.. and when did she know it? Amnesty Norway claims that "it would be very surprising" if Norwegian soldiers in Iraq were unaware of American and British prisoner abuse, and based on this non-accusation accusation Aftenposten demands that Defense Minister Kristin Krohn Devold comes clean on what Norwegian forces knew about "this abuse", when they knew it, etc. Christ. This game is getting tiresome.

This a very serious claim, and we have so far seen no documentation for it. But the charge from a secretary general of a serious and important organization demands that Defense Minister Kristin Krohn Devold makes clear whether Norwegian soldiers and officers knew of this abuse. Has there been made any reports to the political or military defense leadership about abuse in Iraq - or Afghanistan? Are there Norwegian soldiers and officers among the sources for the Red Cross reports? Have the US oriented Norway about Norwegians who have contributed to the investigation of the controversial prisoner treatment? We expect that the minister both can and will answer these questions ..

Which prisoner abuse are we talking about? Aftenposten criticizes Krohn Devold for accepting, in a recent meeting with Condolezza Rice, that "this abuse" was unfortunate but isolated incidents. This statement obviously refers to the abuse in Abu Ghraib, which is near Baghdad, far from the Norwegian forces near Basra. That can not be the abuse Amnesty Norway is referring to, which involved "British forces", and also must have happened close enough to Basra for our people to learn of it.

It seems more likely that Amnesty is thinking of light abuse and psychological torture in general - but it's not news that the Americans use psychological torture in the war on terror. I don't like it, and I've become more skeptical after Abu Ghraib, (even if you believe that torture works in theory, which is doubtful, there's a great risk that the interrogators learns to enjoy it, and starts abusing for the fun of it). But it's not news, not to me, and probably not to Krohn Devold, though she might not say it out loud, that if you're a suspected terrorist captured by American forces, and you may have information they want, they will use sleep deprivation and other unpleasant techniques to break your will. (Or they may allow a less civilized country to use physical torture on their behalf, as happened in this shameful story.)

Fine, so criticize that, criticize psychological torture on general grounds, but then leave Abu Ghraib and the Norwegian forces out of it. Can't have it all three ways. .. Well, you can. Just throw a number of poorly related facts and accusations together, stir and boil and serve with vagueness. As long as the final product reflects badly on the Americans and on the Norwegian involvement in Iraq, clarity and nuance can be sacrificed.

The real story here is that Amnesty disagrees with how the US fights the war on terrorism - not just the abuses in Abu Ghraib, which Americans disagree with as well, but measures most Americans approve of or silently accept. That criticism is worth covering, and some of it is worth taking seriously. So let's do that, but without trying to link everything to everything else.

I'm more inclined to go after "people" who saw human beings heads off on camera than those who use sleep deprivation to obtain information!

Wallace

So what you are saying is that we should disregard torture as long as extremist do worse things?

Luckily we can do both. There is no contradiction in what you can _do_ at the same time. There is a contradiction in focus, though - more attention on one problem means less attention on another. I have a compromise solution: You Americans take a good, hard look at the way this war is being carried out, and if it is compatible with civil rights, decency, etc. We Europeans start paying attention to the madmen who'd like to saw off our infidel heads, and start considering how this involves us and what we can do about it. Would do some good for both sides.

To a certain extent, the media's attempts to tie the Abu Ghraib abuses to a larger picture of widespread abuse and cover-ups is defendable. After all, the media's remit is to expose abuses of power, and what journalist wouldn't love to expose the next -gate? Sadly, the media have got themselves into a wild frenzy over this particular case, which promises much, but seemingly delivers little else than a handful of soldiers who appear to have lost their moral mooring in the confusion of war.

On a side note, the abuse case itself reminded me of the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment, showing how human standards of morals and decency can be overturned almost instantly given the right circumstances.

