When Your Fellow Soldiers Are At Risk: How do you extract information?

[Aguila Blanca]

OK, I obviously do not have the popular opinion, but my personal opinion is that what happens behind closed doors stays behind closed door. I give no sympathy to an enemy and will expect none. I am sorry if offends some of the light hearted but I would do what it takes to win, no matter the cost.

Unfortunately, that attitude is not only unlawful, it also tends (as in the present instance) to yield results diametrically opposite to those you wish to obtain.

The "cost" in this case is likely to be measured in American lives. I'm glad I never served under a CO with an attitude like yours.

 

[ID_shooting]

I guess I was not brought up for a touchy feely war. The cold war was much easyer to deal with. My nuke comment was referring to right after 9/11. As for Iraq, if this went my way it would become the 51st state.

 

[Art Eatman]

Re Gitmo: I wonder at the real value of any information now available from the prisoners there. Whatever they know is too dated, IMO, to be worth worrying about.

Re Iraq prisons: I'm awed that the officers in charge hadn't given consideration to the issue of perception over reality. To the issue of damaging PR. I'd think that anybody old enough to not wet the bed and savvy enough to get NCO or Officer status would be aware of SOME amount of political realities!

Remember the "Ten Stages Of Drunkeness"? These guys behaved about like #7, "Bulletproof and Invisible", particularly the "Invisible".

The overall goal was a stable and cooperative Iraq. The gains would be a far less expensive forward base of operations from which to project power in the mideast. Add to that the much-needed increase in the world supply of oil, given the ever-increasing demands of both Europe and China, as well as India. In the grand chess game that is international politics, the War on Terror is almost an afterthought.

And a couple of dozen idiots may well have rendered that all to be impossible...

Art

 

[Gary H]

No war goes as planned. Idiots are always part of the mix. I just chatted with an Army lifer who resides in Korea and he tells me that these prison MPs are stellar soldiers compared to some of his associates. I'm not knocking the Army, but large organizations always have their bad apples. False starts and false expectations are historic in the Middle East. I'm concerned that something similar to the previous CIA restrictions as to association will follow all the political grandstanding. As far as I'm concerned, the military needs to get it's act together and tighten up the prison system. That said, I fear that what will result will be a blanket prohibition with respect to methods used to extract information from high value prisoners. Our enemies will use this against us, but those that hate the U.S. will not hate us any more and those that secretly hope that we achieve our goals will not defend us. The end result is that our soldiers will be at greater risk as a new form of P.C. goes forward.

 

[Joe Demko]

From the 10 stages of Drunkeness


Stage 4 - BULLET PROOF

You are now ready to pick fights with anyone and everyone, especially those with whom you have been betting or arguing. This is because nothing can hurt you. At this point you can also go up to the partners of the people who you fancy and challenge them to a battle of wits or money. You have no fear of losing this battle, because you are CLEVER, you're RICH and Hell - you're BETTER LOOKING than them anyway!

Stage 5 - INVISIBLE

This is the final Stage of drunkenness. At this point you can do anything, because NO ONE CAN SEE YOU. You can dance on a table to impress the people who you fancy because the rest of the people in the room cannot see you. You can also snog the face off them because the rest of the people in the room cannot see you. You are also INVISIBLE to the person who wants to fight you. You can walk through the street singing at the top of your lungs because no one can see or hear you and because you're still CLEVER you know ALL the words.

 

[seeker_two]

The way I see it, we're the "good guys", so we should act like it.

Sorry to bring you back to the real world, but wars are not won by the military who's "nicest".....

It's won by the army who most effectively kills the most of the enemy's soldiers & destroys the most enemy material.....

Sometimes, in order to effectively destroy stuff, you have to extract intelligence from enemy soldiers.....

And that's not a "nice" process....

But it's vital to do, anyway....

So people should deal with it....

And let our soldiers do what they do best....

...and to Hell w/ all the pansy-a -es who are worried about hurting the enemy's feelings!

 

[telomerase]

It's won by the army who most effectively kills the most of the enemy's soldiers & destroys the most enemy material.....

So the Nazis won WWII; after all, they killed about 17 million Russians while the Russians only killed 4.5 million Germans (and half of those were civilians).

Or maybe there's more to politics than just random killing and torture? Maybe (for instance) fighting actual Al-Quaida members and the government departments that funded them is not the same thing as rounding up random Iraqi civilians with no connection to Al-Quaida and having S&M parties?

