Has any other country ever done this in a war?

And if so, what were the results?

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060614/ap_ … rrogation;
_ylt=AnUmU68aXytobtQxyekHJVus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ–

Pentagon won’t hide interrogation tactics

By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer
53 minutes ago

Under pressure from Congress, the Pentagon has dropped plans to keep some interrogation techniques secret by putting them in a classified section of a military manual, defense officials said Tuesday.

Two senior officials said there will not be a classified section in the long-awaited revision of the Army Field Manual. One of the officials said descriptions of interrogation techniques initially planned for the classified section are either being made public or are being eliminated as tactics that can be used against prisoners. The officials requested anonymity because the manual has not been completed.

One human rights group hailed the decision.

“I think this is huge,” said Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First. “It’s a very significant step toward creating the kind of clarity in the rules that military personnel have said that they lack and that led to a lot of the abuses.”

Military leaders have argued that disclosing all the interrogation techniques public would make it easier for enemy prisoners to resist questioning.

The military’s treatment of detainees has been under increased scrutiny since the Abu Ghraib prisoner scandal in Iraq became known two years ago. Photographs that surfaced at the time showed U.S. troops beating, intimidating and sexually abusing prisoners.

Human rights groups have also called for the Bush administration to close the detention center at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where three detainees committed suicide late last week.

Defense Department officials have been at odds over whether details of some interrogation procedures should remain secret and published in a classified section.

But last month, several members of Congress privately cautioned the Pentagon against doing that. The standoff has contributed to the long delay in releasing the manual, which has been in the works for more than a year.

Congress members argued that including a secret section — that would detail what interrogators can and can’t do to prisoners — could fuel concerns both at home and abroad that the U.S. military was hiding torture techniques that violate the law or rules governing detainee treatment.

As originally planned, the classified section would have included details such as how long prisoners can be forced to sit or stand in certain positions or how hot or cold their holding areas can be kept. The defense officials did not say which interrogation techniques would be included in the manual.

Opponents said greater transparency would dispel suspicions that the military was trying to exploit legal loopholes.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said for the first time last month that officials were at odds over whether the manual should endorse different interrogation techniques for enemy insurgents than are allowed for regular prisoners of war.

There are concerns such a distinction could violate a law enacted last year that explicitly banned cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners by U.S. troops.

Massimino, of Human Rights First, said that the new law, pressed by Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., would ensure that any interrogation technique not included in the manual would be considered illegal. She said it also would help clear up any confusion troops may have had over what tactics are allowed.

Ummmm, so basically, they are publishing all of their interrogation tactics so the people they might be using it on can know exactly what they’re in for, use it as a training manual and learn how to combat it?

What the hell kind of way to fight a war is that?

I don’t think the Bush administration was hiding its interrogation tactics from the people it is interrogating. It’s hiding them from the people who made them against the law.

It’s the NIIIIICE way tre.

Because the US is held to higher standards.

Can we bring back the neutron bomb please?

That was then. This is now:

"Positive views of the United States have declined sharply in Spain (from 41 percent to 23 percent), India (71 percent to 56 percent), and Turkey (23 percent to 12 percent). Even in Indonesia, where U.S. tsunami aid helped lift America’s image in 2005, favorable opinions of the U.S. have fallen (from 38 percent to 30 percent).

Support for the U.S.-led war on terror, with few exceptions, is either flat or has declined; confidence in President Bush has fallen ever lower in Europe; and majorities in most countries believe that the U.S. will not achieve its objectives in Iraq. . . .

Majorities in 10 of 14 foreign countries surveyed say the war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place. In Great Britain, 60 percent say the war has made the world more dangerous, compared with 30 percent who say it has made the world safer. "

– Pew Global Attitudes Survey 2006: Findings on U.S. Image . . . , June 11, 2006

That was then. This is now:

"Positive views of the United States have declined sharply in Spain (from 41 percent to 23 percent), India (71 percent to 56 percent), and Turkey (23 percent to 12 percent). Even in Indonesia, where U.S. tsunami aid helped lift America’s image in 2005, favorable opinions of the U.S. have fallen (from 38 percent to 30 percent).

Support for the U.S.-led war on terror, with few exceptions, is either flat or has declined; confidence in President Bush has fallen ever lower in Europe; and majorities in most countries believe that the U.S. will not achieve its objectives in Iraq. . . .

Majorities in 10 of 14 foreign countries surveyed say the war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place. In Great Britain, 60 percent say the war has made the world more dangerous, compared with 30 percent who say it has made the world safer. "

– Pew Global Attitudes Survey 2006: Findings on U.S. Image . . . , June 11, 2006[/quote]

It’s because of the higher standards the world holds the U.S. to that opinions have changed. I doubt the world opinion of say, Libya, has changed much in recent years.

I’m with ya, JD. :wink:

[quote=“jdsmith”]
It’s the NIIIIICE way tre.

Because the US is held to higher standards.

Can we bring back the neutron bomb please?[/quote]

So JD, do you believe that nothing should be out of bounds when it comes to a war? Do whatever it takes to win? If killing innocent civilians helps to win the war then so be it?

