I Can SERE Clearly Now
by Lee
Para, in the comments to the post below:
I have mentioned several times that I was cadre at the S.E.R.E. school referenced in the article. Our training for the students included all but the waterboarding,( they never did that while I was there).
The training did include some other methods to “prepare” the potential POW’s for what they might face if captured including mock executions, and requiring them to work in the garden, raising thier own food, serving them fish heads which they cooked into soup to eat.
We also kept bags over thier heads most of the time.
Of course these were all done under very controlled conditions. But never did I feel like I was torturing our students. By today’s definition, I guess I’m a criminal.
This is the kind of ridiculous emotional non sequitur argument that you usually hear from liberals. Lately you hear it from conservatives who are desperate to defend the Bush administration against any and all criticism.
Para, a question. You state, correctly, that SERE is a school where cadets are put through a rigorous mock torture program to prepare them for what would happen to them if they were shot down over enemy territory or otherwise captured by foreign forces. Exactly what nations did you have in mind when you were simulating torture? Were you preparing them for what might happen if they were shot down over Canada? England? Australia? Continental Europe? New Zealand?
Call me crazy, but I doubt you were preparing US soldiers for the treatment they’d receive if they were to fall into the hands of the forces of one of these countries. I’ve never gone through SERE, but my guess is you were telling the recruits that this is what they would expect if they fell into the hands of the Chinese or Russians or Libyans or Iraqis or Sudanese or Syrians or North Koreans, right? And why was that?
Simple. The civilized nations of the world, previously mentioned, don’t torture people. In 1949 a whole set of rules and treaties was written up by the civilized nations of the world, who ratified it and agreed to be beholden to them. These treaties concerned all sorts of matters, such as the treatment of POWS, general human rights, the treatment of prisoners, the prohibition of torture, and all sorts of related activities. You didn’t train recruits to resist the torture they would receive at the hands of the English because the English would never do such a thing.
The uncivilized nations of the world torture people. They engage in SERE-level activities all the way up to medieval-era activities like branding. These activities engaged in by the uncivilized nations of the world have been expressly prohibited by the civilized nations of the world for six decades. Somehow we managed to fight every war since then while following these rules. Sure there have been examples where they were not followed, but this is par for any human undertaking. Generally speaking, though, every president since Truman has followed these laws and rules. We even managed to win the Cold War.
Then along comes Bush. Now we can add the United States to the list of countries who practice SERE-level torture techniques on their prisoners, along with the Chinese, Libyans, Sudanese, North Koreans, and Syrians and Iranians. Yes, these other nations do much worse as well, but that’s not the point. The point is that, because of the Bush administration, we have weakened ourselves. We have weakened our honor and integrity as a nation. We have decreased our civility because of these activities, taking one baby step closer to the type of totalitarian regime we’re fighting against.
Now, perhaps you don’t mind that the US is on this list. But it sure as shit bothers me greatly.
As far as your comparison between SERE training and SERE-type torture of detainees, that’s one of the most asinine things you’ve ever said. Every person who goes through SERE school is a volunteer. The list of acceptable activities is stringently detailed. The cadets are undertaking this activity because, in some small way, they need to experience what torture is like in case they someday find themselves being tortured. In other words, the torture is administered TO SAVE THE CADET’S LIFE in the event that he falls captive to a brutal, uncivilized regime.
If we follow your logic, the doctor who administered my smallpox vaccine is no different than the terrorist who releases smallpox into the NY subway system. After all, both were responsible for unleashing a deadly biological agent, right?
We never, ever harmed our students, but through these techniques, many of them eventually talked to the interrogators. It often worked.
Para, there has never been any doubt whatsoever that the recruits would talk. If you want to get someone to talk, torture will cause gums to flap. The question is (a) whether this is accurate information, (b) whether this is actionable information, or (c) whether the poor bastard is just saying whatever the hell you want him to say so the torture will stop.
Perhaps the thinking that is if we do this to our own troops with no negative effect on them, but positive results from the techniques, maybe this kind of thing would work on terrorists.
Once again I will issue my standard challenge, one which so far you have refused to accept. I have posted numerous articles, interviews with professional interrogators, scholarly studies, and the like, all of which confirm that torture, even SERE-level stuff, is less likely to produce good, actionable intelligence than torture will. The challenge, which you will no doubt be unable to meet, is to find a comparable article or study which states that torture is a superior interrogation method.
Interrogation without torture: Superior intelligence product.
Interrogation with torture: Inferior intelligence product, but patriotic Amurkans get to know that A-rab terrists is screaming in pain fer what they done did.
I agree that torture doesn’t work and is immoral, but I guess I have a different definition of the word torture.
