Torture Thai style

Amnesty International has accused Thai troops of engaging in systematic torture as they combat an insurgency in the south.
Amnesty's report says troops are using violence to intimidate individuals and communities into ending support for the insurgents. Citing testimony from victims, it says troops have beaten and kicked detainees, given them electric shocks, and sexually abused them. At least four people have died from torture. A Thai commander has acknowledged isolated cases of abuse, but maintains torture is neither acceptable nor tolerated.

[cottmann]

They learned everything they know from their US Army trainers.

They learned everything they know from their US Army trainers.

Back in the 1960's - early 70's when communism was a threat or thought to be a threat one of the Thai Armies favorite pastimes was to place suspects captured in the jungle in an oildrum on top of a fire and steam or boil them alive..........

They learned everything they know from their US Army trainers.

Back in the 1960's - early 70's when communism was a threat or thought to be a threat one of the Thai Armies favorite pastimes was to place suspects captured in the jungle in an oildrum on top of a fire and steam or boil them alive..........

Even in America we don't do that. Well, maybe Dick Cheney . . .

I suspect, Brandon, that if in fact you don't do it in America (which I doubt to begin with) it is because it is deemed to be too humane a tactic and isn't sufficiently gruesome for the Yanks to waste their time with. Anyway, Americans love their witch hunts and witch burnings where the sanctimonious can savour all of the delicious torments of the miscreant who is not sealed neatly away in an oil drum and out of view where it is hard to enjoy their suffering. You more than anyone should appreciate that with your predilections... this most American of all things.

As an American, I hate it when people lump all of America together and slap a label of their choosing. I wouldn't deem it within my right, certainly, to say "Thais are...." or "Englishmen always ..." :scratch:

[TrongpaiExpat]

I suspect, Brandon, that if in fact you don't do it in America (which I doubt to begin with) it is because it is deemed to be too humane a tactic and isn't sufficiently gruesome for the Yanks to waste their time with. Anyway, Americans love their witch hunts and witch burnings where the sanctimonious can savour all of the delicious torments of the miscreant who is not sealed neatly away in an oil drum and out of view where it is hard to enjoy their suffering. You more than anyone should appreciate that with your predilections... this most American of all things.

"America"? Don't you mean colonial Massachusetts, A Brittish colony? The witch trilas were from 1692 to 1693 and the law, the culture and the methods of torture were all imported from England. The torturers were British Citizens.

[cottmann]

I suspect, Brandon, that if in fact you don't do it in America (which I doubt to begin with) it is because it is deemed to be too humane a tactic and isn't sufficiently gruesome for the Yanks to waste their time with. Anyway, Americans love their witch hunts and witch burnings where the sanctimonious can savour all of the delicious torments of the miscreant who is not sealed neatly away in an oil drum and out of view where it is hard to enjoy their suffering. You more than anyone should appreciate that with your predilections... this most American of all things.

"America"? Don't you mean colonial Massachusetts, A Brittish colony? The witch trilas were from 1692 to 1693 and the law, the culture and the methods of torture were all imported from England. The torturers were British Citizens.

Technically, Massachusetts was an English colony and any torturers would have been English citizens (as the Kingdom of Great Britain did not yet exist). Actually, only one person was tortured (Giles Corey), and that was using the technique of crushing under an increasingly heavy load of stones to extract a confession (this technique was outlawed in Great Britain in 1772). Most of the principals involved, including the Mathers father and son, were born in the colony, however.

As an American, I hate it when people lump all of America together and slap a label of their choosing. I wouldn't deem it within my right, certainly, to say "Thais are...." or "Englishmen always ..." :scratch:

but many other posters have no problems with generalising about all Thai people, while perched on a barstool in Pattaya

As an American, I hate it when people lump all of America together and slap a label of their choosing.

No one is labeling America. America speaks for itself!

I don't understand the comment about predilections.

It was intended to be tongue in cheek.
Glad you liked the poster. To a lot of the world, Americans seem unhappy if they are not involved in one moral crusade or another. It's a pity that it has reduced itself to a mafia style "enforcer" on the world stage for every imaginable form of tyranny.
And then Americans are always asking "Why does everyone hate us?" :drunken:

Technically, Massachusetts was an English colony and any torturers would have been English citizens (as the Kingdom of Great Britain did not yet exist).

