# Pentagon squelches release of Iraq torture videos - what's the excuse? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 26, 2005, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-squelches-release-of-iraq-torture-videos-whats-the-excuse/314285 "2005-07-26T19:59:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-squelches-release-of-iraq-torture-videos-whats-the-excuse/314285/101 "2005-08-01T14:54:29Z")
Eolbo beat me by six hours and said it so much better. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-squelches-release-of-iraq-torture-videos-whats-the-excuse/314285/102 "2005-08-01T17:18:36Z")
> [@Eolbo](#): > > No, no, no, that’s absolutely not what the GC provides and no military anywhere would ever have agreed to that. Soldier’s cant be _coerced_ to give more then that, and soldier’s codes of conduct stress that if captured they should give nothing more. But prisoners can be, and are, _asked_ whatever interrogators want to know. Interrogators in WW2 had no problem deriving information without resorting to torture. They intimidated the weakwilled, befriended the frightened, exploited the stupid, and manipulated the proud into revealing what they wanted to know. There’s an extract from a WW2 intelligence bulletin on the methods [here](http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/pw_inter/). > > And lets not forget that as wars go, WW2 was the big one, and if ever torture was ‘needed’ then it was then when what was at stake was actually important. Over a million people were being killed every month for the last two years of WW2. Yet torture was uncommon, but it wasn’t moral scruples that largely prevented it. It just wasn’t needed and was regarded as primitive, unprofessional and often counter-productive. Firstly, the section of the GC I’m referring to was adopted after WWII, so I don’t think WWII references are applicable. See the quote below-- was it already in the GC and just carried over into the 1949 document? You are correct and I shouldn’t have said we can’t “ask” prisoners anything, but there is a fine line between asking a suspect something and coercing them into telling you. Is offering them some sort of amnesty or reduced sentence coercion? And what constitutes “unpleasant” or “disadvantageous treatment”? Here’s the section I’m referring to, from [Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War Adopted on 12 August 1949…](http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) > [@](#): > > 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. I’ll admit that I’m just reading the text (I’m one of those textualists, afterall :)), and perhaps there is an understanding beyond the text that tempers it somewhat, making it seem less restrictive. If so, give me a cite and we can work from there. Also, I am in no way advocating physical torture. I neve have. But I want these guys subject to rigorous interrogation, that might very well include “threatening” or “disadvantageous treatment”. ---
**Author:** ![Eolbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@Eolbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eolbo)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-squelches-release-of-iraq-torture-videos-whats-the-excuse/314285/103 "2005-08-02T09:20:14Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Firstly, the section of the GC I’m referring to was adopted after WWII, so I don’t think WWII references are applicable. See the quote below-- was it already in the GC and just carried over into the 1949 document? John, the WW2 reference is directly applicable and the reason the “name, rank, and serial number” meme is so well known is due to WW2. When it comes to the question of interrogating prisoners there is no substantive difference between the 1929 convention which covered WW2 and the 1949 revision. There are of course differences in other areas. For reference this is the relevant extract from the 1929 convention to which all the major powers (including the US) were signatories: [“No coercion may be used on prisoners to secure information to the condition of their army or country. Prisoners who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind whatever.”](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva02.htm) Different phrasing from 1949 but the essential meaning is the same. So my question is why this basic “right to silence” that all the combatants enjoyed during WW2 was acceptable to the armies when the stakes were absolutely enormous and entire societies and even the very existence of some ethnic groups depended on the outcome? And yet not apparently today when the stakes are utterly and ridiculously trivial in comparison? Your entire casualties in the entire Iraq war are less then an average day’s casualties in mid 1944 for instance. Night after night the cities of Britain were bombed into rubble and yet the British in the face of the mass death and suffering that this was bringing didnt respond by taking blowtorches to the gonads of captured Luftwaffe members? Why not? The very same British had decided to spray mustard gas on the beachheads in the event of a german invasion, and were deliberately bombing German civilians. They were playing for keeps so it’s not like they were hindered by moral scruples or political correctness. > [@John Mace](#): > > I’ll admit that I’m just reading the text (I’m one of those textualists, afterall :)), and perhaps there is an understanding beyond the text that tempers it somewhat, making it seem less restrictive. If so, give me a cite and we can work from there. I have already given you a cite, [here](http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/pw_inter/). Professional miltary interrogators of the period relied upon intelligence and human psychology. Captivity is a frightening and disorienting experience and soldiers often enter it after demoralising defeats and the death of friends. Many human beings react to this by trying to ingratiate themselves with the enemy, many others can be tricked, goaded, and manipulated into revealing information. It’s no different really to suspects being questioned in your legal system. They may have the right to remain silent, yet police often do get them talking. This is a lengthy British interrogation report on the information provided on German U-Boat operations by [German prisoners](http://www.ubootwaffe.net/research/reports.cgi?a=1;p=2). Note that these men were not tortured, and legally they were all entitled to remain silent. But talk they did. Here is another cite detailing the experiences of an American interrogation officer in [1944-1945](http://www.brookdale.cc.nj.us/fac/tlt/ww2/memoir_details.php?id=48) > [@John Mace](#): > > Also, I am in no way advocating physical torture. No. The impression I get though is that you have bought into the bullshit that only by roughing up prisoners a little can they ever be induced to talk. > [@John Mace](#): > > I neve have. But I want these guys subject to rigorous interrogation, that might very well include “threatening” or “disadvantageous treatment”. Would you be content with them being subjected to effective interrogation? Bear in mind that the desire to get tough on prisoners is coming from politicians, and not from the professional military. As has been seen the military were quite resistant to the notion, they doubted its necessity and legality and worried about the implications this has in future for American prisoners. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-squelches-release-of-iraq-torture-videos-whats-the-excuse/314285/104 "2005-08-02T16:42:52Z")
> [@Eolbo](#): > > The impression I get though is that you have bought into the bullshit that only by roughing up prisoners a little can they ever be induced to talk. > > Would you be content with them being subjected to effective interrogation? I want our guys to be able to interrogate the “enemy combatants” in exactly the same manner that federal agents can interrogate criminals in the US-- that does not involve “roughing up prisoners”, but it does, AFAIK, involve some things that wouild make the prisoner feel: “threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.” The only exception to that analogy is that I would not necessarily agree that a lawyer needs to be present during the interrogation. The “enemy combatants” should have access to legal counsel, and it might be necessary for a neutral observer\* to be present to ensure no abuses occur during interrogation, but I’m unconvinced that a lawyer needs to be present. \*someone who can see and hear the entire process, but who does not particpate in any way. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-squelches-release-of-iraq-torture-videos-whats-the-excuse/314285.md?page=5)