A Few Bad Apples? Smoking Gun Photograph Shows Mil-Intel Officials In Charge

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Better start packing.

From MSNBC:

EXCLUSIVE
NBC News and news services
Updated: 8:47 p.m. ET May 13, 2004


WASHINGTON - Abusive treatment under the supervision of military intelligence officers may have been intentionally used as part of the interrogation of Iraqi captives at the Abu Ghraib prison, according to a previously unpublished photograph of U.S. soldiers and other personnel obtained by NBC News.

The photograph was taken during the interrogation of several Iraqi prisoners who are depicted naked in a heap on the floor, according to a military police officer who faces a court-martial in connection with alleged abuses at the notorious facility on the outskirts of Baghdad.

The officer, Spc. Charles A. Graner Jr., 35, of Greene County, Pa., is leaning against the wall in the photograph, which was provided by his attorney, Guy Womack.

Graner identified four other soldiers in the photograph, labeled Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 in the copy provided to NBC News, as military intelligence officers, who he said were in charge of interrogations at the prison. A civilian translator is labeled No. 2, and Graner is No. 1.

What role for military intelligence?
The involvement of military intelligence officers in encouraging abuse of detainees has emerged as a central question of the burgeoning scandal at Abu Ghraib, which has led to criminal charges against Graner and six other MPs and widespread calls for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said last week that Graner had his photo taken with prisoners as proof that military intelligence officers forced him to take part in the abusive behavior.

Military police are responsible for guarding prisoners but are not supposed to be involved in interrogations. But in a report obtained last week by NBC News, Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, who led the Army’s investigation of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, quoted the testimony of a sergeant at Abu Ghraib who said military intelligence officers lobbied guards to abuse the detainees to “loosen them up” for interrogation.

“Make sure he has a bad night,” the sergeant said he was told in regard to one inmate. “Make sure he gets the treatment.”

Other unit members said inmates of high interest to military intelligence officers were segregated into a separate cellblock, where guards were expected to “break them down,” Taguba wrote.

Taguba blamed, in part, a confused chain of command after Nov. 19, when the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade was given responsibility for Abu Ghraib prison and authority over the 800th Military Police Brigade. He reiterated that guards should play no role in the interrogation of prisoners.

Geneva Conventions debated
The photograph could also be important in determining whether interrogation techniques used at the prison were improper in themselves.

Questions have also been raised about the Defense Department’s list of approved rules for interrogations and whether they violate the Geneva Conventions, a series of international treaties that govern the appropriate treatment of prisoners of war.

Rumsfeld told lawmakers this week that the detainees at Abu Ghraib were covered by the conventions.

The conventions state specifically that while being interrogated, prisoners “may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to any unpleasant ... treatment of any kind.”

But the list of approved U.S. guidelines allows interrogators to subject prisoners to sleep and sensory deprivation for up to 72 hours and force them to hold “stress positions” for as long as 45 minutes, threaten them with guard dogs, keep them isolated for longer than 30 days and manipulate their diets.

Senators challenged Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz over the rules at a hearing Thursday of the Armed Services Committee.

“A bag over your head for 72 hours — is that humane?” asked Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.

When Wolfowitz began to answer by saying, “Let me come back to what you said the work of the government ..., ” Reed cut him off and demanded: “No, no — answer the question, secretary.”

Wolfowitz conceded, “What you’ve described to me sounds, to me, like a violation of the Geneva Convention.”

Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went a step further, saying directly: “I would describe it as a violation, sir.”

It was a body blow’
The scandal emerged when proceedings were opened in January against the seven military police, but it exploded into a global issue with the release of soldiers’ photographs two weeks ago.

Asked this week at a Senate hearing to put into simple words how the abuses happened, Taguba said: “Failure in leadership, sir, from the brigade commander on down. Lack of discipline, no training whatsoever and no supervision. Supervisory omission was rampant.”

Rumsfeld said Thursday that the incidents “sullied the reputation of our country. I was stunned. It was a body blow. And with six or seven investigations under way and a country that has values and a military justice system that has values, we know that those involved, whoever they are, will be brought to justice.”

Lawmakers were allow to view many of the photographs and video clips Wednesday and said they were even worse than they had expected, depicting “disgusting” and “appalling” instances of torture and humiliation.

“I don’t know how the hell these people got into our Army,” said Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo.

Rumsfeld: Keep photos private
Rumsfeld said on his flight Thursday to Baghdad that Bush administration lawyers were advising the Defense Department not to publicly release any more photographs of U.S. soldiers’ behavior at Abu Ghraib.