Technically, TrongpaiExpat is correct as he stated the case. The methods of torture, etc, were imported from England but they were carried out by British citizens. James VI of Scotland became James I of England on 24 March 1603 making a Union of the Crowns and he declared himself King of Great Britain soon after his succession to the English throne. Although the Act of Union was not passed by Parliament until 1707 this was technically a Union only of the Parliaments, not the countries.

More importantly, Curious, Amnesty have overlooked the two worst cases of military abuse in the South this century, in 2004, when the Army were in power and showed their commanders' and superiors real respect for human rights by shooting 107 in one incident and crushing/suffocating 78 (+?) in another ( http://www.achrweb.org/Review/2005/70-05.htm ).

I don't understand the comment about predilections.

It was intended to be tongue in cheek.
Glad you liked the poster. To a lot of the world, Americans seem unhappy if they are not involved in one moral crusade or another. It's a pity that it has reduced itself to a mafia style "enforcer" on the world stage for every imaginable form of tyranny.
And then Americans are always asking "Why does everyone hate us?" :drunken:


haha, no, most Americans don't give a rat's ass. :bounce:

[elephantspike]

I don't understand the comment about predilections.

It was intended to be tongue in cheek.
Glad you liked the poster. To a lot of the world, Americans seem unhappy if they are not involved in one moral crusade or another. It's a pity that it has reduced itself to a mafia style "enforcer" on the world stage for every imaginable form of tyranny.
And then Americans are always asking "Why does everyone hate us?" :drunken:


haha, no, most Americans don't give a rat's ass. :bounce:

Yeah, and besides, FYI: Witch Hunts started in Europe before they became all the rage in America. Also, burning-at-the-stake went out of fashion years ago, before even poodle skirts, I think. :rr:

... Also, burning-at-the-stake went out of fashion years ago, before even poodle skirts, I think. :rr:

Not so sure if you are right, ES, but I am not an expert on poodle skirts. Jesse Washington probably wouldn't agree, and the native Americans were still doing it for a couple of hundred years after it became unfashionable in Europe.

[elephantspike]

... Also, burning-at-the-stake went out of fashion years ago, before even poodle skirts, I think. :rr:

Not so sure if you are right, ES, but I am not an expert on poodle skirts. Jesse Washington probably wouldn't agree, and the native Americans were still doing it for a couple of hundred years after it became unfashionable in Europe.

Waitaminute... Native Americans? How did they get dragged into this?

And I think the time frame is more like 50-100 years later in America than in Europe, with some overlap even.

Also it was prevalent in Europe for a much longer time than it was in America:

Witch trials in Early Modern Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt#Middle_Ages)

So the timeline is something like this:

1300 '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''1700'''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''1865'''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''1940''''''''''''1970'''''''' ''''''''''''''''''2009

Europe:

* Magna Carta'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

'''''''''''''''''''Witch Hunts''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''{European History Citation needed here}'(Any Bosnians in the house?)''

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''Nazi Germany""'''''''''''''''

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''European Amnesia...(1945++)
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
(* Signed and immediately ignored.)


America:

1300* *''''''''''' European Conquest'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''Emancipation Proclamation''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''''Systematic extermination of Native Americans by European Invaders and their descendants'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''Witch Hunts'''''''''''''''''''''''''Independence'''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''Vietnam war''''Iraq War
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''Poodle Skirts'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
* *Native American Hunter Gatherer Culture

I understand that Wikipedia is not considered a valid academic source, but if you have more accurate information regarding this history, I encourage you to edit the article I have cited above.

[ceejay]

... Also, burning-at-the-stake went out of fashion years ago, before even poodle skirts, I think. :rr:

Not so sure if you are right, ES, but I am not an expert on poodle skirts. Jesse Washington probably wouldn't agree, and the native Americans were still doing it for a couple of hundred years after it became unfashionable in Europe.

Maybe a hundred years GF, but 200? The last burning at the stake in England was in 1789.

