First I want to explain in greater detail why the PUCs are not victims of torture (which is my main beef). Then I will get into the numpties who screwed the pooch so thoroughly. My main point is the premise that abuse, or stress isn't torture.
The UN Convention Against Torture:
torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
(Bold and italics mine.)
The Geneva Conventions have been brought up several times, by people who apparently don't have a firm grasp on them, or The Hague Conventions, or the Law Of Armed Conflict in general. The insurgents do
not have any protections under the 3rd Geneva Convention. They are
not PWs. PW is an exact, legally defined (by the 3rd Geneva Convention) term. The insurgents do
not meet the requirements, in that they do not display a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance, in their conduct toward their captives (torture, execution and mutilation), as well as their targeting of random civilians. They are thus
not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.
Art 4 covers all conflicts not covered by Art 3 which are all conflicts of an international character. It defines who is a prisoner of war and, therefore, a protected person under GCIII. Those entitled to prisoner of war status include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfil the following conditions: that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (although this is not required under Protocol I); that of carrying arms openly; that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy
Bottom line: They are not PWs, or civilian criminals. They are unlawful combatants. (The fact that we accord them the fair treatment we do is testimony to the quality of personnel to be found in the Armies of the West. Wherever possible, they are treated as PWs because it is the right thing to do.) The bad guys we round up, in Afghanistan, don't go to Gitmo unless they are confirmed bad guys. Every one of them is tried by Military Tribunal (which is more than we are obligated to do). Those who are innocent are repatriated.
As for the troops in Abu Ghraib: Let me say first, that despite what the tinfoil hat-wearing crowd say, the US military does not teach "torture techniques". US military training stresses ethics, supports the Geneva Convention, and teaches the Laws of Land Warfare, just as we do. The only differences are in the terms used and the accents spoken. I am not saying that abuse never happens, but when it does it is investigated and dealt with. And, I would venture to say, in a more fair and just manner than has been done here. The individuals are punished, along with their applicable Chain of Command, not the entire unit. And certainly not the entire military for a decade and a half. Let's keep in mind that a soldier in the command first reported the abuse at Abu Ghraib. Let's also remember that CENTCOM wrapped up the initial investigation just prior to the story being brought to the public's attention. From my vantage point, I see reports of abuse and torture being immediately dealt with by investigation and courts martial if required.
I don't support torture. I don't support what happened at Abu Ghraib. I don't support it on moral grounds, and I don't support it because it is
tactically unsound. What happened at Abu Ghraib and other locations clearly shows lack of proper supervision and knowledge. However, being naked with panties stuck on your head is not torture, that's a drunken Shack Party. There is a bizarre school of thought in the US military, at the lower levels, that since the Middle Eastern nations subscribe to patriarchy, and the more Fundamentalist the individual, the more patriarchal and misogynistic, then humiliation by a female will weaken their will to resist. The school of thought further goes on to say that since the 'Arab culture' (for lack of a better word at the moment) is so firmly based on the concept of honour, both personal and familial, that humiliation in public will cause them to lose prestige and erode their will to fight. This not only flies in the face of basic psychology, it defies simple common sense. By humiliating a prisoner in this manner, it simply strengthens his will to resist. By humiliating someone in public in this manner, it turns what may have been a mildly annoyed xenophobe into a die-hard insurgent. But, the concept is still there, and is taking time to weed out.
If any of the individuals (from Journo-jackals, to student activists, to celebrity experts on all things) who felt moved to comment on the 'torture' took the time to read into this subject they would realize two
blatantly obvious facts:
1) All the cases investigated at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo turned up more false accusations than real and those that actually involved misconduct were prosecuted.
2) The second fact is that anyone who bothered to take the time to compare the conditions at any PUC/PW/detainee facility to what our own troops faced in Japanese PW camps, Korea, or any of the thousands of prisons in the Middle East, South-East Asia, South America, or Africa would plainly see that there is a large difference between isolated instances of "abuse" and systemic, state condoned torture. A quick comparison between Abu Ghraib and Saddam's play pens serve to illustrate quite well, I think. I believe that there is a big difference between being put in an uncomfortable or embarrassing position, and being literally beaten so bad that you can't see, or having your entrails pulled from your body, or electrocuted to death over a period of days. Perhaps I am mistaken.
I am very curious, though, as to why there is such an enormous stink made about PUCs we hand over to the US and are then sent to Gitmo, but none is made about those we hand over to the Afghani Authorities and are stuck in Pol-I-Charki. I've been there, and I'd much rather be handed over to the Americans. Perhaps it's because those simple, brown-skinned people aren't expected to have the intellect to treat their prisoners fairly? Or is it just another opportunity to bash the US and provide support to our enemies?
As has been defined, legally, the stressful interrogation methods employed by authorized Army Personnel are manifestly not "torture". So, if a method is used in a SERE school, on an Infantry course, or Exercise it is a teaching technique, but if it is used in the real world it is torture? There is Frat House Hazing that is worse than was seen in Abu Ghraib. What happens with properly trained interrogators is simply 'induced Stockholm syndrome' (I just made that up. Sounds pretty cool, huh?) The methods employed cause the PUC to
want to assist their interrogator, and are easily shaken off in time. They are not permanent, and do not cause undue pain or mental anguish. The interrogated receive constant medical supervision and care. (I will not go into further detail, do not ask.)
Let's also keep in mind that if the insurgents capture ANY Soldier, Sailor, or Airman, it's an automatic death sentence. Not by a bullet, but by slowly sawing through your neck until you're beheaded. If you're a woman (or a man in many cases) you'll be raped FIRST, and then beheaded. The insurgents will film this entire session and make sure the world sees your death. And before the beheading, let's not forget the real torture lasting for days. They don't want information, they want to see you suffer because of the power and thrill it gives them.
As the final piece de resistance, they'll convince you after the rape and torture that if you'll give a statement denouncing your country, they'll turn you over to the Red Cross. Just as you finish your statement, out comes the knife and you spend the last 30 seconds of your life feeling that blade ratchet back and forth across your tendons, muscles, trachea, and other parts. That last thing they cut through is your spine, so you can feel yourself drown in your own blood; even as you pass out.
When you go to bed tonight, try to keep that image in your mind. What will be your last thoughts? Will you have enough strength to focus on your family? Your God? Your nation? Or will you be thinking about that knife, how much its hurts, and what did you do wrong that they reneged on their 'promise'? Will you beg for your life as it flows out and soaks the floor?
Compare and contrast that to the naked dog pile in Abu Ghraib. Which is torture?
As for the cameras, the answer there is quite simple: they're morons. In order to behave in the manner they did in the first place, they had to be lacking in intellect. Only an idiot would think that treating someone in that manner would possibly have positive results. Only an idiot would want to have photographic evidence of themselves behaving like idiots.