Try this on for size. Or ask Petraeus.
Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone “talk”; however, what the individual says may be of questionable value. In fact our experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual (2-22.3) on Human Intelligence Collector Operations that was published last year shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.
Comments
All I’m asking is ( again for the third or forth time) is a definition of what is considered torture, as now, I have just found out that what I did to our own troops is considered torture.
Read the Army Field Manual, prior to the Bush-era revisions. You should have one in a box in your attic somewhere. Blow the dust off it.
That’s because the study promoting torture doesn’t exist, Lee.
And do you know why there aren’t any studies listing torture as a superior interrogation method? For exactly the same reason that there aren’t any studies espousing the wonders of phrenology.
I’ve never said I was pro-torture. My question is, now that the national dialogue is very torture centric, is any form of interrogation NOT considered torture.
Is isolation of a suspect while being questioned considered torture? Is telling the suspect that co-operation is the fastest way to get back to his family torture? Is keeping the suspect confused about where he is being held by bagging his head torture?
I’m not condoning using SERE level techniques against suspects is the right thing to do. I’m simply trying to inform people about how the transition may have taken place by explaining a little bit about the SERE culture.
I’m also asking what is left on the table when questioning a suspect. According to the Field Manual, ANY type of coercion is prohibited.
(GC, Art. 31) PROHIBITION OF COERCION: No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain inform ation from them or from third parties.
So basically, anything short of a great experience can be considered coercive and illegal by some, when they inperpret that order.
So, what do we do?
Is isolation of a suspect while being questioned considered torture? Is telling the suspect that co-operation is the fastest way to get back to his family torture? Is keeping the suspect confused about where he is being held by bagging his head torture?
Of course not. Where do you get this shit? Do you have to manufacture these ridiculous reduction ad absurdum situations because the reality is so blindingly obvious?
Answer this: if these Bush-era activities were considered torture before, then why aren’t they considered torture now? If isolating a suspect wasn’t considered torture before and isn’t considered torture now, why do you have to fall back on such an absurd idea to make your point?
This is as dumb as Jonah Goldberg pointing to “24” as proof of the validity of the ticking time bomb scenario.
The problem with Para’s argument is that it rationalizes certain behavior by saying that because we’re the good guys, our actions can’t by definition be worse than those of the bad guys. But what does that say about us?
We didn’t sink to the level of the Germans, Japanese or the Soviets for the simple fact that we knew it was our duty to the world to hold the moral high ground. The Bushbots have forgotten that national honor means actually living up to the things you say you’re fighting for, not just mouthing simplistic jingoism.
I guess I’ll be the one to ask the seemingly-naive question: If these SERE-style coercive interrogation methods don’t work (as Lee constantly harangues us that they do not); then why, oh why, do we have to train our soldiers to resist them?
Answer this: if these Bush-era activities were considered torture before, then why aren’t they considered torture now? If isolating a suspect wasn’t considered torture before and isn’t considered torture now, why do you have to fall back on such an absurd idea to make your point?
Those things are considered coercion, and have been used since.....well, forever. They are also SERE level techniques, and as we all have learned, SERE level techniques ( specifically in the article) are considered torture.
The sensitivity of the subject makes virtually any form of interrogation subject to being labeled as torture. In these days of making America look as bad as possible, this is another subject which can be twisted by those who benefit from our failures. Without an exact definition of “approved techniques” by the “anti-torture proponents”, any interrogation can be used as an excuse to bash the US and her military.
It doesn’t matter anyway. Regardless of how many times I agree with you on this, you’re going to argue that I am against whatever position it is you are taking. Go back and read my last several posts, and really read what I wrote, especially the parts where I said torture is illegal, immoral, and doesn’t work.
Then maybe you can explain why you are taking the position that I am defending Bush.
WVR wrote:
The problem with Para’s argument is that it rationalizes certain behavior by saying that because we’re the good guys, our actions can’t by definition be worse than those of the bad guys. But what does that say about us?
Where in ANYTHING I have ever written did I EVER say anything even remotely close to what your assesment of “my argument” is?
Did I ever say that “certain behavior” (torture) is correct? Did I ever say that the US standard should be lower than the rest of the world because we’re the “good guys”.
You people are projecting your arguments against me as if I was a pro-torture proponent. I guess those people are hard to come by and since you want to make a point about how wrong those people are, I’m the closest thing you can find.
Believe me, fellers, your vitriol is misguided, disrespectful, and just plain wrong.
I have posted numerous articles, interviews with professional interrogators, scholarly studies, and the like, all of which confirm that torture, even SERE-level stuff, is less likely to produce good, actionable intelligence than torture will.