More pedantically, witches were hanged rather than burnt at the stake in 17th century England (actually trials were very rare - I don't know if there were any witchcraft executions in england in the 18th century). Burning at the stake was reserved for women who comiitted treason. Most of the ones who suffered were convicted of murdering their husbands or employers, both of which were considered so great an offence against the natural order of things that it was classed as "petty treason". A few were convicted of counterfeiting (high treason). Certainly in the 18th century they were not burned to death - they were garrotted with a rope around the stake before the fire was lit, although this sometimes failed, with horrible consequences.

[joe552]

It's amazing how quickly a thread about Thai torture becomes an anti-American history lesson on witch burning

It's amazing how quickly a thread about Thai torture becomes an anti-American history lesson on witch burning

Probably because they have nothing better to do with their freetime, and being out to show their superior intelligence they just need someone else to run down...... :cheers:

[ceejay]

Fair point Joe, and I have edited a part of my post.

[cottmann]

Technically, Massachusetts was an English colony and any torturers would have been English citizens (as the Kingdom of Great Britain did not yet exist).

Technically, TrongpaiExpat is correct as he stated the case. The methods of torture, etc, were imported from England but they were carried out by British citizens. James VI of Scotland became James I of England on 24 March 1603 making a Union of the Crowns and he declared himself King of Great Britain soon after his succession to the English throne. Although the Act of Union was not passed by Parliament until 1707 this was technically a Union only of the Parliaments, not the countries.

Although James I and VI did indeed declare himself King of Great Britain in 1604, his legal and statutory title continued to be "King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland," and there was no legal entity called "The Kingdom of Great Britain." Although Scots-born citizens of James I (as King of England) had the "rights" of English citizens (the defining ruling being Coke's ruling in 1608 on "Calvin's Case"), they were not treated equally with natural-born English citizens in colonial trade even as late as the reign of William III (of England) and II (of Scotland). There was no common citizenship until the Act of Union of 1707, so at the time of the Salem Witch Trials, Massachusetts was an English and not a British colony.

The point is arguable technically, Cottman, but while you may be correct it has nothing to do with James' "legal and statutory title" - under the royal prerogative at the time he could call himself king of virtually anything he liked, as indeed he did by royal declaration on 20 October 1604. :queen: It was only later that the monarch became more limited by acts such as the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927, and the Royal Style and Titles Act, 1953, (which currently prevents Prince Charles on accession to the throne from changing his title of "Defender of the Faith" to "Defender of Faith", or even his preferred "Defender of the Faiths"). :king:

The main argument for it being an English as distinct from a British colony is that it was technically owned by an English company, although it was also technically only an English chartered colony from 1629 (when Charles I gave it a Royal Charter) until 1684 (when Charles II revoked the charter), so its status in 1692 is possibly debatable.

Co-incidentally, the first person executed there (Margaret Jones) was executed for being a witch - and she was hung in typically "English" style (as ceejay correctly indicates).

(Relevance to Torture Thai Style (or Thailand) - nil; sorry.)

Amnesty International has accused Thai troops of engaging in systematic torture as they combat an insurgency in the south.
Amnesty's report says troops are using violence to intimidate individuals and communities into ending support for the insurgents. Citing testimony from victims, it says troops have beaten and kicked detainees, given them electric shocks, and sexually abused them. At least four people have died from torture. A Thai commander has acknowledged isolated cases of abuse, but maintains torture is neither acceptable nor tolerated.

What the hell does amnesty expect? Tickling them into surrender? Making them laugh so much that they spill?

I make no comment on this or any other situation, as I don't know enough about the politics, but it's very well known in the world of human beings that if you want to extract information from others who don't give it up voluntarily, violence and torture usually produces the goods.

I'm not commenting on whether this is right or wrong, but it's a typical tactic that's been used and known to work for centuries. What's odd is that organisations such as Amnesty (an organisation with a lifetime of experience of dealing with such treatments) publicise this as something that's a new tactic which we should all stand together and stamp out.

No matter which side of any war you're on, tactics like this are, and have been, used because there's simply no alternative. Does Amnesty think that the same results can be achieved by asking politely and offering the enemy a cup of tea with some biscuits? It sometimes seems to me that they do. I've no idea what sort of world Amnesty think they live in, but it's certainly not the real world of war, horror, violence, guns, evil and bloodshed.

