Look out, Jenkins, here come the lawyers!

When I began this blog I had no idea that the subject I would be forced to dwell upon, not once, not twice, not even three times, but now for the fourth time, would be: torture v. harsh treatment v. raising your hat and asking nicely if the Muslim gentleman would care to say anything?  For those whose soccial life is as dismal as mine, previous posts and their comments can be read here, here and here.  I am thus provoked (in the most gentlemanly manner) by 'JackSc', an old adversary in the comments section, who sent me this:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201941.htmlnother

Torture or harsh treatment?
The man walked off the street voluntarily and was beaten to death.
Can we at least declare this torture? Can we at least say this is wrong? Can we at least stipulate that this incident hurts our cause rather than helps it?"

The reference is to an article in the WaPo headed, "Documents Tell of Brutal Improvisation by GIs", and tells the 'story' of how a former Saddam general and loyalist, walked into an American post/police station in an attempt to gain the release of his sons.  As he was reckoned, and apparently admitted, to being one of the leaders of the local insurgency, you can imagine the reception he received.  (I am tempted - and will surrender to the impulse - to suggest rather flippantly that the general forgot the first rule learnt by every soldier - never volunteer!  I learnt this lesson as a recruit when the corporal asked if anyone had any 'O' Levels.  I put my hand up and was instantly given the job of moving the NAAFI piano to the corporal's mess!)  Neither my correspondent, Jack, nor I, can judge the truth of what went on, not least because the defence has yet to state its case.  But let  us, for the sake of conversation, assume that what this newspaper purports to have happened, did indeed happen.  Jack wants to know if it is torture.  In my view, definitely; and murder, as well! 

However, it has no, or at least, very little, bearing on my case for harsh treatment of terrorist suspects, and the very rare use of torture in a 'ticking bomb' scenario.  In my first post, I suggested that a proper interrogation centre with a trained team of interrogators plus their back-up staff was needed.  This case in Iraq makes my point better than I can, and the clue is in the heading: "Documents Tell of Brutal Improvisation by GIs [my italics]".  Interrogation is, or should be, a very sophisticated activity, requiring real flare, intelligence and skill on the part of its practitioners.  GI's, whose mates have been murdered by the suspect, are hardly ideal for the job.  I know where-of I speak, because, for a short while, many years ago, I was an interrogator.  Whilst many of the facts in this case are murky, one thing is for sure, and this thing demonstrates the absolute stupidity of those involved - the suspect is dead!  You can be the best interrogator in the world, but getting a corpse to speak is impossible.

For those unaquainted with the military, it is important to understand the different levels of interrogation.  In a war situation, a battalion might have orders to advance at dawn, and during the night they might take a prisoner whom they suspect knows the location of the enemy's machine-gun posts.  Almost certainly that man in that situation can expect very rough treatment from soldiers likely to be facing those guns in the morning, unless he 'coughs' rather quickly.  That, if you like, is an example of tactical interrogation.  But in our conversations here, we have been discussing strategic interrogations.  Setting aside the 'ticking bomb' scenario, time is on our side.  It is important to remember that the objective of the interrogation is not a confession, but information.  Harsh treatment (cold, hunger, fear, hooding, dis-orientation techniques, etc) reduce a man's ability to resist, and just as important, reduce his ability to think straight.  In that condition, the skilled interrogator with time on his side, can arrange 'ploys' and 'tricks' that will sow doubt in the subject's mind and further lower his resistance.  None of these techniques can be applied by untrained personnel on the basis of "improvisation", otherwise you end up with the sort of calamity that is described in theWaPo report.  In the case of a 'ticking bomb' scenario, I am not an expert on the infliction of pain on a human being, but commonsense tells me that it can be done without being lethal.  Such methods should be investigated now, agreed upon and held ready for use in dire emergency.

This brings me to my final point.  It seems to be apparent that neither the British or the American authorities have thought through the requirements in this area for use in this unique war that we are engaged in.  Such decision-taking processes as have been gone through, have been in done in secret, thus leaving out of the loop those who suddenly find themselves in charge of events, such as reservist military policemen (and women), enraged marines whose comrades have been killed, and sundry special forces masquerading as CIA.  It should all be brought out in the open.  Not, obviously, the specific techniques to be employed, which would simply warn the enemy, but the whole proposition that such a centre should be organised.  In other words, our very own Guantanamo.

Comments

[JackSc]

Holy mackeral, I'm famous!

I have to say that I am rather pleasantly surprised to find that what you suggested in an earlier response to one of my comments is true: we are closer on this than I originally thought.

I agree with the majority of this post's points. So either you have changed your position, or are stating it more clearly (or in a more limited form.) Or perhaps going off drugs has really helped my reading comprehension.

Reasonable people may still disagree about specific tactics that may or may not be allowed during intertogations -- including likely the two of us.

But we certainly agree that the case in question was torture and murder.

And that interrogation techniques should not be applied by untrained personnel who are allowed to improvise.

And that "neither the British or the American authorities have thought through the requirements in this area for use in this unique war that we are engaged in."

And that "It should all be brought out in the open."

In fact it seems that the last point is perhaps the most important. It is the secretive, sweep-it-all-under-the-rug aspect of this that is so heinous.

If we believe that what we are doing is right and is justified then the government should be open about it, and let our citizens decide to agree or not.

[David Duff]

Yes, Jack, it probably was my poor literary expression skills that confused you. (I feel the ghost of Miss Wood, Eng. Lang. & Lit., circa 1950-55, standing behind me pursing her lips!) Anyway, nice to have you on board.

We have all just seen an example of how a policy slipped through on the quiet can go tragically wrong, in the case of Mr. Menezes.

I will take this opportunity to re-emphasise another point I made in relation to the formation of a proper interrogation centre. It should only be formed, if, and only if, the country is facing a sustained and co-ordinated terrorist campaign. I am not completely convinced that that is now the case. I suspect, for I cannot know, that what we are faced with is a series of ad hoc actions undertaken by groups of individuals - although the man held in Italy seems to be somewhat different. What I mean is, that we do not face the equivalent of the IRA Council which 'commanded and controlled'.

(I've just realised that this comment is becoming rather long-winded, so later today I will cut and paste it into a proper post, up above.)

[JackSc]

"It should only be formed, if, and only if, the country is facing a sustained and co-ordinated terrorist campaign. I am not completely convinced that that is now the case."

OK now you're beginning to scare me. If we agree much more, I don't know what I'll do.

BTW -- maybe you can make (or repeat) a post the origins and definition of the term "trot-lot creche"?