05-29-2009, 01:35 AM
Quote:I do believe that humiliation is a part of the "enhanced interrogation" regime, although there is a boundary that is not crossed when it is done "professionally".
Ah! Good. Perhaps we can have a discussion (with Pete --j/k Pete ;)) on when sexual humiliation techniques (ok, I know you only referred to "humiliation" in your comment, but I was referring specifically to "sexual humiliation" at Guantanamo) cross that tricky gray area from "professional" to "unacceptable." Bare breasts, well that sounds ok. Menstrual blood smearing: probably not, unless done by a CIA officer with proper written permission. Sodomizing prisoners: sounds bad, but perhaps it's not torture if it's only done a few times? Building pyramids of naked prisoners: definitely verboten, especially if you take photos.
Quote:But, you are correct in that under the Bush administration, the boundaries (both geographic and moral) were unclear, and probably left unclear intentionally which communicated the wrong message to the ranks of would be interrogators.
Actually, I'd say the problem with the Bush administration wasn't a lack of clarity. They were very clear that interrogation techniques could be pushed very far out from previously accepted boundaries, far past point where they included torture, and that any "enemy combatant" picked up in the "war on terror" was essentially without rights. They gave the interrogatorial ranks exactly the idea they intended to communicate, and were qwuite clear that killing prisoners was not allowed (that being a bit of a dead giveaway). But you can hardly blame a few of the less swift members among the lower ranks for failing to realize that rape was not an allowed option either.