The case of the angry colonel | Salon News:
Apparently in addition to blowing people and things up and torturing people, our tax dollars are also going to pay an Army Colonel (the chief PR dude in Iraq) to write a constant barrage of angry emails and comments to liberal blogs and reporters, accusing them all of lying.
Oh, and to write angry emails denying sending those other emails in the first place.
I’m so proud.
Before arriving for my assignment at SERE, I traveled to Cambodia to visit the torture camps of the Khmer Rouge. The country had just opened for tourism and the effect of the genocide was still heavy in the air. I wanted to know how real torturers and terror camp guards would behave and learn how to resist them from survivors of such horrors. I had previously visited the Nazi death camps Dachau and Bergen-Belsen. I had met and interviewed survivors of Buchenwald, Auschwitz and Magdeburg when I visited Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. However, it was in the S-21 death camp known as Tuol Sleng, in downtown Phnom Penh, where I found a perfectly intact inclined waterboard. […]
Waterboarding is a controlled drowning that, in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victimâ€™s face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.
Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration â€“usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death. Its lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threaten with its use again and again.
This is what I want to hear asked of any politician who supports torture under the name of “enhanced interrogation techniques”:
“Do you support the use of these techniques on our own soldiers who are captured by the enemy?”
Because that is what you have to support in order to support our use of these techniques. It is not just a religious mandate from George Bush’s “favorite philosopher,” it is a basic fact of war that, with regards to prisoners (even if you call them “unlawful combatants”), you must do unto others as you would have them do unto your own. You can expect no better treatment for your own soldiers as prisoners of war than you give to enemies. You may get worse treatment, but you will certainly get no better treatment.
No wonder so many generals hate George Bush and Dick Cheney. They have guaranteed the torture of U.S. soldiers. Guaranteed it.
What were things like before Bush and Cheney took over? Stuart Herrington lets us know.
Seasoned interrogators know that an important first step is to disarm one’s adversary by resorting to the unexpected. Treat a captured general or colonel with dignity and respect. Better yet, treat a sergeant like he is a colonel or general.
In interrogation centers I ran, we called prisoners “guests” and extended military courtesies, such as saluting captured officers. We strove to undermine a prisoner’s belief system, which we knew instructed him that Americans are unschooled infidels who would bully him and resort to intimidation, threats and brutality. Patience was essential. We rejected the view that interrogators could merely “take off the gloves” and that information would somehow magically flow if we brutalized our “guests.” This notion was uninformed and counterproductive, not to mention illegal, and we made sure our chain of command understood that bowing to such tempting theories would result in bad information.
So there was another fake debate last night where only the people who’ve received the most big-money donations got asked any real questions.
It might be best to stop caring about this charade. In a year or so we’re going to have a choice between a corrupt Republican running as a Democrat on the one side, and one of several batshit-insane fascists running as a Republican on the other side. The best we can hope for is that we get ongoing corruption, malfeasance, and exploitation rather than Armageddon. I guess I prefer the former.
I think I might have an easier time if I just accept that right now.