Wow! A lot of mistypping. I repost .I find the debate about US "torture" ill-focused world wide. I for one do not believe that making a prisoner embarrassed, ashamed or uncomfortable to obtain information a violation of any law. The suggestion that, in effect, prisoners are entitled to "Miranda warnings" is absurd. I also find it positively Kafkaesque that the Iranians and Saddam regularly engaged in real torture of political prisoners and not a word was said by the Western world. See the article “Torture by Any Other Name”
1. http://www.frontpagemagazine.com I agree that the US has a standard of decency to uphold, should do so, and people responsible for torture of prisoners should be punished. However, it is truly some sort of masochistic response not to hold the “other side” to the same standards. The failure to do so is an invitation to disaster. Thus US news gave more play -- by about 20 to 1 to US "abuses" then they did to the cutting off of the head of Berg and the Arab press gave it almost no coverage. What passes for US torture is: a) not torture, so much as aggressive interviewing, b) is an exception and not the rule for US forces and c) was reported, no less, by US personnel. On the flip side not one of these characteristics can be said to apply to Arab treatment of prisoners and political foes and, yet, the West remains silent. All I hear from the vast left wing think tanks is "Well we have a higher standard." That I submit may be one, if not the primary reason why we are in Iraq. That is my view

Herbie: "What passes for US torture is: a) not torture, so much as aggressive interviewing, b) is an exception and not the rule for US forces and c) was reported, no less, by US personnel."

c refers to Abu Ghraib. I was thinking of psychological torture in general. And yes, the right word here is "torture". Let's be honest. Torture is coercion through pain. You make people suffer to break their resistance and ensure their cooperation. If the suffering is sufficiently strong to serve its purpose, does it really matter if it is primarily physical or primarily mental? And is there even a clear difference? Stress is physical. Disruption of sleeping and eating cycles has physical effects. And physical torture has always had a strong psychological component.

We're talking about coercion through pain and suffering here. It does not follow _from this choice of words_ that psychological torture is wrong. That is a separate issue. But to discuss that issue we need to be clear about what we're discussing - without euphemisms such as "aggressive interviewing".

And no, I don't think it's relevant that other countries use much worse forms of torture. That is relevant to a _comparative_ discussion: is the US morally _better_ than Iran? (It is.) But it's not relevant to a discussion on whether psychological torture by itself is right or wrong. Not relevant at all.

It is important to realise that all punishment is torture. Normal prison is torture. To be denied freedom, denied to see your loved ones (except at brief visits) and denied to live a normal life is what most people will consider serious pain, and thus torture.

So, we do accept torture, both as punshments and to get confessions (which is why cooperative prisoners get shorter sentences).

Obviously, somewhere between de luxe prison / slap on the wrist punishments and outright medieval torture we draw the line. "Cruel and unusual" and all that.

But it's disingenious to say we don't accept torture. We do.

These vermin expect us to do to them what they do to everyone else, hot irons, that type of stuuf.

They NEVER expected to be led around on leashes by women - they'd prefer death.

And some in the West pay good money for that....

So, let me sum up, can't "torture" them physically, can't "torture" them psychologically, but want them to have the protections of an anachronistic(?) 18th century document which our betters encourage us to forego because it was a good idea then but doesn't work in the modern world and chose not to adopt for themselves when they had the chance because their way is better. YET, the wogs aren't ready and never will be ready for "democracy" because well, they're wogs and we're not culturally sensitive - but being culturally sensitive we must accept honor killings and all this torture that they do to each other because they're wogs and that's the way it is. Yet we can't even lift a finger because an infidel lifting a finger, or depending on how pure they are, much less shake hands because we're unclean, is torture to them.

Ok.

Sandy: "These vermin expect us to do to them what they do to everyone else, hot irons, that type of stuuf."

Who are "they"? Do you know that these particular prisoners have tortured others themselves, or are you just referring to Iraqis in general? But most Iraqis were victims of Saddam, not part of the regime. So what are you talking about?

"They NEVER expected to be led around on leashes by women - they'd prefer death."

I doubt any of the non-religious prisoners would have preferred death. But if so, does that make this form of torture easier to defend, or harder?

The next paragraph I can't even figure out the meaning of. There are ironic stabs in all directions, two scare quotes and a .. scare question mark? Do you even know what you're trying to say here, and who all the "them"'s and "they"'s refer to?