Bless them for trying, but a world without war, and especially violence and torture, is way off. The existence of Amnesty International is like the existence of a hole in the piece of cheese being eaten by a mouse, being chased by a cat.

Back on topic - thank God!!

Actually, MM, it may be "well known in the world of human beings", but in the "real world of war, horror, violence, guns, evil and bloodshed" it is anything but true although it is often an argument put forward by those who believe that what they are doing is justifiable. Torture very seldom "produces the goods", particularly against someone who is trained to resist interrogation or, far more particularly and relevantly, is a Muslim religious fanatic who believes that being tortured and killed will make them a martyr and give them instant and automatic entry to the promised land.

What it may produce while it can be successfully resisted is a lack of any useful information at all, some of which could have been obtained by a skilled and informed tactical questioner.

What it invariably produces (except in those cases where the subject resists and dies) is an excess of information where it is often impossible and always difficult and time-consuming to separate between the truth and just an attempt to stop the pain (at least temporarily) by the subject telling the interrogator what he thinks he wants to hear. The longer it goes on for the more this becomes the case and the more pointless the questioning and torture become (apart from torture for torture's sake), as any information the subject may have had becomes out of date. In the terrorist or tactical field it is generally accepted that any information obtained after three days, for example, will be of no detailed use but many interrogations will last far longer than this for little or no constructive reason.

In the vast majority of cases where torture is used it is counter-productive, at least at an individual level which is where it is most often applied.

[Bob]

In the vast majority of cases where torture is used it is counter-productive, at least at an individual level which is where it is most often applied.

Rather amazing at the list of topics which you seem to have some expertise...

Yes, I know it's accepted dogma that torture doesn't produce results but I personally don't believe that for a moment. John McCain, not a particularly wimpy guy, told them everything he knew and he's been quite candid about that (as have many other tortured pow's of many wars).
I'd bet (just personal opinion, no expertise at all) that 99% of tortured prisoners crack and tell them whatever they want to know. No shame in that as far as I'm concerned (a couple of nipple tweaks to me and I'd squeal like a stuck pig!).

Regardless, it would be nice if the world court or some judicial body had the right and the power to go after the cruel thugs of the world that get their jollies out of hurting other human beings.

[joe552]

Firstly, I'm assuming that few of us have actually read the Amnesty report? Does it refer to torture/abuse of 'suspected' insurgents or abuse of the local population to 'encourage' them not to support the insurgents?

Guantanamo has surely taught us something? Or maybe not.

[litefoot2]

"Torture" is a trigger word, with heavy historical associations (witch trials, the inquisition, etc.).

Recent abuses--I'm not defending them--involve more psychological/physical disruption, such as limiting sleep, humiliation, and the like. Water boarding is the worst it got.

It's unsettling, sure. But I find Islamic treatment of gays far more unsettling.

Two points:
1. who started this thing? (hint: 9/11)
2. read the Koran--the real ugliness is there.

[joe552]

Torture by the Thai military is in response to 9/11, litefoot? Your logic escapes me.

And are you saying that psychological/physical disruption (whatever you mean by that), sleep deprivation, and water boarding, are NOT forms of torture?

[litefoot2]

joe552 --

I was referring to the gitmo references earlier in the thread. Obviously.

The point: water boarding and aggressive interrogation tactics are not the same as what went down in medieval times. "Torture" is a loaded word. We should be aware of that in the debate.

I strongly believe we need to keep the language clean (i.e., precise) and not fog things. It's what separates us from the crazies.

Rather amazing at the list of topics which you seem to have some expertise...

Well, Bob, at least amazement is more polite than calling me a liar, as Trevor and Pissyboy have effectively done recently. To save you (or them) the trouble of checking, as far as I can recall the only areas I have mentioned here in which I have "some expertise" are as follows (if you can find more please add them, with a link):

I was trained as an architect - never practiced.
I am a trained and qualified B2 Medic, with minor additional specialist training - never worked as such.
I am a qualified instructor in aikido - never worked as such, although I did instruct occasionally.
I have considerable international expertise in Counter Insurgency and Internal Security; there are no qualifications in this field except at a considerably lower level than my own.
I was involved in the establishment of a specialist SAR team, as both a specialist skill qualified instructor and as a team leader.
In addition to my normal job, in one country I was put in national charge of all Vietnamese refugees, from arrival to departure (only 2 boatloads, fortunately).
I am a qualified and experienced tactical questioner and screener (what you would probably call an interrogator).