I’m just wondering because you have written this a number of times and just wanted to confirm what your actual viewpoint is.

[quote=“Gilgamesh”][quote=“jdsmith”]
It’s the NIIIIICE way tre.

Because the US is held to higher standards.

Can we bring back the neutron bomb please?[/quote]

So JD, do you believe that nothing should be out of bounds when it comes to a war? Do whatever it takes to win? If killing innocent civilians helps to win the war then so be it?

I’m just wondering because you have written this a number of times and just wanted to confirm what your actual viewpoint is.[/quote]

Name me a war where no civilians were killed.

Do I think nothing should be out of bounds? No. However, separating noncombatants from combatants is very difficult when dealing with an insurgency which blends very well into the local population. Mistakes will be made. When they are, they should be rectified. When murder is committed, those guilty should be prosecuted under military law. That’s what it’s there for.

I don’t know of ANY US strategy of “killing civilians to win the war.”

If you want to mourn Zarkawi’s infant son and wife, go ahead.

If you don’t want to take a position that puts the needs and rights of the many over the needs and rights of the one, go ahead.

I won’t.

Do you think the Japanese still mourn those killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima? It’s a beautiful, rich country now. I have my doubts.

Sacrifice hurts. So, yes, some wars are good. Is that the question you were really asking?

peace
jds

Sometimes I wonder how neoconservatives really feel about the deaths of those 3,000 people who were killed on 9/11.

I feel pretty pissed off spook. A deliberate malicious attack on civilians. Should we have bombed Mecca?

What do you think about it?

But then again, I don’t consider myself a neocon.

[quote=“jdsmith”]
Do you think the Japanese still mourn those killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima? It’s a beautiful, rich country now. I have my doubts.

jds[/quote]

Sure they do, it helps alleviate the guilt they feel about the fact that they did more medical experiments than the Nazis, such as, but not limited to, performing autopsies on American POW’s while they were still alive.
And stuff like this:
In the Pacific Theater, some of the harshest treatment of POWs were dealt by the Japanese. Prisoners held by Japanese armed forces were subject to brutal treatment, including forced labour, medical experimentation, vivisection, starvation rations, beatings for escape attempts, and were denied medical treatment. Whereas Allied POWs had a death rate of about 2% to 4% in German POW camps, which was usually attributed to natural causes, the death rate in Japanese camps was generally in the range of 20% to 35%{[fact}}.
source: wikipedia.

Japan is such an honorable country.

Anyway, do you think they’re thankful that MacArthur ran their country for two years during the Allied occupation? After all, if the allied forces had just pulled out or conceded defeat, they could have all the pride and economic prosperity that the Vietmanese enjoy today. (I’ve got nothing against Vietnamese soldiers - that tunnel network was truly amazing)

I wonder, if you gave Iraqis the choice, if they would rather have their country turn out like Vietnam or Japan? I wonder what’s best for the rest of the world.

I don’t know, really.

[quote]I wonder, if you gave Iraqis the choice, if they would rather have their country turn out like Vietnam or Japan? I wonder what’s best for the rest of the world.

I don’t know, really.[/quote]

CNN should ask the Iraqis this very question.

Considering the arsenal at America’s disposal, and the death and destruction it could have brought upon the Mulsim world, I would say America’s response to 9/11 is pretty tame.

Considering the arsenal at America’s disposal, and the death and destruction it could have brought upon the Mulsim world, I would say America’s response to 9/11 is pretty tame.[/quote]

:bravo:

JDSmith wrote:

That’s not my point. Your post seems to call for not taking the potential or actual civilian casualties into account if that’s what it takes to win the war. It seems to say, particularly the neutron bomb bit, that civilian casualties don’t matter as long as one wins. I’m just asking if this is what you truly believe

JDSmith wrote:

[quote]If you don’t want to take a position that puts the needs and rights of the many over the needs and rights of the one, go ahead.

I won’t.[/quote]

I’m not sure about what you mean by this one. Do you think one should put the needs of the many over the needs of the few? If you had to choose between 1000 innocent iraqi civilians (the many) vs. 200 U.S. soldiers (the few), does that mean that one should choose the 1000 civilians.

JDSmith wrote"

No it’s not what I am asking. It just seems that some of your posts call for a war where one is not concerned about loss of civilian life and that one should do whatever it takes to win even if that results in massive civilian casualties. I am quite aware that wars have a civilian cost but should one try to limit that cost. I’m just trying to get a clear view of what you mean by “Bring back the neutron bomb”

Well, gosh, if I’d known I wouldn’t have thought so much. lol

That, my friend, was a joke. :laughing:

Well, gosh, if I’d known I wouldn’t have thought so much. lol

That, my friend, was a joke. :laughing:[/quote]

Sorry :blush: Missed that one.

I’ll go back to lurking now.

[quote=“trebuchet”]What the hell kind of way to fight a war is that?[/quote]Trebuchet -
The wrong way. Unless you are the enemy.