door is locked with a pin number or you just don't know where he hid the kids. You got the guy. Would kindly wait while the bomb goes off or will you smack the guy silly until he gives you the password?

                    1. You don't necessarily "got the guy": You might have gotten somebody who isn't the guy. And in that scenario, if you spend your time smacking the guy who doesn't know anything, all that will happen is that you'll waste valuable time while beating up an innocent person.

                    2. If you did in fact catch the right guy, what possible motivation would he have to give up the information? Your need for the information in his brain is keeping him alive long enough to see the bomb go off, and he knows that. All he'll do is lie to you to get you to stop smacking him around, wasting your time until the bomb goes off.

                    This is the time bomb exception.

                    There is no such thing under international law. It doesn't say "You can't torture prisoners unless it's really really really important." It says "You can't torture prisoners."

                    All your thinking is based on the idea that if somebody's done a monstrous thing, they'll tell you all about it if hurt them enough. But all available evidence points to the person being tortured will instead tell you whatever lies he thinks will convince you to stop torturing them, and you get no useful information whatsoever.

                    --
                    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
                    • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday April 18 2016, @07:56AM

                      by RamiK (1813) on Monday April 18 2016, @07:56AM (#333648)

                      You don't necessarily "got the guy"

                      Oh he\they take credit for it. I shouldn't have presented it as a hypothetical scenario when I know it happens regularly with botched suicide bombers. They come-in strapped with a bomb, you catch them, and then you're on the clock. Because they often operate in teams and another bomber is headed elsewhere.
                      At that point, there might not be another bomber. The bomber might be lying to you. It might be that the bomber was forced into to it... It doesn't matter. You have a few hours to apply as much force as you can while keeping the guy alive and get what you can out of him. You're right in saying many don't break. But enough do.
                      But again, this is a very tight exception. The way people were imprisoned for months and tortured throughout doesn't hold up to this exception. Still, it's a valid exception that should be brought before congress on a vote to regulate it. Because right now, it's left out in the hand of the executive branch and they tend to overstep their bounds without proper oversight.

                      There is no such thing under international law

                      First off, there's no such thing as international laws. Only treaties. Enforced through the force of individual nations and alliances.
                      Secondly, there's strict rules on the geneva convention and where it applies. It's specifically requires military uniform and insignia. Separately, there are human rights treaties that are often prerequisites to joining NATO. But they don't have real enforcement by-laws. Issues regarding nation level compliance are brought before the general assembly and are voted between the members on sanction or downright expulsion. Some treaties regarding human rights only allow fellow nations to submit grievances. Meaning, when a veto powered nation like the US does the violating, no nation will even bother with it. At best, they'll file grievances. At most, they'll quite NATO and break off the treaties.

                      --
                      compiling...
          • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday April 17 2016, @04:18PM

            by maxwell demon (1608) on Sunday April 17 2016, @04:18PM (#333307) Journal

            The key issues here is that you're trying to punish people as a means to an end.

            Punishing people is by its very nature a means to an end. Otherwise it's not punishment but revenge.

            --
            The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 16 2016, @11:59PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 16 2016, @11:59PM (#333003)

        Following your reasoning, making more people question and disobey orders they don't agree with will make more people 'unqualified' for service (i.e. weeded out as a troublemaker); which in my book is a good thing!

        • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday April 17 2016, @04:50AM

          by RamiK (1813) on Sunday April 17 2016, @04:50AM (#333130)

          Correct. Which is why scientist make terrible soldiers.

          --
          compiling...
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @04:54AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @04:54AM (#333134)

            I'd rather have free-thinking, principled soldiers who question horrible orders than mindless drones who do whatever they're told, even if the latter are more efficient.

            • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday April 17 2016, @12:10PM

              by RamiK (1813) on Sunday April 17 2016, @12:10PM (#333235)

              But you can't have it both ways. You can't send young kids to a foreign country and kill on command without conditioning to take orders without asking questions or the first thing they'll ask is why they're killing people in the first place. So, if you want to avoid horrible things from happening, you need to build the chain of command with enough external oversight to make sure it doesn't. Any talk of principles of free-thinking in a military is just wishful thinking. Worse, it keeps you from reforming with oversight in mind since you keep telling people should just behave and be punished when they don't, instead of making sure they do by putting people in bases who actively police these rules.

              --
              compiling...
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @07:53PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @07:53PM (#333368)

                I don't want it both ways. I do want soldiers who question the validity of the wars themselves. If that means it is far more difficult for the government to go to war or find soldiers, then good.

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday April 17 2016, @02:58AM

        by sjames (2882) on Sunday April 17 2016, @02:58AM (#333083) Journal

        Or they may assert their right to written orders. If 1 in a thousand does that and the C/O backs down, he loses the respect of the other 999. If he gives the written orders, he's confessing to a war crime.

        • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday April 17 2016, @04:52AM

          by RamiK (1813) on Sunday April 17 2016, @04:52AM (#333132)

          Google the torture memos. They received hand written orders telling to do it by their highest ranking officials. And not just military officers, elected and appointed officials signed those orders.