I think you meant to say:
I have posted numerous articles, interviews with professional interrogators, scholarly studies, and the like, all of which confirm that torture, even SERE-level stuff, is less likely to produce good, actionable intelligence than interrogation will.
We even managed to win the Cold War.
Yeah, now I’m not so sure.
And do you know why there aren’t any studies listing torture as a superior interrogation method?
Because this sort of black ops type shit isn’t the kind of thing you discover in Reader’s Digest. How many journalists do you think they let in to observe this kind of thing, in any country? Don’t get me wrong, I’m ambivalent about the entire issue, and I’d like to see America have some sort of moral superiority (the international community hates that, too), but try not to mistake an apparent lack of information as evidence to the contrary.
is any form of interrogation NOT considered torture?
I think that’s a very good point. Many people will view anything other than a Q & A session while seated at a table with lawyers present to be “wrong”.
Para,
Thank you.
Everyone else....this is what I was saying in the last thread I was mulling about in. You don’t have to be pro-torture in this to be assailed here as a pain-loving hater of brown people, or an idiot.
My points were/are that Bush himself never directly ordered torture, that the COTUS is not overruled by Geneva, nor by any other treaty we have signed with another country, and that Geneva does not apply to the forces that we are facing.
When I said those things, I was immediately branded pro-torture. When I said that the terrorists that were captured were not dependable sources on the conditions inside their detention centers because of their training to claim humiliation and torture no matter if it happened or not, I was a Bush sycophant. When I said that people had been thrown into jail for torture, and that the US was prosecuting those responsible, I was naive.
I respectfully submit that throwing around insults is a hallmark of the modern-day Left. The trend towards putting these negative labels on those who disagree with points offered in this debate puts a damper on the American tradition of open and free debate.
This blog is better than that. It always has been.
When I said that the terrorists that were captured were not dependable sources on the conditions inside their detention centers because of their training to claim humiliation and torture no matter if it happened or not, I was a Bush sycophant.
You’re making the case for me. If there isn’t any torture or abuse or humiliation going on in those centers, why the cloak-and-dagger secrecy about them? Why shouldn’t Red Cross inspectors be able to go in an meet with the prisoners? It’s the secrecy.
We all know that these guys are going to claim torture and mistreatment. With that in mind, there are two avenues we can pursue.
1) We can provide them with the best treatment that can be afforded a prisoner. We can make the process as transparent as possible, and allow inspections of the facility by the Red Cross and similar groups, as well as the media. The challenge then falls on the prisoner to prove mistreatment.
2) We can wall the place up, keep everyone out, refuse to let the prisoners meet with counsel, refuse to let them meet with the Red Cross, and refuse to put them on trial. Then, on top of all this, we can actually mistreat them, thus giving credence to every claim of mistreatment that they will ever give, no matter how spectacular.
Now, of the two options outlined above, which one makes the most sense? And which one did we actually end up doing?
When I said that people had been thrown into jail for torture, and that the US was prosecuting those responsible, I was naive.
If you believe that those “responsible” for torture were or will be prosecuted, then yes, you are naive.
Lee, you don’t allow the prisoners any communication with the outside world. At all. You feed them and house them, and look at the pretty birds and give them a Koran and point them towards Mecca, but you don’t give them any avenue to contact anyone in the outside world.
The Red Cross is their portal to a sympathetic media. Like Hezbollah used the UN and Red Cross/Red Crescent teams that were sent in to aid civilian populations, al Qaeda terrorists are manipulators of the media. What are they going to tell the Red Cross? That they like the weather? That they are being fed so much that they are going home heavier than they were when they were captured? No....they are telling the Red Cross that they are being humiliated in the exact ways that would incite more adolescent and unemployed Muslim males to jihad. They are saying these things no matter their experience because they are playing for both sympathy and for those who oppose the President on the war.
Bin Ladin knew that the only thing that could lead us to lose the war is the loss of popular support. Hell, you can’t even give GWB or the Administration a half-ounce of credit when they DO stop a plot. Like the British Airways bombers, or the JFK plotters.
The leaders of the enemy we are facing know that we are a debating society. They also know that we have become, in the last two generations, an impatient, media-driven people. If they can dominate the soundbites with pictures of Americans dying, then they know they can win. Their victory will be our throwing in the towel in Iraq, like we did in Somalia.
I don’t know how else to explain this. The word is fortitude. We have to be able to take these losses, setbacks, and mistakes, and plow through them and win a dirty, long war. And what is most disappointing is that a lot of people have lost sight of this. This is something that isn’t going to end in 5 years....it might take 15 or 20 years. And there is no reason we can’t win...we just have to have the will to correct the mistakes, face down an enemy that wants to do anything to kill us all, and win this war.