Bjorn, I take your point about torture, but carried to its logical extreme you would seem to advocate no "aggressive interrogation. I ask the following Q. Assume that we have information that a poison gas attack will take place and that if it does thousands would be killed. I would maintain that in order to stop it that torture and not aggressive questioning is acceptable. Others may disagree. You also say “I don't think it's relevant that other countries use much worse forms of torture.”: I quite agree, but that was not the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make was that the attacks on US “torture” are being used by the other side without any acknowledgment that their practices are worse . That is a subject that is worthy of comment. I now go celebrate Memorial day.

Herbie: "carried to its logical extreme you would seem to advocate no "aggressive interrogation.""

But I was only talking about how to describe this form of interrogation. I believe we should call it torture, independent of whether it's _justified_. I wasn't making any moral judgment, at all, in what I wrote to you. I did write in the post that I'm very skeptical to psychological torture, but there's no way you can go from that to this logical extreme of "no aggressive interrogation".

Two separate issues: 1) How do we describe this, with a euphemism designed to pretend that this form of interrogation isn't all that uncomfortable, or by honestly describing what actually takes place, (coercion through pain and suffering)? 2) Is it okay to use psychological torture in interrogations?

As for 2, there is one strong argument for: Information acquired through psychological torture could be very useful. The ticking bomb scenario is extremely rare, so rare that we can ignore it until it actually happens, at which point some interrogator will just have to make a tough decision. More realistically the prisoner has very (but not extremely) useful information, which it would be nice to have.

There are also strong arguments against: It's too easy to learn to enjoy applying torture, at which point abuse goes up and usefulness goes down. The victims could very well be innocent - there's a reason safeguards for suspected criminals were put in place, and that reason is morally valid independently of its legal validity to non-citizens. Also, torture doesn't necessarily work very well.

What's interesting about these arguments for and against, is that they apply equally well to psychological and physical torture. If psychological torture is acceptable in your ticking bomb scenario, surely so must regular torture. Wouldn't it then be more consistent to advocate both?

"The point I was trying to make was that the attacks on US “torture” are being used by the other side without any acknowledgment that their practices are worse."

Yup, they're liars and hypocrites. The reason I object to dragging hypocrisy into this is that "yes but _they're_ much worse, why don't anyone criticize that?" is so often used to in effect excuse wrong actions, and not just to compare or to expose hypocrisy as it should be. If I say that "the use of psychological torture means that the Americans are just as bad as Saddam", then it would be relevant to explain that Saddam was actually much worse. But if I say that "psychological torture is wrong", talking about how others do worse only deflects from the real issue. It becomes a way of excusing something bad without explicitly supporting it. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, I just wish people could discuss these things without the "yes, but" always popping up. It's like there's a great need to counter everything that reflects badly on the US with something that reflects well, even if it's completely unrelated. Reminds me of the inverse practice in Europe.

Bjorn - 1. WE are the torture - the West and its ideas ARE the torture and it eminates (sp) from US. Therefore we must be destroyed.

2. As to the methods, I can't explain this well but here goes, who says it's muslim mores and not arab mores incorporated into islam? Just standard practice in that part of the world. Kind of sounds like it.

Either I'm painting w/too broad a brush or you're painting w/too fine a brush.

----

"Cruel and unusual" and all that.--

And that's the kicker, who defines? Does it cover "the world" or just what the US does?

Oh, yeah, Bjorn, we can deal w/these vermin:

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP72304

When someone tells you he intends to kill you, believe him.

Don't shoot the messenger.

I usually agree with you and our postings but I must humbly (or not) disagree with your taking to task Herbie. I grant that it does not good to say that they are worse. However, when the Western media keeps pounding on the abuse (or torture if you prefer) at the prison to the exclusion of the conduct of the enemy, then the result will be that we will be villified and they will be let off without a warning as if they were all good and holy. Maybe the comparison is not the right way to go but to let the enemy off as if what it did is nothing or to say that they all do that but think just how bad the US is and we expected more of them and they are so terrible and they are such a threat to the world.

