New definition for the act of torture : "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"

New definition for the act of torture : "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques". This term has become the mantra of all Republicans (and a few Democrats) in the last couple of months. Former Vice-President Dick Cheney tries to use that term in every other paragraph he speaks. He is on a whirlwind tour across the country appearing on every talk show that will have him. His main theme is to defend "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques".

Here's my take on this subject. In my twenty years in the military the terms used in training were interrogation and torture. All military personnel are taught that if captured, you need state only, name, rank and service number. That is all that is required by the Geneva Convention of which the United States is a signatory. The Army Field Manual is the military authority on interrogation. Unless that manual has been changed the term "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" is not recognized. It is a made up term that means "State Approved Torture".

That is the truth, look it up. Oh wait, I'll do it for you.

ARMY FM 34-52, Intelligence, Chapter 1. Para. 6

PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FORCE

The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.

Additionally, the inability to carry out a threat of violence or force renders an interrogator ineffective should the source challenge the threat. Consequently, from both legal and moral viewpoints, the restrictions established by international law, agreements, and customs render threats of force, violence, and deprivation useless as interrogation techniques.

Now you have it.