Interrogation and the Geneva Convention....
 

I watched this show on the history channel last night (synopsis).

The show had a disclaimer that it was finished before the Abu Gharib photos and information came out.

My post isn't a justification for Abu Gharib. The sloppy organization at the Abu Gharib prison made humiliation seem indiscriminately used on anyone who happened to be there and more like retribution and some sick joke by soldiers who wanted photos as a keepsake of their idiocy. This is just a theoretical discussion.

"Team Delta demonstrates classic interrogation approaches and techniques; such as Fear-Up Harsh, Good Cop/Bad Cop, We Know All and many others. Led by Senior Interrogator Mike Ritz, a former U.S. Army military interrogator, Team Delta subjects the volunteers to ?white noise? in the form of a baby crying and static; separating the volunteers who are blindfolded and depriving them of food and rest. Exhausted and with stress levels rising, some break quickly and some hold out longer."

"In the post September 11-world, interrogation has become a vital factor in the war on terrorism. WE CAN MAKE YOU TALK describes the techniques that are being used in the camps at Guantamano Bay, and why Taliban and Al Qaeda prisoners are well prepared to resist any means of interrogation. Faced with a new set of challenges in the 21st century, the debate continues about how far interrogators should go, while the search continues for getting the most effective way to get people to talk who don?t want to."

The volunteers were put in orange jump suits with hoods over their heads just like the Guantamano prisoners. They had cold water poured on them at times, were put into uncomfortable standing positions, were stripped down to their underwear at points, etc. There was never any force used against them, just lots of yelling and psychological games.

So I've looked up the Geneva convention to see what it said about treament of prisoners.

"To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;"

"Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

The Geneva convention pretty much makes it impossible to get any information from prisoners. It bans many non-violent techniques that had been used by both the allies and the axis. Lack of information from prisoners and spies could have changed the balance of power in that war.

Interrogation techniques still have their place though. "Taliban and Al Qaeda prisoners are well prepared to resist any means of interrogation." Due to the organizational structure of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, it's nearly impossible to make progress without serious interrogation. They don't have huge armies moving that we can easily see with other methods. Information is everything. Plots like 9/11, other attacks, ambushes on troops in Iraq will be much more difficult to prevent without information. We cannot fight with our hands tied. The war on terror is not a war won with just force. Force took Iraq extraordinarily quickly, but insurgent unrest and continued terrorist activity continued long after the end of the war.

So what to do with the Geneva convention? We fight a more traditional visible war so capturing our prisoners doesn't provide nearly as much information to the enemy. Yet without some protection, they could be put under serious mental strain anyway just to get the slightest bit of info. The Geneva convention didn't stop North Korean interrogators from trying to make US troops lie and admit to germ warfare. Are we supposed to be above these rules, but our enemies not to show an example? Who will follow this example? We haven't had that many large wars where someone wasn't the aggressor trying to steal territory or going on a killing spree. The "bad guy" will always use whatever ruthless techniques they can to win. We certainly shouldn't sink to the level of germ warfare or other terrible things, but interrogation information is non-violent and can save lives. It's not pleasant, but is it worth doing?

Many things are unpleasant when viewed by the public, but when not in their face they think nothing of it. When TV shows display cattle processing plants, people are revolted, but almost everyone loves their steak. It's easy to get incensed about everything, but much harder to take a step back and weigh the alternatives.

Holy hell thats a long post.

Holly fuck, and you replied without reading!

Sorry, it's for the people who like reading :)

I sometimes wonder what some of these guys are here for, it's a message board with writing on to be read.

The article makes a very good point. But it will not make any difference to Muslims, they will still use the abuse as reasons for terrorism.

So you capture one terrorist by persecuting 10 innocent people and creat two new ones. Not any good to anyone.

Rhino22:

One of the problems, (forgetting the fact that a nation actually signed up to the terms of the Geneva Convention, then breaks it), it that it demonstates to other nations "how much they can get off with".

The Geneva Convention has the support of approximately 150 countries and has served well in maintaining a "standard of conduct" over many decades.

When a nation, eg the US who is "supposed" to be showing an example to others, breaks an international treaty, - this not only puts their own forces in jeopardy, but lets others know - "if they can do this, we can as well".

Unfortunately the Geneva Convention is not the only instance of this in the last few years. Other examples of the conduct of the US lately have been used as the "excuse" for other offensive/illegal activity by some other nations.

About 18 months ago, I remember one woman in a position in the UN covering human rights (I think she was the ex-Prime Minister of Eire), resigned in disgust at this setting of a bad example by the US. She outlined a catalog of instances where other nations had adopted the principle of "the US can do this, therefore we can too". (I think she still represents human rights orgs, but wanted "freedom" to state her mind and not be "obliged" to UN member states.)

When you drop basic principles, the repercussions can ripple widely. It is even more... there is no word - sad?, that the US has, by design, opted out of a fair number of treaties which it ratified. Seems there is a lack of basic honor in this current Admin.

It's "how can we get round this treaty" and what "words" can we use to "reclassify" a scenario in an attempt to justify what is basically a conspiracy to contravene international law. They not got the idea there is a price to be paid for this?? Time will tell...