That, as far as I am aware, is all that I have mentioned here. Although doubt has been cast on my honesty and integrity I have no reason to doubt yours (although I would not extend the same courtesy to some others), so if you have some doubts feel free to contact me by PM and I will send you a fully verifiable, confidential and extremely boring CV.

John McCain, as far as I know from what he wrote and what is reported, did not actually know anything worth telling and what little he did know he apparently did not tell until long after it would have been of nothing more than propaganda value. He, if anything, is an example of torture not working as a method of extracting information but working as a method of getting the subject to admit to things he did not do (unless, that is, he deliberately bombed schools, as he admitted to but which I doubt he did - whatever his politics, I do not doubt his integrity).

The problem with torture, as I pointed out and you yourself have put your finger on (possibly unwittingly), is precisely that "99% of tortured prisoners crack and tell them whatever they want to know" - what the interrogator wants to know (or, more to the point, what the subject thinks they want to know) and accurate, useful and timely information which can be acted on very often end up as totally different things under torture.

Oh, and about the nipple twisting - I am sure you would probably tell me everything you thought I wanted to know, but what if you did not know anything? If you are prepared to accept nipple twisting (for example) as a valid method of questioning, then why would I waste time on you when it would probably be far quicker and more effective to apply it to your mother/wife/sister/daughter instead while politely questioning you? Enough of this before it gets brandumb and his friends excited.


Litefoot2,

you say "Read the Koran - the real ugliness is there"; I have read the Koran, several times, and found its sentiments similar to but no less liberal than the Bible. As you must also have read it, maybe you could quote some references, in context, of what you refer to? I can only guess that you are referring to some of the more radical interpretations, which are no more unpleasant than those of some Christian extremists.

Water boarding was developed and perfected by the Khmer Rouge, taking a prisoner bound to a board to the brink of drowning and then reviving him and repeating the process until he "confesses" to anything; the only difference was that the Khmer Rouge then executed the "guilty" prisoner, while the US put them on military trial using the same "evidence". How "precise" do you want it? Modern methods of sensory deprivation are as permanently damaging to the mind as medieval methods were to the body and they are no less methods of torture.

The Islamic treatment of gays (and the often incorrect view of it put forward by some gay groups) is a totally different subject, which has already been discussed here before, extensively.

[kittyboy]

Rather amazing at the list of topics which you seem to have some expertise...

Well, Bob, at least amazement is more polite than calling me a liar, as Trevor and Pissyboy have effectively done recently. To save you (or them) the trouble of checking, as far as I can recall the only areas I have mentioned here in which I have "some expertise" are as follows (if you can find more please add them, with a link):

I was trained as an architect - never practiced.
I am a trained and qualified B2 Medic, with minor additional specialist training - never worked as such.
I am a qualified instructor in aikido - never worked as such, although I did instruct occasionally.
I have considerable international expertise in Counter Insurgency and Internal Security; there are no qualifications in this field except at a considerably lower level than my own.
I was involved in the establishment of a specialist SAR team, as both a specialist skill qualified instructor and as a team leader.
In addition to my normal job, in one country I was put in national charge of all Vietnamese refugees, from arrival to departure (only 2 boatloads, fortunately).
I am a qualified and experienced tactical questioner and screener (what you would probably call an interrogator).

That, as far as I am aware, is all that I have mentioned here. Although doubt has been cast on my honesty and integrity I have no reason to doubt yours (although I would not extend the same courtesy to some others), so if you have some doubts feel free to contact me by PM and I will send you a fully verifiable, confidential and extremely boring CV.

John McCain, as far as I know from what he wrote and what is reported, did not actually know anything worth telling and what little he did know he apparently did not tell until long after it would have been of nothing more than propaganda value. He, if anything, is an example of torture not working as a method of extracting information but working as a method of getting the subject to admit to things he did not do (unless, that is, he deliberately bombed schools, as he admitted to but which I doubt he did - whatever his politics, I do not doubt his integrity).