 

[Antlurz]

Puff, the magic dragon....

..lived by the sea...

Some people really DON'T know what war is..

Ron

 

[telomerase]

Some people really DON'T know what war is..

Everyone knows what war is: a huge drain of lives, resources, and decency, which is sometimes unavoidable. What does that have to do with supporting unnecessary wars for ludicrously implausible reasons? Or do you think that if our legionaries just torture enough Iraqi villagers, somehow they'll tell us where the nonexistent WMDs are?

The Swiss know what war is, and they haven't been in one for 200 years. The US is getting to the point where we won't be at peace for 200 years.

 

[Gary H]

tolemerase:

Your first sentence is true. Your following statement suggests that the reasons for this war are "ludicrously implausible" and that is greatly debatable. I believe that you are grossly wrong.

But..

The Swiss know what war is, and they haven't been in one for 200 years.

No, the Swiss were in WWII. They manufactured weapons for Hitler. They raced to replace what we destroyed. They shot down allied planes that strayed into their airspace. They allowed slave labor trains to transit their country and they did know what was inside. They stole millions, if not billions from Jews who survived the war, not to mention those that didn't. Ya, they should be applauded for avoiding war and maintaining the moral high ground.

 

[Antlurz]

Or do you think that if our legionaries just torture enough Iraqi villagers, somehow they'll tell us where the nonexistent WMDs are?

Say what?????

I'd be interested in learning the definition of two things.

1. Torture.
2. Villagers

Ron

 

[Ghost]

When your fellow Soldiers (Marines in my case) are at risk: how do you extract information?

Easy, you don't. MPs are not trained interrogators, neither are grunts like me. Turn them over to the pros who use happy juice, if happy juice doesn't work, turn them over to the Pakistanis for interrogation, or threaten and then carry through turning them over to the Israelies for interrogation.

If you happen to witness things that are in violation of the UCMJ, then you say something about it, even to the point of disobeying a direct order, because that is your duty.

You (we) signed a contract, we took an oath, we knew what we were getting into, danger is part of the job, it doesn't matter that the enemy does not hold to the same values, or follow the same rules. To dishonor the uniform you wear, and the oath you have taken, makes you little different from some of the people you are fighting.

The idea of conducting oneself with honor, is something worth sacrificing for. Particularly when it is the hard road, the higher road, to travel. It is highly unlikely that the average individual captured has any intelligence of use in the first place.

Of course, this is just my opinion, others will disagree, and that is their right.

Also, by conducting themselves in the manner that they have, the individuals who have engaged in this behavior have actually increased the risk for everyone else.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse." -John Stuart Mill

 

[seeker_two]

Or maybe there's more to politics than just random killing and torture?

Remember what happened the last time we let politics run a war (i.e. Vietnam)?...

So the Nazis won WWII; after all, they killed about 17 million Russians while the Russians only killed 4.5 million Germans (and half of those were civilians).

But how much of the German war machine did the Russians (& the rest of the Allies) destroy? Enough to make the defense of Berlin nearly impossible...

The Swiss know what war is, and they haven't been in one for 200 years.

Gary H. handled that one. The Swiss fight w/ their banking industry, not their military...

The US is getting to the point where we won't be at peace for 200 years.

Things get awful peaceful when all your enemies are dead....

 

[Gary H]

Let The Military.. with Congressional Oversight Fix this One

Ghost:

Thanks for your post.

I started this thread, not because I agree with what was apparently done to the prisoners in the photos, but because I feared that the political grandstanding will tie the hands of those that should be extracting information. This mess will clear and the military will address the problems without the need for politicians to provide rigid rules. The major media can hype this story, destroy Rumsfeld, denegrate the military and the politicians can harshly deal with the military, but regardless of the many apologies and additional guidelines, the Arabs will still hate us as long as we have ties with Israel and live in the most advance country on the planet.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Sleep Deprivation is extremely effective and does NOT violate the Geneva Conventions. You can also use the soda pop treatment, though that might be construed as "torture" (even though it causes no actual injury).

Sorry, but I think sleep deprivation and the soda pop treatment would be construed as violations.

