A Turning Point in America’s Exportation of Torture
To my knowledge, this is the first reference to “American-style torture” by the foreign press in relation to new practices we’re actively pushing on other governments. In this case, Thailand.
Still, some observers argue that the US has already left its mark on the conflict, which pits predominantly Buddhist Thai security forces against ethnic Malay Muslim insurgents. Rights advocates monitoring southern Thailand’s conflict note a striking similarity between the torture techniques US agents are known to have used against terror suspects held in both Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba with those now in practice by Thai security forces against suspected Thai Muslim militants.
According to testimonies of former Thai Muslim detainees recorded by US-based rights advocacy group Human Rights Watch, Thai security officials have recently used torture techniques ranging from sleep deprivation, forced nudity, exposure to extreme temperatures and even the threat to release German Shepherd guard dogs on detainees during interrogations. One Thai Muslim detainee was recently nearly killed after he was left naked in a meat cooler for over 24 hours at a military camp in Pattani province, according to one rights group.
These controversial and often illegal practices are largely being overseen by Thailand’s Supreme Command’s National Security Center, which is known to have close links with US military officials, according to people familiar with the situation. Despite the public exposure, Thailand’s security forces continue to act with impunity while the torture techniques they’re known to have used in the recent past continue today
Read the whole article, which is eye-popping, and prepare to be a bit ill.
Shining city on a hill we no longer are.
Are you/they suggesting that those techniques are somehow new and that America invented them?
Comment by James — 1/25/2008 @ 5:04 pm
No, as people have pointed out, the Spanish Inquisition used them, for example. The US called waterboarding torture when the Japanese did it during World War II.
Which aren’t things you hear Bush bring up in argument very often.
Comment by Adam — 1/25/2008 @ 7:09 pm
And you think that we didn’t do it during WWII?
Comment by James — 1/25/2008 @ 7:34 pm
Mind you, I am not defending torture, just trying to keep it real.
Comment by James — 1/25/2008 @ 7:35 pm
We also interred tens of thousands of Japanese people in WWII.
And whatever torture did go on was of a decidedly “extra-legal” kind. Do soldiers in war zones or “black ops” types torture high value captives here and there? I’m sure they do.
That’s a far cry from making it a matter of policy for the largest military detention system in the world, however.
The difference between “it happens sometimes” to “we want it to happen regularly and are prepared to legalize it” is pretty huge. I’m not sure why you’re so married to the “keepin’ it real” position, or why that’s even salient.
Comment by Brad — 1/25/2008 @ 7:47 pm
Brad, in principle you are right, but you have to be a real Pollyanna if you think that a government that gave immunity to Unit 731 researcher and paid for their data wouldn’t have made the torture techniques that you wring your hands over “a matter of policy”. The only difference was the people and the press were as unsophisticated then as they were uninterested.
One can be aghast when they learn about such things, and rightly so, but it is only because you now know about them. They were always there before you did. Not an excuse, just a fact.
Comment by James — 1/25/2008 @ 8:05 pm
I don’t quite understand why you consistently think that people who decry torture and its de facto or explicit legalization are unaware of or not privy to the same facts you are.
I also don’t understand how those facts change or mitigate anything.
Do you think Unit 731 is the end of it? Do you think there weren’t barbaric practices in the Civil War? The Revolutionary War? The Trojan War?
However, as a civil society, one of the most basic foundations of our entire system of morality is the necessity of adhering to a basic system of human decency; torture being strictly and adamantly illegal is as fundamental and integral to that as the lack of death squads or the protections from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. One simply cannot live in a moral liberal society where those practices are condoned or, worse yet, enthusiastically endorsed and protected. For a whole host of reasons, but most simply, to shield ourselves from the incredibly corrosive influence such a situation has on us, our humanity, our standing in the world. Now, does that mean that we have not, in the past, arbitrarily arrested or imprisoned people, or rounded up civilians and shot them, or tortured people? No, of course not. However, there is a difference between what individuals engage in, or even small pockets of them, and what our society as a whole engages in. Were this a case of a few bad eggs or even a rouge extra-legal agency/platoon/company/unit engaging in the practice, and being swiftly condemned and prosecuted for it, you’d have a perfectly reasonable point. My response would mirror yours. “Shit happens.”
But that is not the situation we find ourselves in.
The situation we find ourselves in is in every theater, in every branch, the United States of America has made it a matter of policy to torture people, to export that practice to all our sites and even to our allies (as in the case of this article). It is not, strictly speaking, legal yet, but it has become not illegal either given the ascending interpretations of the laws and the constant parrying/parsing.