He said the lawyers were concerned that releasing the materials would violate another stricture of the Geneva Conventions against presenting images of prisoners that could be construed as degrading.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California agreed Thursday that for now, the photographs should remain private, saying legal concerns, in addition to considerations relating to the Geneva Conventions, may outweigh the need for transparency.

Pelosi called the materials, which she viewed Wednesday, profoundly disturbing but said they essentially were more of what the public had already seen.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, also said the images should remain private, saying that showing them to the world could “inspire the enemy.”

Fears that the prisoner abuses would trigger a violent backlash were realized Tuesday when a video clip was posted on a Web site linked to al-Qaida showing the beheading of a U.S. civilian. A voice on the clip said the killing was to avenge the prisoner abuse.

Suspect’s lawyers fight back
Womack’s decision to provide NBC with the new photograph of Graner and the other soldiers appeared intended to establish that his client was under the command of military intelligence officers.

Graner is scheduled to be arraigned May 20 on military charges of maltreatment and indecent acts, Womack said Thursday, adding that Graner would plead not guilty.

Six other U.S. military police reservists are charged with sexually and physically tormenting detainees at Abu Ghraib. One of them, Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits of Hyndman, Pa., goes on trial Wednesday in Baghdad before a special court-martial. Two others, Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick II and Sgt. Javal S. Davis, will also be arraigned May 20, the Army said Thursday.

The lawyer for another of the soldiers, Pfc. Lynndie England, accused the Defense Department on Thursday of withholding evidence necessary to her defense.

The attorney, Giorgio Ra’Shadd, maintained Wednesday that the Defense Department had denied him access to pictures, names and other information that could help his client, who was photographed taunting naked Iraqi prisoners.

To help prove his point, Ra’Shadd held up nearly black photocopies of images turned over to him by military authorities. Outlines of nude men could be seen in some of the pictures.

Ra’Shadd said he could not issue subpoenas to civilian intelligence officers who England says ordered her to appear in the photographs because the military would not release their names.

“You have to allow people to defend themselves,” Ra’Shadd said from a motel near Fort Bragg, N.C., where England has been stationed since returning from Iraq in March.

Master Sgt. Ken Heller, a spokesman for the 18th Airborne Corps based at Fort Bragg, said he was not able to immediately respond to Ra’Shadd’s accusations.

Lax conditions at Abu Ghraib described
Meanwhile, U.S. troops who served at Abu Ghraib said Thursday that sex and alcoholism were commonplace among guards even though they were forbidden. Soldiers even set up a candle-lit room for sex shows, they said.

“There was lots of affairs. There was all kinds of adultery and alcoholism and all kinds of crap going on,” Dave Bischel, a National Guardsman with the 870th Military Police unit, told Reuters. Bischel returned home last month after service at Abu Ghraib.

The statements added to the reactions of lawmakers who viewed the hundreds of photos and video clips shot at Abu Ghraib. The New York Post quoted a member of Congress as saying on condition of anonymity that among the materials were numerous images showing England having sex with numerous partners.

“It appeared to be consensual,” the lawmaker said. The newspaper quoted another lawmaker as saying, “Almost everybody was naked all the time.”

Bischel told Reuters: “There was a bed found in one of the abandoned buildings. There was a mattress on the ground. They had chairs all circled around it and candles all over the place. Chairs [were] around it obviously for an audience.”

Sex rumors were rampant among those serving in Abu Ghraib. “One of the female soldiers supposedly had sex in a gang bang,” said Terry Stowe, another California MP who has since returned home. “From time to time, things like this would happen.”

Sgt. Mike Sindar said there were also whispers that some soldiers had sex with Iraqi inmates.

Capt. Patrick Swan, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, described a “no-sex policy in theater,” which means soldiers are forbidden to have sex anywhere in Iraq.

Lust apparently led to the dismissal of the 870th unit’s first commander, Capt. Leo Merck, on charges that he photographed his female soldiers as they showered. At least one soldier said others had photographed naked female soldiers in the showers.

The 870th had just six females out of 124 MPs, but other U.S. units serving at Abu Ghraib had higher ratios of women.

By MSNBC’s Alex Johnson with NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski. NBC’s Ned Colt in Baghdad and Mike Viqueira in Washington, The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

 

[EzInKy]

Capt. Patrick Swan, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, described a “no-sex policy in theater,” which means soldiers are forbidden to have sex anywhere in Iraq.
[/I]

This Swan guy seems to be living in fantasy land if he thinks telling 100,000 plus twenty-something-year-olds that they are forbidden to have sex is going to stop them from having sex.

 

[Archer 007]

Wow! This is shocking.

 

[Bobo the Ape]

Better start packing.

Why we going on a trip? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?......