I found the following summary on a web site that's sort of a "Geneva Conventions for Dummies" reference:

interrogation of civilians

Civilians in an occupied territory must not be subject to physical or moral coercion for the purposes of obtaining information from them or from third parties. (Convention IV, Art. 31)

interrogation of prisoners of war

Prisoners of war are only obligated to provide names, ranks, date of birth, army, personal or serial identification numbers or equivalent information. Failure to do so may result in loss of special privileges. (Convention III, Art. 17)

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion may be inflicted. Prisoners who refuse to answer questions may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. (Convention III, Art. 17)

Of course, then you get into the question of what are these "detainees"? Although our government has stated numerous times that the Geneva Conventions will apply to their treatment, the Geneva Conventions include provisions for POWs, civilians arrested for crimes, and "internees." The so-called "insurgents" are not wearing military uniforms and do not represent any government/army, so it's questionable that they can be classified as POWs, notwithstanding that the war-which-was-never-declared has been declared finished for a year. They are civilians, but they are not civilians charged with simple crimes like stealing a radio from a shop. Maybe they are "internees"?

I don't know. All I think I know is that I doubt very much anyone has really decided what they are. We are saying Geneva Conventions apply with the implication that they are POWs, but I don't think that really works if you start examining the actual Geneva Conventions.

 

[Justin Moore]

f you happen to witness things that are in violation of the UCMJ, then you say something about it, even to the point of disobeying a direct order, because that is your duty.

You (we) signed a contract, we took an oath, we knew what we were getting into, danger is part of the job, it doesn't matter that the enemy does not hold to the same values, or follow the same rules. To dishonor the uniform you wear, and the oath you have taken, makes you little different from some of the people you are fighting.

The idea of conducting oneself with honor, is something worth sacrificing for. Particularly when it is the hard road, the higher road, to travel. It is highly unlikely that the average individual captured has any intelligence of use in the first place.

Extremely well spoken Especially the part about their being little difference between you and your enemy.

And, to the best of my knowledge, the majority of the 'detainees' at Abu Gharib were there for fairly minor infractions and not 'terrorists'. Allthou some of might change their mind about that now

 

[Sean Smith]

If we are talking about the current prisoner mistreatment scandal, what is being alleged wasn't good interrogation technique, it was a bunch of a-holes in uniform acting out. Those MPs weren't qualified to do jack squat questioning-wise, no matter how many episodes of "The Shield" they watched. The "intelligence involvement" alluded to - by the perpetrators - is probably a red herring and a transparent attempt at a responsibility dodge. I can see CI interrogators doing bad things to people, but not taking picktures of mock-homosexual, fraternity induction-ish abuse of prisoners.

As a side note, it raises the interesting question of why the combat arms guys apparently aren't doing this kind of nonsense, but some rear-echelon pukes subjected to much lower levels of stress are acting out like this against "the enemy." It was also common in Bosnia for the least threatened soldiers to exhibit the worst behavior and slackest discipline.

Unless you are very short on time, interrogation techniques that do no permenant damage can be very effective. Mark Bowden (author of Black Hawk Down) did an excellet article on this recently in the October 2003 issue of Atlantic Monthly. You can read the article here: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/10/bowden.htm

"Do not put a premium on killing" - Li Ch'uan from Sun Tsu's The Art of War

 

[bukijin]

Are we occupiers or liberators ?

There are good, pragmatic reasons for following the rules of war. Keeping the moral high ground and winning the hearts and minds of the civilian populace (as well as enemy combatants) is vital because the (long-term) aim of war is not the war itself, but the peace after the war is finished. (so called 'grand strategy') I'm really saddened to read that a few people here have suggested that atrocites, massacres, torture and even genocide are justified in warfare.

Australian POWs (not only Australians of course) were treated apallingly by the Japanese in ww2. The effect was simply to harden our resolve.

The blitz of London in ww2 - which targeted the civilian population created an indominable will in the British people.

French forces in Algeria during its war of independence used torture on enemy prisoners. Yes, valuable information was gained, but it was insignificant compared to the resentment created in ordinary people (in both France and Algeria) and subsequent damage to the French cause. The result was more recruits to the Algerian cause and less support by the French people for their government.

Mistreating prisoners is a great way of recruiting for the enemy.

Instead, treating prisoners well encourages the enemy to surrender and garners support rather than hatred in the civilian population. (both there and here) Who was it that compared the importance of the physical and the psychological in war ?

Unfortunately, the recent scandal will translate into a longer war and more coalition casulties.

 

[Antlurz]

Unfortunately, the recent scandal will translate into a longer war and more coalition casulties.

