I am not familiar with the details of, and background to, this memo, so I will confine myself to generalities.
If, in war, I was commanding a battalion prior to an attack and captured a PoW who was likely to have useful information, the position of a m/gun post, for example, I would not hesitate to use whatever methods it took to gain that information in order to save the lives of my own men. In other words, in war, all bets are off!
These days we face a 'war' the like of which has never occurred before. There have been guerrilla wars before but they were comprised of indigenous populations fighting against occupiers. Today we have fighters disguised as civilians who attack us in our homelands. More-over, in this age, they must be deemed capable, and it will surely be only a matter of time before they prove it, of using weapons of large scale destruction.
The question which must be decided is whether this type of 'campaign' (to use a neutral expression) constitutes war in the accepted sense of the word? If it does, I would remind you that to engage in warlike acts whilst masquerading as a civilian is punishable by death.
The second question to be answered is whether or not your commander-in-chief is, in effect, in the same situation as the battalion commander I described above, that is, under an imperative to place the lives of those under his leadership above all other considerations?
(Incidentally, re-reading what I have just written I can imagine someone jumping in and claiming that we are occupying Iraq, so before anyone makes a fool of themselves let me remind them that at the time of the the 9/11 attack we were occupying nowhere in the middle-east!)
Thanks, Fallenmonk; I just downloaded the memo through your links.
Not to worry, though: not before I have read it, nor even after I have read it, even though I understand the context as well as anyone who reads the news regularly, am I about to deliver a gratuitous load of... generalities.
Hello David, I thought this might get a rise out of you.
First, I have written extensively here and at other blogs about torture. I reject it fully and completely as a method of gathering information. It is not valid and produces unreliable data. In your example of the POW and the m/gun nest the options open to a battle field commander are to request the information from the prisoner under threat of immediate execution and follow through if it is not forthcoming or to politely ask and hope for cooperation. That's all.
Secondly, this is a 'war' because the western world in the form mostly of the U.S. with collusion from Britain has chosen to make it one. There are myriad other solutions available to deal with Islamic radicalism other than war.
Finally, your last statement is patently false. We(the west) have been occupying the middle east since the end of WWII in some form or another. Whether it be by proxies like Exxon or Israel or directly in enforcing the exclusion zones in Iraq after Desert Storm. I know this because I was physically stationed there in the 1970's in Turkey, Cyprus, and Saudi Arabia.
First: As Fallenmonk notes, at the time of the 911 attacks we had a significant military presence in the Middle East, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc, etc. This is the very presence Bin Laden used to justify his actions (not that I a saying they were justified).
Second: Your statement...
If, in war, I was commanding a battalion prior to an attack and captured a PoW who was likely to have useful information, the position of a m/gun post, for example, I would not hesitate to use whatever methods it took to gain that information in order to save the lives of my own men. In other words, in war, all bets are off!
...among your other comments reveals you to be someone who has never served in the military and knows not of which he speaks. No Commander in their right mind would even think to attempt such a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Further more, War has not been declared on another country since 1942. To say we are in a conflict of the like which has never been fought before is grossly ignorant. These tactics are nothing new and have sound ways of being dealt with as outlined in the Army Counterinsurgency manual.
This Administation should never have been allowed to take office. Our shame.
Our Constitution is meaningless if actions in memos like these can be put into effect.
Who should we have tortured after 9/11? Have we captured the right people...are we sure?
'FM', your first paragraph has me confused (not an unusual state of affairs for me!). Perhaps it was a typo of some sort. But are you really saying that the only options available to a battalion commander in the situation I described is to either threaten the PoW with death if he doesn't answer and then shoot him if he fails to respond(!!!); or, to just ask him questions politely? Even *I* wouldn't shoot him if he resisted interrogation, after all, once dead you'll never get any information!
By claiming that "It [information] is not valid and produces unreliable data" you repeat the confused assertion made by people who misunderstand the difference between getting *information* from a prisoner, and getting a *confession*. It is absolutely true that any confession so obtained would be entirely invalid but, and this is the critical point, usually you *do get* a confession under 'torture'! That tells you how effective torture is in making people do what they do not wish to do. When the result is information, which is all that a military interrogator is after (not a confession), it can usually be confirmed - or otherwise - and indeed, even if the prisoner lies, there can be information in the very lie itself. Again, for anyone who doubts the efficacy of 'torture', please read the history of very successful German counter-intelligence operations in Europe in WWII.
Your second paragraph implies that *we* have declared war on *them* and that but for our actions there would be no problem. You go further and state quite clearly that "We (the west) have been occupying the middle east since the end of WWII in some form or another." It is difficult to know where to begin in countering such a wildly exaggerated perception. I'm sorry, 'FM', but words have meanings and for one country to *occupy* another has a specific sense, that is, that nation 'A' defeated nation 'B' and its troops now control the government of that country. To claim that troops based on a sovereign nation's territory by mutual agreement is "occupation" means, amongst other things, that your country has been occupying mine since 1942! Frederick *almost* supports you by reminding us that "at the time of the 911 attacks we had a significant military presence in the Middle East" but, anticipating the incoming likely to be provoked, he, at least, quickly withdraws behind the smokescreen of "not that I am saying they [the Islamists] were justified [in 9/11]". I should hope not!