One more thing.....can you say to me that the claims of a hyperbolic anti-American carry less weight in countries like France, Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia than the calm, reasoned tones of a US Army spokesman?
Well, they do. It is a culture that is full of it’s own shortcomings, and it is a political environment that lends itself to blame every one of these shortcomings on a common enemy.....that would be us. And that blame predates any Bush being in office.
Correction...the words of raving anti-Americans carry more weight. I thought correctly, and tyoed incorrectly.
Sorry.
No....they are telling the Red Cross that they are being humiliated in the exact ways that would incite more adolescent and unemployed Muslim males to jihad.
I hate to point out the obvious, John, but we fucking ARE humiliating prisoners in the exact ways that would incite more adolescent and unemployed males to jihad.
This is what I don’t get about you guys. You’re more disturbed by the media reporting accusations of this type of abuse than the incontrovertible fact that we’re actually engaging in it.
Hell, you can’t even give GWB or the Administration a half-ounce of credit when they DO stop a plot. Like the British Airways bombers, or the JFK plotters.
I do give them credit. The problem is that, for every Keystone Kops terror plot they manage to foil they have, by their own actions, created thousands and thousands of terrorists for the reasons you yourself outlined in your previous comment.
I don’t know how else to explain this. The word is fortitude. We have to be able to take these losses, setbacks, and mistakes, and plow through them and win a dirty, long war. And what is most disappointing is that a lot of people have lost sight of this.
You’re right, John. This is going to be a long, protracted, dirty war. And in a situation like that, the only thing you can fall back on are your morals, your honor, and your dignity. All too many people are willing to piss that away so that we can torture terrorists, despite the fact that these techniques are proven to produce inferior information.
My point is not about torture. My point is that, to the jihadists that are down in Guantanamo, it doesn’t matter how we treat them. They are going to claim it anyways. Does it mean that we should torture? Nope.
And, I gotta ask, who are “you guys”?
Next entry: Wayback to Answers
Previous entry: Back in the USSR
Server Drive
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 4386
Total Logged in members: 1
Total guests: 64
Total anonymous users: 0
Loud,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
I got an idea!
(18 total, Last @ 09:08)
Seattle Outcast: Seriously, this guy is doctor? How?
I got an idea!
(18 total, Last @ 08:32)
Mississippi Yankee: Puppie sent me this charming little email. Fuck you asshole. You can suck your own balls jerkoff. David Gius, M.D., Ph.D. Associate Program Director NIH Oxford/Cambridge Scholars Program Trans-NIH MD/PhD Partnership Program Chief, Molecular Radiation Oncology Section Radiation Oncology Branch Center for Cancer Research National Cancer Institute National Institute of…
The Return of Fantasyland
(14 total, Last @ 08:05)
Mississippi Yankee: Hal, where are these hospitals that deny pain medication to terminally ill patients? Is dog their doctor?
I got an idea!
(18 total, Last @ 07:56)
Mississippi Yankee: Puppie, Under the rules of the Constitution after an "up or down" vote results in a 50-50 tie it is the JOB of the President of the Senate to cast the deciding vote. Another point: laws are voted on in the House by a majority not a And it didnt…
The Return of Fantasyland
(14 total, Last @ 07:48)
Hal_10000: Alex, what I'm saying is this. When people get to the end of life, they have two choices. They can sit in a hospital, in pain and misery, fighting it out to the last full measure at great expense. Or the can be at home, with some pain killers and…
Last 30 Comments
Lee,
Don’t you fucking mis-characterize what I am saying here.
I’m simply trying to provide some insight on how these techniques were carried from our training to the battlefield, by somebody who was there. Everyone wonders how we went from being the “good” America you describe, to the terrible America you say we are now.
I simply tried to relay the impressions that the training left on me when I was just a regular soldier. The word torture was never used in or training. The phrase “break your spirit” was the word that was used. It was our goal to demoralize the students into a feeling of hopelesness until they sang, and then, they were rewarded. That’s the part of the technique nobody ever talks about.
That’s because the study promoting torture doesn’t exist, Lee. I’ve never said it did. I only have my own real life experiences to reference.
My only purpose for posting was to give the reference of a troops involved with SERE school. I thought it might shed some light on how things got to be the way they are today.
As usual, you characterize me as a stupid pro-torture blind patriot.
All I’m asking is ( again for the third or forth time) is a definition of what is considered torture, as now, I have just found out that what I did to our own troops is considered torture.
What do YOU: LEE, think would be the proper technique in addressing a suspect to get information other than just asking?
Do you think you can answer that without sticking a fork in my in the process?