Back on topic. What is this supposed to prove? That wasn't an Intelligence Officer in charge. He was a Specialist (E-4) the lowest rank a Mil-Int soldier can be. He was outranked by many of the accused. This in itself does not prove that orders came from "above"

But I'll tell you what while I wasn't in the Mil-Int I knew people who were and a lot of this would indeed be standard ways of softening up prisoners for interrogation.

That's war. It's not a nice thing. Anybody who was for the war but would be against it because of this is a fool. Naked pictures are probably the least of the bad things that happen in a war.

I myself have been against the war. But not because of this but because Iraq was not a threat in the "War on Militant Fundamentalist Islam". If Iraq was truly a threat then I would have been for the war and would have wanted it fought as a war should be fought. Destroy the enemy, his infrastructure, and his ability to make war or otherwise harm you. Then you leave. No liberation. No re-building.

Sounds harsh but under my policy WW2 was the only war we would have fought over the last 100 years.

 

[stormbind]

And some people have the audacity to chant "USA, USA, USA!!" - It my sincerest hope that nobody comes to the defence of the crimes described in the above article.

 

[stormbind]

a lot of this would indeed be standard ways of softening up prisoners for interrogation.

Some of it, yes, but breaking the Geneva convention is wholy unacceptable!!

Besides, nobody should need remind you that hostilities against the nation of Iraq ceased long ago, and that what we have now is not technically war.

I am well aware that the US Army trains it's soldiers to break the Geneva convention, but I had no idea it went this far.

This Briton has lost much respect for the US as a political unit, and those American citizens who defend these debated actions.

 

[Bobo the Ape]

@stormbind

Some of it, yes, but breaking the Geneva convention is wholy unacceptable!!

A useless piece of paper. It's purpose is to make war "nice". War is not nice. Any attempts to make it nice only make it more acceptable as an option and lead to further wars.

Besides, nobody should need remind you that hostilities against the nation of Iraq ceased long ago, and that what we have now is not technically war.

Doesn't matter what it technically is or isn't. If the prisoners shot at US troops and may have intelligence regarding future attacks then they must be questioned.

I am well aware that the US Army trains it's soldiers to break the Geneva convention, but I had no idea it went this far.

If it makes you sleep better at night to think that the US is the only nation in the West to practice harsh interrogation techniques such as these then be my guest.

This Briton has lost much respect for the US as a political unit, and those American citizens who defend these debated actions.

Who cares? Political influence alone means nothing. Only military and economic matter.These are what lead to political influence. Alliances are formed by common interests and not because countries "like" one another.

The war is wrong. War is not nice. But this isn't the reason to be against the war.

 

[stormbind]

If it makes you sleep better at night to think that the US is the only nation in the West to practice harsh interrogation techniques such as these then be my guest.

I am familiar with interogation techniques and they are very harsh, but humiliation and brutal (emphasis) torture are not among them.

There's a lot of psychological pressure, weakening of resolve, imposed confusion, and deception. I assure you that I would not like to undergo such treatment, and do not believe I could hold out for more than 48hrs at most.

With all the investigation, there have been decent and less cruel methods to extract information without breaking the geneva convention. For all the cruelty described in the posted article, the US solutions are less effective and have no logical argument outside highlighting the stupidity of some interogators.

As the Red Cross has claimed that 70% to 90% of the prisoners are innocent, it can be safely assumed that less than 5% have any information.

If the US forces agree with that assesment, and they are increasingly admitting more and more of Red Cross claims, then they already know that interogation is pointless. This might go some way to explaining the use of disgusting treatment to no end.

Political influence alone means nothing. Only military and economic matter.

 

[Bobo the Ape]

@stormbind

I am familiar with interogation techniques and they are very harsh, but humiliation and brutal (emphasis) torture are not among them.

You're not as familiar as you think then.

There's a lot of psychological pressure, weakening of resolve, imposed confusion, and deception. I assure you that I would not like to undergo such treatment, and do not believe I could hold out for more than 48hrs.

ummm.....how do you think "psychological pressure" and "weakening of resolve" occur? Of course you and I couldn't take it.

With all the investigation, there have been decent and less cruel methods to extract information without breaking the geneva convention.

Enlighten please. How do you decently and in a nice way extract information from someone who would love to kill you and has little to lose?

Touche.

Care to quote the rest of my post now? Show me an instance where a country with no economic or military power politically influenced another country to something it didn't want to do?

 

[stormbind]

I shall not debate the issues for it is clear that to change your view would require more than words, and I assure you that your words will not replace my knowledge

My reply attempts to open helpful dialog, whilst simultanously putting asside those issues which are likely to result only in one blow for another.

