OUT OF THE MOUTH OF BABES AND CARTOONISTS

Is torturing war prisoners a betrayal of U.S. values? (David Horsey, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 5/22/04)

James Inhofe, the Oklahoma senator from the Neanderthal wing of the Republican Party, may still believe that the only practitioners of degradation and torture in the U.S. military were seven isolated misfits at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison. However, stories suggesting something much different continue to pile up . . . .

These and many other reports indicate that treatment of prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions is common among U.S. forces dealing with captives in the war on terror. The apparent efforts to hide these activities would lead to the conclusion that somebody knows they are doing something wrong. But somebody also must think it is a necessary wrong or why else would it be such a pervasive practice?

Here's a Burning Question that needs to be answered by all of us, not just our warriors:

Is torture always a betrayal of American values or are there times when it is justified?

We are doing a bad job of considering the questions raised by Abu Ghraib, mostly because, like Mr. Horsey, we are asking the wrong questions. As we are now engaged in a war likely to continue for decades against an enemy that takes pride in not abiding by our rules, we need to be very clear ourselves about what rules apply.

Mr. Horsey, like most media-types talking about these issues, confuses a number of issues. The first is the treatment of uniformed members of regular Iraqi forces taken as prisoners of war. These prisoners are arguably entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention, and I haven't seen any convincing evidence that they are not receiving those protections.

The other questions involve the treatment of prisoners who were not uniformed members of regular forces. These prisoners are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. We do need to treat them consistently with our ideals -- not for their benefit, but for ours.

Seen from this perspective, the "freelance" mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib is a scandal and must be stomped on. Not only is it inconsistent with our own ideals to mistreat prisoners simply out of revenge, but this mistreatment also shows a break down in military discipline and order that has to be slapped down quickly. It is clear that much of the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib splashed across the front pages, which now seems to have occurred on one particular day last November, which the Army investigated well-before it was publicized, and which is now being addressed by Courts Martial, is this type of freelancing. In part it was caused by the exhaustion and tension inherent in the occupation, and in part it was caused by a lack of control coupled with the desire of young soldiers to count coup. It is a problem, it is wrong, but it is being dealt with.

The other easy question has to do with the use of "pressure" as part of officially sanctioned and controlled intelligence gathering:

Sesame Street breaks Iraqi POWs (BBCNews, 5/20/04)

'Culturally offensive' music is being used to break prisoners
Heavy metal music and popular American children's songs are being used by US interrogators to break the will of their captives in Iraq.

Uncooperative prisoners are being exposed for prolonged periods to tracks by rock group Metallica and music from children's TV programmes Sesame Street and Barney in the hope of making them talk.

The US's Psychological Operations Company (Psy Ops) said the aim was to break a prisoner's resistance through sleep deprivation and playing music that was culturally offensive to them.

However, human rights organisation, Amnesty International, said such tactics may constitute torture - and coalition forces could be in breach of the Geneva Convention. . . .

"In training, they forced me to listen to the Barney "I Love You" song for 45 minutes. I never want to go through that again," one US operative told [Newsweek].

This use of sleep-deprivation and cultural pressure to extract information from Iraqi prisoners without violating any of our cultural taboos is humane and should not, pace Amnesty International, even be considered torture.

The hard question comes with the official use of what Americans would consider torture: use of pain and serious physical trespass. This is the line we should not cross and, to the extent that military intelligence allowed MP guards to think torture was appropriate, they, along with the MP's, need to be punished.

Posted by David Cohen at May 22, 2004 10:55 AM