I think that is probably a valid assumption, however I fail to see how you can make the leap from that to:

I'm really saddened to read that a few people here have suggested that atrocites, massacres, torture and even genocide are justified in warfare.

I must have missed something along the way here..

Ron

 

[Joe Demko]

I must have missed something along the way here..

I think he was probably refering to the "Why don't we bomb cheering crowds?" thread, among others...

 

[bukijin]

I was thinking about one or two replies in this thread and others but I don't want to go into specifics. Perhaps I should have expressed my agreement with the vast majority of posts around this topic instead.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I think that is probably a valid assumption, however I fail to see how you can make the leap from that to:

quote:I'm really saddened to read that a few people here have suggested that atrocites, massacres, torture and even genocide are justified in warfare.

I must have missed something along the way here..

A couple of examples (fortunately, it appears more responses took the high road rather than favoring scrapping the Geneva Conventions):

There's hope. This is something she discussed with her friends in school and evidently there's a consensus at the school that vermin can be, ah, pushed about a bit.

OK, I obviously do not have the popular opinion, but my personal opinion is that what happens behind closed doors stays behind closed door. I give no sympathy to an enemy and will expect none. I am sorry if offends some of the light hearted but I would do what it takes to win, no matter the cost.

 

[DTLoken]

Torture is NEVER an option for extracting information for the following reasons:

A. We're above it (Having the moral high ground and all).

B. It's ineffective, people will crack and tell you what you want even if it's not true.

C. The negative image it spreads throughout the rest of the populace is immense and will only further harm our cause.

If I were dealing with the case of saving fellow soldiers, I might try and scare the everliving ???? out of someone if it would directly and immediately save lives of my fellow comrades, but I would never delve into actually harming someone for information,

Now going onto the ????birds who were running that prison in Iraq, lets put the concequences of their actions into perspective. By their illegal, immoral and inhumane actions think of all the deaths and injuries of their fellow soldiers that they've now sealed by pushing so called fence sitters on the subject of "Should I fight the occupiers, or shall I be peaceful?" squarely into the violent side. They can all rot in prison, and I wouldn't shed a tear for the person(s) who directly started/instigated the torture if they were to be hanged/shot tomorrow.

"if they are terrorists, why do we worry about how they are treated?"

Who's to say that someone is a terrorist though? That's for the winner of a conflict (IE, are they freedom fighters, or terrorists?) to decide. The people fighting in Iraq are fighting a foreign occupying power, akin to what the forefathers of the United States did over 200 years ago. Someone who attacks military targets and other combatants != terrorist. Now if they attack civilians and non-combatants then yes, they are a terrorist/criminal.

Now I for one think it's horrible that our soldiers are dying in such large numbers (This wouldn't be a problem if we weren't there), but face the facts, the people killing them aren't by definition terrorists.

Also for a hypothetical situation, some foreign army invades the United States, would YOU fight them in any way possible? Hell yes I would, and I know that most of you probably would as well. Would you, a person fighting people who are occupying your homeland consider yourself to be a terrorist? I think not.

Just a pet peeve of mine. I know i'll be flamed for my views though, but whatever.

 

[ID_shooting]

"Just a pet peeve of mine. I know i'll be flamed for my views though, but whatever."

I would never flame anyone for expressing thier opinion, even if it doesn't corolate to mine. You do bring up a couple of good points.

History is written by the victor and good/vs evil depends soley on your perspective.

As for the guilt of those involved, having served and knowing what the punishment for FFO is during war time, the Nuremburg (sp) defence is valid IMO.

I still stand by that bad things happen in war, and the part of all of this I do not like is that the information leaked. There is a saying amongst troops. "what happens in the field, stays in the field" That was certianly violated. Does that mean we should target innocent women and childer deliberately, no, if the pick up a weapon, the become combatants and should have full force brought upon them. Should alternate tactics be used to extract information? There is validity to that practice. All that I am saysing is that harsh times call for harsh measures. But then, I have never believed in military action to just give the paid for land back up when it is done.

Once thing is for sure though, we will certianly spend oddles and oodles of cash rebuilding the place just like Japan and Germany.

 

[DTLoken]

Well look, it appears that a US citizen has died as a result of the prison torture.

Now what do we do with the soldier's who carried out the torture and abuse? They have American blood on their hands now, as do the terrorists who carried out the execution.