          --
          compiling...
          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday April 17 2016, @05:38AM

            by sjames (2882) on Sunday April 17 2016, @05:38AM (#333150) Journal

            So next step is to start demanding prosecution.

            • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday April 17 2016, @12:04PM

              by RamiK (1813) on Sunday April 17 2016, @12:04PM (#333231)

              I've explained the legal issue regarding the geneva convention here under another thread branch.

              --
              compiling...
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Sunday April 17 2016, @04:08AM

        by Thexalon (636) on Sunday April 17 2016, @04:08AM (#333118)

        Let me know when you put Cheney and Bush in front of a criminal tribunal.

        I would gladly do that if given the chance. Cheney in particular: In 1945-6, the Allied Powers executed people for doing what Cheney confessed to doing, completely uncoerced, during an interview on CNN.

        But again, that doesn't absolve the people who actually did the torturing. And yes, anybody in the chain of command who obeyed an order to torture somebody is also culpable, so this guy's commanding officer all the way up to whoever actually gave the order.

        I think there's some misunderstanding about how severe these crimes really are. As in, they are rated as worse than high treason - not only can the US try and punish anybody who committed it, but any other country who signed the Geneva Conventions can as well, and the penalties can include life in prison without parole or even death (except that many of those signatories also have outlawed executions).

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by RamiK on Sunday April 17 2016, @05:05AM

          by RamiK (1813) on Sunday April 17 2016, @05:05AM (#333138)

          Absolution is given by the god and church. This isn't about morality. This is about laws rules and policy. They received their orders in writing. They complained through official channels and were reassured by the executive branch and attorney general it's all kosher. There's a limit to what can be reasonably expected of a person under such circumstances. The fact that there weren't any, and I mean ANY meaningful acts of subordination isn't to their fault. It's simply teaches us that to keep repeating this axiom of "they should have known better" is idiotic. They shouldn't have known better. No soldier ever knows better. And to have this ignorant self deluded mentality that soldiers should disobey orders when they think they're not moral, is the height of hypocrisy.
          There's nothing moral in murdering other people on command. The people doing it for a living should not be expected to be saints and martyrs. They'll do as soldier always did since the dawn of time, they'll follow orders. The fact that we delude our selves they'll do any differently is what stopping constructive actions to reform the military.
          The drug wars... Prohibition... Even the simplest of things like speeding tickets. When all the laws and regulation are based on lies, nothing works right and nothing gets done.

          --
          compiling...
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @08:13AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @08:13AM (#333171)

          Woah there!

          Torture is permitted under the Geneva Conventions unless **both** parties have signed the conventions.

          Haven't signed? We can torture you. (this of course encourages the signing of the conventions)

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @09:35AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @09:35AM (#333193)

            Woah there!

            Torture is permitted under the Geneva Conventions unless **both** parties have signed the conventions.

            Haven't signed? We can torture you. (this of course encourages the signing of the conventions)

            Double whoa here! This AC is completely ignorant of the International Laws of Armed Conflict. The Hague Conventions prohibit torture, and Geneva conventions reaffirm this prohibition, and it is now SETTLED international law, which means that it is binding even upon non-signatory nations, and even upon mercenary scum like this guy working for CACI. RamiK is probably a 15 year old American kid, has nothing to go on but a rather sick fascination with torturing people.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 17 2016, @08:22AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 17 2016, @08:22AM (#333175) Journal

        Disobeying orders is statistically insignificant especially after basic training when the "troublemakers" are weeded out.

        The riskier it is to carry out, the more "troublemakers" there will be. Sure, you can find a lot of amoral or sociopathic people with no moral objection to any illegal activity that is desired. But even then, they'll still CYA.

        Expecting people to do anything but follow their orders like the cowardly brown-nosers we all are is as idiotic as leaving a wallet full of cash in the middle of the street hoping it still be there.

        It's worth noting here that it works. It doesn't 100% prevent all atrocities, but it sure cuts down on them. In this very story, the need for secrecy of the torture meant that they were limited in how many people they could torture.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @10:41PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @10:41PM (#333446)

      Because "I was following orders" is never a valid defense for war crimes.

      Right. It didn't work for Adolf Eichmann, it shouldn't work for this fellow either. But if he wants to burn the people who gave them these orders then perhaps leniency might be warranted.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 16 2016, @11:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 16 2016, @11:57PM (#333001)

    Everyone knew about the tortures. CIA black sites been widely known to anyone who cared since at least 2005 and everyone knows what went, and still goes on there. There were, and are laws and rules allowing them. It was mentioned in the news. Much of public supported it. Most still do.

    I fail to see how this is relevant.
    The facts of the matter are as follows:
    - This guy describes in great detail how he, himself, personally, tortured people
    - This guy acknowledges how he things what he did qualifies as torture
    - You point out, correctly might I had, that there is evidence in the public domain that he is not making this stuff up.
    - As a society (both this country and the civilized world as a whole) we have decided that torture is bad, I believe even this country has laws against torture for both peace- and wartime

    Ergo: he deserves a trial where all evidence is evaluated and if it is as he says, then he is a torturer. If that is the case, then I don't see why he shouldn't punished as such.
    Stop making excuses for horrible and reprehensible acts because it was done by someone from your own tribe!