In some cases, a quick threat is sufficient to break civilian prisoners but this would not be ongoing in the methods described.

Each person is an individual and some interogation techniques, which take advantage of psychological imperfection, work better against one person than they will another. Time is also important. This should be enough to assure you that suspects are not interogated in groups, and isolation from one another is very important.

The photos we have seen show group humiliation which is flawed because the prisoners will gain strength through memory of their own training or identity. They should also not be allowed to become familiar with their surroundings. If adhered to, the passing of time becomes impossible to measure and the prisoners are unable to perceive events properly, allowing relatively easy manipulation of the facts, deception and misleading of the prisoner. For example, it could be used in conjunction with other techniques for making them think more time has passed and that the war is over, or that there have been other such profound changes: All with the intention to nullify every excuse the prisoner has for not disclosing information.

These methods aim to impose confusion, dilusion, disorientation and strong desires whilst breaking down memories of training. Then to offer an easy escape from the endless psychological torment, which is their excuse to cooperate, and all without physical abuse or humiliation.

To perform group humiliation would most likely extend the time it takes to extract information or completely prevent it being extracted, being therefore an oxymoron with no purpose other than to enjoy the acts of humiliating.

 

[Bobo the Ape]

@stormbind

I shall not debate the issues for it is clear that to change your view would require more than words, and I assure you that your words will not replace my knowledge

And your words will not replace my experience.

This should be enough to assure you that suspects are not interogated in groups, and isolation from one another is very important.

This was not an interrogation but rather a "softening up" before the interrogation. Nor was it a murder case in which it was necessary to get evidence that would hold up in court.

The photos we have seen show group humiliation which is flawed because the prisoners will gain strength through memory of their own training or identity.

I doubt these were trained soldiers who had gone through interrogation resistance training.

They should also not be allowed to become familiar with their surroundings.

How did they become familiar with their surroundings? And I doubt the pictures were taken in the same place the interrogations occurred.

If adhered to, the passing of time becomes impossible to measure and the prisoners are unable to perceive events properly, allowing relatively easy manipulation of the facts, deception and misleading of the prisoner.

I'm sure that works quite well against rationale thinking Western people. But these aren't those people.

For example, it could be used in conjunction with other techniques for making them think more time has passed and that the war is over, or that there have been other such profound changes:

I see...."All your friends have surrendered....so tell us about the attacks that they were planning". Or "It is now 10 years in the future and Iraq loves America......tell us about future attacks that already happened."

Then to offer an easy escape from the endless psychological torment, which is their excuse to cooperate, and all without physical abuse or humiliation.

Like I said I'm sure this works well against the standard Western criminal but not so sure about a religious fundamentalist.

Again you not have spoken of how exactly you achieve this nice but excruciatingly painful psychological torment.

To perform group humiliation would most likely extend the time it takes to extract information or completely prevent it being extracted, being therefore an oxymoron with no purpose other than to enjoy the acts of humiliating.

All you've given me is the psychology chapter from the Junior Detective Handbook. All well and good when conducting a criminal investigation in your hometown involving others of your same culture.

You've given no specifics on how you actually accomplish this extraction of information

 

[amadeus]

Don't tell me we're going to make them listen to C.W. McCall eight tracks next!

 

[romelus]

A useless piece of paper. It's purpose is to make war "nice". War is not nice. Any attempts to make it nice only make it more acceptable as an option and lead to further wars.

yeah, too bad the US signed it. they also *****ed about it when irqai tv showed US POWs being questioned

Doesn't matter what it technically is or isn't. If the prisoners shot at US troops and may have intelligence regarding future attacks then they must be questioned.

yeah, questioned.

If it makes you sleep better at night to think that the US is the only nation in the West to practice harsh interrogation techniques such as these then be my guest.

too bad the US got caught, isn't it?

Who cares? Political influence alone means nothing. Only military and economic matter.These are what lead to political influence. Alliances are formed by common interests and not because countries "like" one another.

it'll probably take you a few more years to realize what bush is realizing now. it sucks to be holding a bag of crap and no one is offering to take it off your hands. you have military and economic power, but you still have that bag of crap

 

[Bobo the Ape]

@romelus

yeah, too bad the US signed it. they also *****ed about it when irqai tv showed US POWs being questioned

Of course they did. And it didn't stop anything. Hence, a useless piece of paper.

yeah, questioned.

Yep. I guess if you just ask them nicely then they'll be more than happy to give you honest answers.

too bad the US got caught, isn't it?

too bad for a lot of reasons......what's your point? You don't seem to be denying my statement so......

it'll probably take you a few more years to realize what bush is realizing now. it sucks to be holding a bag of crap and no one is offering to take it off your hands. you have military and economic power, but you still have that bag of crap

To realize what? The war was a bad idea? Sorry knew that before it started. And with political power we'd still have the bag of crap.

