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This discussion has been archived.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: 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...
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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...