Cumbersome sentence but if you deconstruct it you will see the French and the German and the US liberal press approach to the prison story. US, bad; all others, wonderful. That is the result of following your approach and while it does make the point that the US did wrong in the prison, it does not hold out the news that the US also announced that it did wrong and took steps to see that those responsible were punished and the practices stopped. The media is just pushing the poison pill long after the US has already taken steps to fix the problem and the media is doing it for its own reasons. They are not beneficial to the Coalition in Iraq.

dick: Well, I partly agree. Many of those who have criticized Abu Ghraib have themselves mixed that criticism up with unrelated issues - "see? the Americans are just as bad", "see? the Iraq war was evil", "see what a mess they make without the UN?". So in a way it's natural that the response should mix things up too. I just wish it was possible to pick up one issue and discuss it, without all that baggage.

That's what I criticize Aftenposten for above, you know - they mix up unrelated issues and accusations into one big anti-war soup. And the right response to that isn't to make our own soup, but to try to keep unrelated issues separate.

There is a simple, pragmatic point to all this: It doesn't really matter whether the US forces have behaved in a less reprehensible way than that of their enemies (and of course, this in itself provides no valid moral defense in itself), as long as they are perceived to be engaging in practices similar to that of the old Baathist regime. The Coalition forces claimed to be on a mission of liberation and democratization, and therefore, any revelations of torture or physical abuse, however isolated the instances, seriously compromise the perceived legitimacy of their work among the Iraqi population.

For crying out loud, Bjørn is right - you can't excuse wrongdoings by merely pointing out that someone else is a lot worse.

Pol Pot was a nice guy because he only killed a couple of million cambodians - as opposed to Hitler, who on his side didn't close the gap to Stalin, and therefore was a good guy (Hitler, that is)? That argument just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. On any scale.

Bjorn, after reading your entry, in which you wrote... "or they (America) may allow a less civilized country (Jordan) to use physical torture on their behalf, as in this shameful story"...I am inclined to agree. The story, if true, is shameful.

But reading further down your blog, in the May 25 entry, you cite a comment by a Norwegian soldier, who says... "May as well mention that the Norwegian force doesn't take prisoners, as this isn't our job. If a situation should arise where people needed to be arrested, we call for help from the British." Oh, so that's alright, then? Bjorn, I respect you and your blog very much, but the hypocrisy here is breathtaking.

It is so easy to hold the moral high ground if, when faced with a potentially messy job like arresting and detaining anyone who may range from garden variety vandal to homicidal maniac, one can simply assert, "that's not my job". With a wave of the imperial European pacifist arm, the knuckle dragging grunts of the morally ambiguous British and American forces arrive to do it for you. You get both the peaceful sleep of never having to do any real dirty work and the smug satisfaction of looking down your nose at those who do.

The work that the Norwegians are doing in Iraq is honorable and neccessary. But if the Western world were depending on the Norwegian army to protect us from the devastating harm those who wish our way of life ill would bring us, I hate to think where we would be.

Nancy, Florida . . .

You express my views perfectly. The incredible hypocrisy of Scandinavians and other Europeans these days makes me sick. It's one thing to not participate in an enterprise because you are a small nation with few resources. It's another to condemn Americans for doing the heavy lifting that you should be doing too.

A few days ago Victor Davis Hanson said in his NRO column: "Morality should be defined as action rather than empty words or good intentions." Anybody can take the moral high ground--that's no trick.

Nancy: I don't see the connection. Are you saying that it is hypocritical of me as a Norwegian to condemn US torture by proxy in Syria while I accept that British forces take care of arrests on behalf of the Norwegian forces in Iraq?

Is it not also relevant to what kind of treatment and for what purpose these people are handed over? In the case I linked to - if true - a person was sent to Syria with the expectation (or highly plausible outcome) that he would be tortured. What I wrote about in Iraq is merely a division of labor - our force does not have a military mission, and so leaves the job of arresting people to others. The reason for that is, as you say, that we don't want our hands dirty. But what is the connection to the story I linked to?