The problem with torture, as I pointed out and you yourself have put your finger on (possibly unwittingly), is precisely that "99% of tortured prisoners crack and tell them whatever they want to know" - what the interrogator wants to know (or, more to the point, what the subject thinks they want to know) and accurate, useful and timely information which can be acted on very often end up as totally different things under torture.

Oh, and about the nipple twisting - I am sure you would probably tell me everything you thought I wanted to know, but what if you did not know anything? If you are prepared to accept nipple twisting (for example) as a valid method of questioning, then why would I waste time on you when it would probably be far quicker and more effective to apply it to your mother/wife/sister/daughter instead while politely questioning you? Enough of this before it gets brandumb and his friends excited.


Litefoot2,

you say "Read the Koran - the real ugliness is there"; I have read the Koran, several times, and found its sentiments similar to but no less liberal than the Bible. As you must also have read it, maybe you could quote some references, in context, of what you refer to? I can only guess that you are referring to some of the more radical interpretations, which are no more unpleasant than those of some Christian extremists.

Water boarding was developed and perfected by the Khmer Rouge, taking a prisoner bound to a board to the brink of drowning and then reviving him and repeating the process until he "confesses" to anything; the only difference was that the Khmer Rouge then executed the "guilty" prisoner, while the US put them on military trial using the same "evidence". How "precise" do you want it? Modern methods of sensory deprivation are as permanently damaging to the mind as medieval methods were to the body and they are no less methods of torture.

The Islamic treatment of gays (and the often incorrect view of it put forward by some gay groups) is a totally different subject, which has already been discussed here before, extensively.

Go Fuckyourself -
I don't think you are a liar I think you are self-important. Just read through your post I just quoted... it screams self-importance. Refer to my other recent post. You claim to be able to interpret and comment on advanced statistical models and you do not have any training in stats...I have a reasonably good background in stats so I feel at least somewhat qualified to comment on your statements. Your pretension to be able to comment in this area is just an example of the self-importance that I find in your posts.

Go Fuckyourself - I encourage you to continue with your self-important postings as I find it amusing that you can actually take yourself so seriously. Hang on -- Go Fuckyourself... are you really just pretending to be so self-important as a joke on the rest of us?

Have a good day go fuckyourself.

PS - Water boarding was developed and perfected by the Khmer Rouge? Uh... and let me see your expertise on this is a detailed study of the history of the pol pot regime? I think if you do a bit of research you will find water boarding is a very very old torture tool. Again this is just another example of you being self-important and a bit of a fool in the process.

Oh and where did the precisely that "99% of tortured prisoners crack and tell them whatever they want to know" come fron? It sounds like some bullshit number you pulled from your ass? Come on now give us your citation for precisely 99%. This has got to be a good one.

[joe552]

litefoot, it seems to me that rather than condemning torture by the Thail military (the original topic of the thread) you prefer to attack other posters. That the word 'torture' is loaded, as you say, is irrelevant. Either water boarding (for example), is torture or it is not. I'd be interested to read your view.

[litefoot2]

Gone Fishing --

In my original entry I tried to make clear that I am not an abuse/torture enthusiast.

My impression of the Koran stands. I found it chock full of codified aggression and hate. My reading: those more knowledgeable may have a different take. Be aware I am not negating the culture--for example I find Rumi to be excellent.

It is very important that the innocent be protected in opposing terrorism. Safeguards need to be in place; I'm cautiously optimistic about the new administration here.

Genuine terrorists may well be damaged by interrogation. So be it.
_______________________________
Note to those concerned: it would be good to pull back from the level of ad hominem in recent use here.

Firstly, I'm assuming that few of us have actually read the Amnesty report? You're expecting the noxious weeds here to base their posts on facts? Surely not. Having an unsubstantiated, uninformed opinion is so much easier, and takes so little effort

[cottmann]

.....
Water boarding was developed and perfected by the Khmer Rouge, taking a prisoner bound to a board to the brink of drowning and then reviving him and repeating the process until he "confesses" to anything; the only difference was that the Khmer Rouge then executed the "guilty" prisoner, while the US put them on military trial using the same "evidence". How "precise" do you want it? Modern methods of sensory deprivation are as permanently damaging to the mind as medieval methods were to the body and they are no less methods of torture. ..