But then, 'FM', you go further and suggest that oil companies operating with the full aggreement of the governments concerned constitute "occupation". If foreign companies operating in other countries is to count as "occupation" then why stop at Exxon? What about Microsoft, or IBM, or Boeing ...? As for Israel, I can only say that all debates on its history go nowhere and change no minds, so let me make clear immediately that for my part I have no intrinsic interest in its continued survival except in so far as it impinges on our national interest. Faced as we are with a tide of militant Islamists bent on our subjugation and conversion, I will support Israel for as long as they soak up the punishment on our behalf. Israel stands in relation to us much as the farm-house of Hougement stood in relation to the allies at Waterloo, that is, as an advanced post past which the enemy cannot go without severe difficulty. (Were strategic matters not the way they are, I would not go much beyond a mild tut-tut if Israel wastotally annihilated, but I find it interesting that those who most bleat on about human rights and so forth and who wish to withdraw support from Israel in order to placate Arab opinion, seem happy to accept, or perhaps strive to ignore, the fact that the instantaneous result of a withdrawal of support for Israel would be the certain use of their A-bomb in their defence because they would be certain (and correctly so) that an Arab victory would result in the wholesale slaughter of every man, woman and child in Israel.)
You state that "There are myriad other solutions available to deal with Islamic radicalism". Well, surrendering to their demands is indeed one of them but I'm not sure you would like the result.
Finally, Frederick, for what it's worth (not a lot), I served 9 years in the british army, 5 of them in the Paras and 4 in Intellgience and in my last year I was a trained interrogator. Happily, in retrospect now that I am older and a tiny bit wiser, I never saw a shot fired in anger, even so, I can assure you that I do know a little where-of I write!
Ooops, not a very intelligent spelling of "intelligence" - sorry - but written in haste because the little 'Memsahib' is cutting up rough wanting to go shopping!
David,
As to my comment about "shooting the POW or asking politely" that was just a little 'tongue in cheek' in reference to your comment that "all bets are off".
War is a nasty thing and I have experienced in first hand in Viet Nam. I was deployed to help the optimize and secure their voice communications which were being compromised by the North. Since I was privy to all sorts of highly classified information as a result of my job I was required to attend S.E.A.R training before I could be sent in country. Normally S.E.A.R. was reserved for pilots and others that had a reasonable chance of being captured and held prisoner by the enemy. BTW S.E.A.R. stands for 'Soldier Empowerment, Awareness, and Readiness' a typically stupid American military acronym but whatever. It's purpose was to familiarize and actually have the soldier experience the realities of being a POW and included all kinds of fun such as sensory deprivation and even physical abuse and interrogation. It was not pleasant and I only suffered from temporary discomfort and a few non life threatening bruises and contusions. It did a pretty good job of preparing me if, Goddess forbid, I was captured. Interestingly enough, I later found out that the Marines escorting me on my duties to some rather forward locations were instructed to make sure that the enemy never took me alive. A comforting thought in the aftermath. I mention this for a reason.
I am perfectly familiar with acceptable levels of interrogation and actually don't have an issue with them. I do, however, agree that beyond what is defined in the U.S. Army Field Manual is torture and in no circumstances should be permitted. It is very black and white.
As I and others have said and experienced "war is hell" but the Geneva Conventions are there for a purpose with which any reasonably sane person would agree. "The all bets are off" in war is not an acceptable position for any soldier or commander to accept because the treatment of prisoners is a two way street and hearkens all the way back to the "The Golden Rule" and there can be no wiggle room with how this is interpreted.
If our 'enlightened' leaders insist on sending us fresh faced lads to foreign lands to do their dirty work the least we can expect are some rules. In our current situation our CinC is a known deserter and his right hand man is a draft dodger as are so many of the 'chicken hawks' that don't seem to lose any sleep of the dead and maimed their stupid adventures in Iraq are causing. Their actions with respect to torture of suspected enemy combatants has endangered every soldier in uniform and forever removed our ability and right to cry outrage over the treatment of our captured comrades. Thanks to their action your world of "all bets are off" is now the reality.
Yes words do have meaning but the meaning of occupy to you and me may be quite different than that of an Iraqi or Afghan that has seen his children and brothers slaughtered to no purpose. The word 'occupy' means something different to a man who has seen his country destroyed and littered with the remains of cancer causing 'depleted uranium' munitions that will litter the landscape for thousands of years killing generation after generation of his children and their children. The word 'occupy' has a completely different meaning to the peasant who has seen the big American and other Western oil companies take all the wealth from their countries and leaving only a few wealthy royals with anything to show for it. The word 'occupy' has a very different meaning to the Palestinian who has seen his homeland pillaged and stolen and who has seen his children and neighbors slaughtered to no purpose while the Israelis ignore UN sanction after sanction and occupy their lands in strict violation of the Geneva Conventions and who are even rewarded by the U.S. with weapons and money for this assault.
As to the 'myriad solutions' comment. I did not suggest surrendering to their demands but at least listening sincerely to them is a good step. Since the British took the three separate cultures that previously existed and forcibly created Iraq in the unrealistic view that we could force our view of the world upon them we have repeatedly ignored the needs and desires of the people of Iraq and the surrounding region. We have interfered with their governments. We have propped up ruthless royal dynasties while ignoring even the most basic human rights. Never forget that we created Osama Bin Laden to serve our purpose at the time just as we created Saddam Hussein. Everything we are experiencing today in the form of Islamic terrorism and radicalism is a result of our meddling in their affairs. It's called blowback.
If, as you say, we are in a different kind of war then it is a war of our making. We have been sewing the seeds for this 'different war' since the end of WWII and we are now reaping our just fruit.
Commenting by HaloScan