Bjorn, I am saying that yes, it is somewhat hypocritical, particularly your determined relavist phrasing: "US torture by proxy" vs "British forces take care of arrests". For heaven's sake, what do Norwegians suppose the British soldiers do with the Iraqis when they are handed over - sing them to sleep? British troops excel at many things, one of which is extracting information from any enemy combatant they think has something interesting to say - ask past IRA detainees. From what you have written, you personally and Norwegians in general seem to have a problem with so much as sleep deprivation used to extract information. (For God's sake, don't father a baby). Knowing, as you certainly should do, that British soldiers are not going to leave any Iraqis brought to them by Norwegian soldiers to thumb their beads and ponder their misguided ways until they come round of their own accord, the Norwegians shouldn't be bringing them any prisoners, and it is hypocritical to do so while complaining about the treatment those prisoners receive.

As to the truth of the story you linked to: I am very suspicious of Maher Arar's version of events, and it would have been nice if you, too, could have at least given Americans the benefit of the doubt instead of automatically linking this "shameful story" to your post, as if the truth of it were irrefutable.

First of all, he is scared to death and desperately trying to remember anything he can think of to tell the American interrogators re any possible link between himself and Abdullah Almalki, who is their real interest, but he doesn't happen to remember that the guy co-signed the lease on his apartment? Give me a break. "You have a selective memory" is exactly what I would have said to him.

Secondly, when reading accounts of people who have been tortured in all sorts of circumstances, one thing stands out in common: they never know what time it is. Torture rooms don't have wall clocks, because a key factor in psychological torture is the disorientation of never knowing the time. Recounting their experiences, people say things like, "I knew that it was daytime, because I saw light through the bars"; very vague comments like that.

In contrast, Arar can remember exactly what time is was whenever anything of even minor significance happened, even months after the event. One of the first things they would have taken would have been his wristwatch, if he was wearing one. It would hog too much bandwith to list each time given when anyone can read the account for themselves; but the two that really got me were:
"We landed in Amman at 3 in the morning local time on October 9". If those mean old Americans had let him hang on to his watch and he knew the date even then, they weren't doing their job very well. Then he describes being handed over to the Jordanians, who proceeded forthwith to blindfold, chain and beat him. He then blithely asserts that he landed in a jail cell..."about 4:30 in the morning." Uh, did you check the time before or after they blindfolded and handcuffed you, buddy?"

I'm not saying that nothing happened to Arar, but his version of events is dodgy enough in enough places to give at least me pause. Criminal psychologists caution that one of the ways a victim can be thought to be lying is if he or she gives too much detail to a dreadful ordeal. This would certainly seem to qualify.

Nancy: I see your point, but the hypocrisy is easy to resolve: I do not think it is okay for the police forces of a country to send a suspected criminal abroad with the explicit knowledge and intention that he will be tortured. I do think it's okay that a suspected criminal be handed over to a police force known occassionally to use torture, when the alternative is that no suspects are ever arrested. Certainty & intention of torture vs possibility & no alternative.

"From what you have written, you personally and Norwegians in general seem to have a problem with so much as sleep deprivation used to extract information. (For God's sake, don't father a baby)."

If you want to defend sleep deprivation, at least don't trivialize it. Young parents are not isolated, disoriented, and stressed by every person they're ever in contact with. They know what is happening to them, and they know that people around them care. That's not particularly common during psychological torture, where sleep deprivation is intentionally used to break you. And it works, it's a powerful tool.

"I am very suspicious of Maher Arar's version of events, and it would have been nice if you, too, could have at least given Americans the benefit of the doubt instead of automatically linking this "shameful story" to your post, as if the truth of it were irrefutable."

This story is about 6 months old. I did not see it mentioned in any pro-war/Bush blogs at the time, and only came over it by accident. Why is that? This is a detailed and serious accusation. There's a probe going on in Canada now. Does it not _at least_ deserve to be read and discussed? But how can it be, when noone who isn't already critical to Bush will even bother to mention it? I do not consider Arar's statement irrefutable proof. But it is evidence. It deserves attention, even from people who hope it's not true. That is why I linked to it, not because I'm convinced that it's true, but because I'm convinced that it's important.