Many nations, including the United States (in both The Philippines during the Spanish-American War of 1898 as 'the water cure' and Viet Nam), France (during the Algerian War), and both Japan and Germany during WWII, used water boarding before the Khmer Rouge did. Its history dates back many centuries, and the KT neither "developed" nor "perfected" it. The main difference between the KR and the USA is that only the former never denied using torture. For a history of US use of water boarding, see "Using the "Water Cure" in the Philippines: Waterboarding in American History," by William Loren Katz, http://www.counterpunch.org/katz11082007.html

[Bob]

That, as far as I am aware, is all that I have mentioned here. Although doubt has been cast on my honesty and integrity I have no reason to doubt yours (although I would not extend the same courtesy to some others), so if you have some doubts feel free to contact me by PM and I will send you a fully verifiable, confidential and extremely boring CV.


No, GF, I don't cast any doubt on your honesty or integrity and, no, I'm not interested in receiving or reading your CV; however - and I mean this with all the sense of humor I can muster at the moment - I do give you a 10 on the pompous scale for this last post. :salute:

[joe552]

Homi (if you'll forgive the diminutive) I safely assumed that no-one read the Amnesty report - which is incidental since the thread veered sharply to the right from the Thai military's treatment of people in the South to America's history of torture over the past couple of centuries.

I've been on the board long enough not to expect facts to play a part in a good rant.

[cottmann]

Homi (if you'll forgive the diminutive) I safely assumed that no-one read the Amnesty report - which is incidental since the thread veered sharply to the right from the Thai military's treatment of people in the South to America's history of torture over the past couple of centuries.

I've been on the board long enough not to expect facts to play a part in a good rant.

I have read the report, which includes the following comment:
"On 4 January 2004, Muslim insurgents raided an army depot in Narathiwat Province, stealing hundreds of guns and killing four soldiers, signalling a return to violence after years of dormancy. Now into its sixth year, this new phase of violence and counter-insurgency has been marked by widespread and escalating human rights abuses by both sides. The current violence has led to at least 3,500 deaths so far, with the number of total deaths increasing each year through at least 2007. In March 2008 government statistics showed that 66 percent of those killed in the south since 2004 were civilians. Just over half of those killed were Muslims.
Since 2005 insurgents in the area have engaged in serious human rights abuses such as bombings of civilian areas, beheadings, and drive-by shootings of both Buddhist and Muslim security forces and civilians, including local officials seen as cooperating with the government. The insurgents have targeted state schools and teachers, and tried to frighten Buddhist residents away from the area.
In November 2007 the Royal Thai government ratified the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). This convention has been authoritatively interpreted to state that тАЬtorture may in fact be of a systematic character without resulting from the direct intention of a Government. It may be the consequence of factors which the Government has difficulty in controlling, and its existence may indicate a discrepancy between policy as determined by the central Government and its implementation by the local administration. Inadequate legislation which in practice allows room for the use of torture may also add to the systematic nature of this practice.
Thailand has passed no legislation specifically criminalizing torture or implementing the CAT provisions not already covered by existing Thai law. Moreover, the 2005 Emergency Decree in force in the south provides for impunity for officials who violate the law тАЬwhile acting in good faithтАЭ. This provision effectively facilitates torture going undetected and unpunished.тАЭ

Amnesty International chose not to highlight the acts of the insurgents, however.

See http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/pre ... y-20090113 (http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/thailand-stop-systematic-torture-southern-counter-insurgency-20090113)

[litefoot2]

litefoot, it seems to me that rather than condemning torture by the Thail military (the original topic of the thread) you prefer to attack other posters. That the word 'torture' is loaded, as you say, is irrelevant. Either water boarding (for example), is torture or it is not. I'd be interested to read your view.

joe552 -

Read my entries again. Slowly. I've attacked no one.