It is the difference between, say, the My Lai massacre in South Vietnam happening as it did, versus the United States government sending briefings to all units in Vietnam to conduct themselves similarly, working vigorously to create a framework in which My Lai and all future variants were acceptable operating procedure, and then telling the American public and the international community that if they didn’t agree with it, they were pussies.
This is not a subtle distinction.
Comment by Brad — 1/25/2008 @ 9:54 pm
Nor is it new; and nor will it stop, regardless of who sits at the helm of government. Sorry, but as loathsome as that truth is, it is the truth. If you want to eat a hotdog, it is best not to watch one being made.
Comment by James — 1/26/2008 @ 2:45 pm
Fuck it then. Might as well legalize it and put out the word to all our military personnel.
Comment by Brad — 1/26/2008 @ 5:49 pm
Not at all. But just keep in mind that making something illegal whether it be drugs, guns, or torture merely pushes those things into the shadows. The do not really go away.
Listen, I totally agree with your position, Brad, please understand that. I guess the cynic in me forces me to look at the way things are rather than the way they should be.
YES, we should take a stand against torture and like atrocities, if nothing else to feel better about ourselves. Just don’t think for a moment that resolving to deplore something will ever make it go away. It will only make it harder to see.
Locks only keep honest people out.
Comment by James — 1/26/2008 @ 6:27 pm
The idea of ’stopping torture’ isn’t really what’s in question. The amount of it that goes on, and under what circumstances, is the real issue.
Comment by Adam — 1/26/2008 @ 6:45 pm
The latter you can change (i.e. its visibility), the former you will not. Sad, but true.
Comment by James — 1/26/2008 @ 6:48 pm
You could say the same for anything. Murder, kidnapping, rape, chopping off appendages, cannibalism, etc.
Your point isn’t missed, it’s just not relevant.
Comment by Brad — 1/26/2008 @ 6:57 pm
Ok. Once this torture thing is are sorted out you should sleep well.
Comment by James — 1/26/2008 @ 9:46 pm
You want to feel good, Brad. It is understandable and noble. The world is a better place when you feel good about it.
Comment by James — 1/26/2008 @ 9:47 pm
You can excuse every aspect of human behaviour by saying “it’s always happened”. Of course, if you use that in an argument about whether that behaviour ought to be illegal, you are basically saying that there should be no laws. Child sex abuse? Always happened. Should it be unambiguously illegal? If so, why not torture? Hey, what if the government used child sex abuse as torture? Would that be OK?
Comment by Adam — 1/26/2008 @ 10:13 pm
Do what makes you feel better.
Comment by James — 1/27/2008 @ 3:03 am
Now that would appear to be a recipe for all sorts of crime. Are an Aleister Crowley devotee?
Comment by Adam — 1/27/2008 @ 7:20 am
But seriously, you think there’s nothing that will make any difference to the amount of torture? That seems to me to be an odd point of view.
Comment by Adam — 1/27/2008 @ 7:32 am
The only thing that will affect the amount of torture that “we” might do would be near draconian punishment for those found to have been involved. While outlawing and openly disapproving it is of course the right thing to do, I highly question what affect it will have on those who do not operate in the light of day. I know it is a cynical view, Adam, I admit that. I do believe it is not an unrealistic one though. Certainly this nonsense about being ambiguous as to what constitutes torture doesn’t help things one bit.
Comment by James — 1/27/2008 @ 1:47 pm
I don’t think that’s true at all. Sure, there are some people who for reasons of being psycho or under great stress will commit torture. There are, however, a lot more that may end up doing it if the message that they are not to is insufficiently strong — that’s true of just about all behaviour, particularly where there may be emotional satisfaction involved — and that’s the responsibility, ultimately, of the administration and the Congress, who between them have the power to set the strength of that message.
None of that is based on idealism, incidentally; it’s based on my cynicism about human weaknesses and emotional frailties.
Comment by Adam — 1/27/2008 @ 3:04 pm
I think you are more optimistic than I am, but I certainly have no problem with at least trying to take the high road. Whether it genuinely does more than sooth the consciences of good people is debatable, but it is nevertheless far better than any other alternative. On that I think we can all agree.
Comment by James — 1/27/2008 @ 3:17 pm
All I think is that individuals in the CIA, if they fear potential indictment for torture, will use torture less.
Comment by Adam — 1/27/2008 @ 3:51 pm
I would expect that torture would be similar to illegal search/seizure in this regard. Though perhaps that is not a useful comparison?
Comment by Redland Jack — 1/27/2008 @ 4:06 pm
I would also favour the courts taking a really dim view of evidence presented in court that was obtained from outside conventional channels.
Comment by Adam — 1/27/2008 @ 7:56 pm