Your counter-arguments are interesting - but keep in mind that it is beyond dispute that Arar is suspected of being a member of al-Qaeda, that he was arrested in the US, that he was deported to Syria, and that they did hold him in arrest. The Syrians deny torture, and the Americans and Canadians deny sending him there for that purpose, but the overall facts appear to be indisputable, and there's little reason to trust the Syrian denial, so the question is why he was sent there.

One blogger who _has_ covered this extensively is this one: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/maher_arar/index.html

Bjorn, I am well aquainted the negative effects of sleep deprivation. My second son, who was hyperactive, didn't sleep longer than 20 to 30 minutes at a time from the moment he was born for two straight years. I was alone in a foreign country with a husband who was constantly gone, with no family or friends who understood what I was going through, so yeah, I am aware of its' effectiveness.

You can split all the Scandinavian hairs you wish about the first point. What you are still saying, essentially, is, Hey, We don't know what the British are going to do with the Iraqis we bring to them, but since we are not absolutely sure anything really bad is going to happen, and it isn't as if we are going to check up on any of them later, our collective conscience is clear.

Not being a pro-Bush war blogger, I really can't answer why you saw no mention of the Arar story. Maybe they thought it was half rubbish, as I do. Maybe they think that this sort of thing gets enough breathless play on BBC, CBC, etc., and they don't want to give it any more attention. In any event, since, as you yourself write: "...keep in mind that it is beyond dispute that Arar is suspected of being a member of al Qaeda", I've got a better question. Why did CBC give him almost 20 minutes of uninterupted air time to tell his incredibly detailed one sided version of events?

Read the quick facts side bar of the interview. Alison Smith asks Tom Ridge about it. He tells her that Arar wasn't picked up randomly, that the decision was based on global intelligence gathering. Alison doesn't like that answer, so she asks the Canadian Deputy Prime Minister John Manley, "well how about it?" and he waffles through the usual Socialist "procedures must be followed" answer. How do you know that the Canandian government isn't just trying to cover its' own ass for not picking up on Arar themselves?

As to why Arar was sent to Syria, Tom Ridge hasn't returned my phone calls on the subject; and with respect, I don't think he's going to answer yours, either. :) The vital nature of espionage is that it is secret. There is always going to be a direct conflict with civil liberties involved and I am no happier at the thought of a potentially innocent person being tortured for information then you are, nor happier with the idea of torture itself than you are. But a demand for public inquiries into every perceived transgression and total transparency in all American government actions, when fighting an organization committed to our doom such as al Qaeda, is the luxury of countries who are not actually responsible for anything.

One more thing. In reviewing my previous post today, I found an appalling number of typos, yet you still managed to plow through and grasp everything perfectly, even if you didn't agree with me. Your command of English is truly awesome.

Nancy: I've written an entry about this. /warblog/000719.html I'm not convinced that the accusations are true, but I am convinced that they deserve attention. And no, I don't trust bloggers to give proper attention to stories like this. We're all just people. And if other media exaggerate the faults of the US, that doesn't justify trying to compensate by downplaying them yourself. What's true is true, and if true this is important, even if it supports the worldview of people we don't like.

As for Arar's guilt, that's irrelevant. You can never base a standard for treatment of suspected criminals on the assumption that they are guilty. The evidence that has been made public, however, is very flimsy. He was named by another Canadian tortured by the Syrians, (a man who probably _is_ al-Qaeda), and he had some remote contact with another suspect. There could be more. But I'm not inclined towards taking the government's word for things like this - that's why we invented rule of law and civil rights, because we prefer not to.

I would like to point out that some new interrogation techniques have been suggested and have undergone scientific investigation. These techniques do not involve any torture type aspects or implications and have been developed by a seasoned psychologist who, several years ago, retired from federal service when he was the Chief Research Psychologist in the USA's then largest intelligence agency. These interrogation procedures are described in the following web site address: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~lastone2/interrogationconsultant.html.

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/711