Before putting my experience in this particular subject into perspective I should make it clear that I have never claimed to have any experience or training in statistics; a "reasonably good background in stats" is hardly necessary to realise that a study into the statistical probability of homosexuality being an inherited trait can hardly be taken seriously if the "stats" are limited to a single generation - an IQ above 2 would probably suffice ( your-mother-really-did-make-you-a-homosexual-t15304.html?hilit=statistics (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/your-mother-really-did-make-you-a-homosexual-t15304.html?hilit=statistics) refers).

The "99% ....etc" was a quote from Bob.

I said that water boarding was developed and perfected by the Khmer Rouge, not invented by them. My knowledge of this particular area is not based on "a detailed study of the history of the pol pot regime" or the internet, but on specific training and experience in screening and tactical questioning and on 9 months spent in Cambodia, primarily with the Khmer Rouge, meeting their members and some of their top military and political commanders on an almost daily basis (socially and professionally) over 15 years ago. It is generally accepted (certainly by those involved in interrogation training in the USA, the former Soviet Union and the UK) that it was "invented" by the Italian inquisition in the 1500s but that the Khmer Rouge developed and perfected it to the point where it was virtually guaranteed to extract a confession from anyone to anything within a few seconds - a considerable "development" (if that is an appropriate term) on what had gone before. In counter-interrogation training using the Khmer Rouge developed methods CIA and US Navy SEALS lasted an average of 14 seconds before "breaking" (it is no longer used by the SEALS); Khalid Sheik Mohammed apparently lasted more than two minutes before confessing to everything he had been accused of.

Senator John McCain, unsurprisingly, condemned it outright as torture while Dick Cheney, when asked if "a dunk in the water" was acceptable during interrogation said that it was. While conceding that "Genuine terrorists may well be damaged by interrogation. So be it", Litefoot, despite joe552's specific question, has yet to give his view on the subject and whether he thinks it is acceptable for those who may not be "genuine terrorists" to also be "damaged".

Bob, I quite accept that my post on this topic is worth "a 10 on the pompous scale", and even that it "screams self-importance". Since it appears that I am the only person with any first-hand knowledge of the subject (and I have offered to verify any claims I have made on this or any other subject, which I do not recall as being the norm here) it is difficult to see how it could be otherwise.

[litefoot2]

Gone Fishing --

From my earlier entry : "It is very important that the innocent be protected in opposing terrorism. Safeguards need to be in place; I'm cautiously optimistic about the new administration here."

You missed it? I'm not an advocate of abusing the innocent. The fact that apprehended terrorists may be aggressively handled does not thrill me, but I accept it as a condition of war. That's my take--read again if you're unclear.

My original point--roundly challenged by you and another--was that a lot of things can be called torture, and that I'm not certain about a final, limiting definition. Torture is most certainly an emotionally charged term, and the emotionalism frequently clouds the discussion.

Familiar? To the earlier query (which I read as sarcasm) I can only say that I have more questions than answers.

This particular discussion has sidetracked into personalities. With no hard feelings I'm out of here.

No, I didn't miss it (or your claim to be "out of here", which is an easy but understandable way of avoiding committing yourself).

You, however, appear to be either unable or unwilling to commit yourself to answering what was a simple question from joe552 - I fail to see what can be sarcastic about asking if you consider water boarding torture or not.

Many of those formerly detained at Guantanamo and in the covert CIA prisons (including in Thailand, which was one of the few countries to admit it) in what was essentially government approved kidnapping going by the term "rendition" were not "terrorists" according to even the most broad reaching interpretation of the word. Some were totally innocent and were cases of mistaken identity while others were arrested following information given by informers who turned out to be disgruntled business partners. That did not stop them being tortured and detained for a number of years.

Fortunately for America's credibility Barak Obama has kept his word and made it clear that even the USA is subject not only technically but morally to international conventions. Ending the military tribunals for those held illegally at Guantanamo was a minor step compared with his most recent (but less publicised) move effectively declaring that America is no longer at war and ending the CIA's virtually unlimited use of torture: "Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001." (Washington Post, 23 Feb: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03929.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012203929.html) )

Following the CNN reports of the plight of Rohingya refugees ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 594213.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5594213.ece)), and the initial BBC reports, it will be interesting to see if "Obamark" (Abhisit Vejjajiva) is as willing to take a similar moral stand - and, more to the point, risk taking on the military. Somehow I doubt it.