So do you intend to contradict any of my points or are you just ranting?

 

[stormbind]

Does Amazon.com sell the Junion Detective Handbook? It's not a title I'm familiar with.

I am not going to sit here and write a manual in wrecking someone's life; you will not get specifics from me. Most discouraging is that you appear to have misread or misunderstood, for the questions you put to me do not meet the situation I had hoped to portray.

Your quip on ten years would make more sense, if perhaps you understood how it was done, and dropped the time to months.

Demonstrating the breakdown in communication:

Isolation involves completely shutting them off from their surroundings, they should have no wall to draw a line on, no comfort from being able to touch familiar bars/stone/wood, and no vision and not hearing beyond that which is strictly controlled. They have no information except that which is selectively fed to them. They remain hooded except for while under the light.

 

[romelus]

Of course they did. And it didn't stop anything. Hence, a useless piece of paper.

so do you think rummy should just tell the world "to hell with the geneva convention, we back out of it, now you can treat our prisoners the same way we treated yours, and we will not complain if you do"?

why do you think they are trying to adjust their precedures to become compliant with the geneva convention?

Yep. I guess if you just ask them nicely then they'll be more than happy to give you honest answers.

who says you have to ask nicely? police in the US extracted many confessions from criminals without torture. the countries who signed the geneva convention were not dumb you know

too bad for a lot of reasons......what's your point? You don't seem to be denying my statement so......

my point is if you are caught with your pants down, you shouldn pull them up, instead of saying wearing pants is useless

To realize what? The war was a bad idea? Sorry knew that before it started. And with political power we'd still have the bag of crap.

you truly don't realize it. i'm not saying whether the war is good or bad. i'm saying that ignoring political power makes you alone with a bag of crap. if the US took more time to get UN support, and brought in UN peacekeepers as soon as saddam was toppled, there would be a lot more countries helping the US with holding the bag right now. so with political power you wouldn't be in this situation. bush is trying very hard to get international help, but you are still in bush mode 2003.

 

[Bobo the Ape]

@stormbind

I am not going to sit here and write a manual in wrecking someone's life; you will not get specifics from me.

If you have no facts then that's fine. Just say it earlier so we don't waste time discussing it. No big deal.

for the questions you put to me do not meet the situation I had hoped to portray.

The situation you are portraying is of standard civilian police interrogation. It applies quite well to Western criminals when you have the time. However, it does not apply as well to Islamic fundamentalists who have information needed within 48 hours and must be broken quickly. Different situation and different cultural factors.

if perhaps you understood how it was done

Then I guess I'll have to find someone who can explain how to interrogate Islamic Fundamentalists. I thought it may have been you.....but I guess not. My bad.

Isolation involves completely shutting them off from their surroundings, they should have no wall to draw a line on, no comfort from being able to touch familiar bars/stone/wood, and no vision and not hearing beyond that which is strictly controlled. They have no information except that which is selectively fed to them. They remain hooded except for while under the light.

Possibly. But I doubt the effectiveness of this on a religious fanatic. And to me this would be crueler than looking at me naked.

@romelus

so do you think rummy should just tell the world "to hell with the geneva convention, we back out of it, now you can treat our prisoners the same way we treated yours, and we will not complain if you do"?

My point is that it is useless. Who enforces it? What are the penalties?

why do you think they are trying to adjust their precedures to become compliant with the geneva convention?

Politics. Why didn't they adjust the procedures prior to the leak if it was a belief in the power of the Geneva Convention?

police in the US extracted many confessions from criminals without torture

Very few of the criminals in the US are willing to die for their cause. Very few have information that is needed within 24 hours to prevent the deaths of American soldiers.

Police in the US also don't carry grenades and heavy machine guns as standard equipment. I'd say the two situations are just a mite different.

my point is if you are caught with your pants down, you shouldn pull them up, instead of saying wearing pants is useless

And they did. They're putting the soldiers on trial. What do you want to have happen? The entire US Army commit suicide?

you truly don't realize it.

I don't realize what? I said before that political power comes from military and economic power. And you have not disputed that. Prior to WW2 the US had little political influence. Afterwards with a big army and booming economy it had political power. Do you think that's just coincidence?

I'll ask you since storm ignored the question. Give me an example in which a country with no economic or military power was able to influence another country to act a way it didn't want to.

i'm saying that ignoring political power makes you alone with a bag of crap.

The UN didn't want to join the war....and rightly so. No matter how much they liked the US countries aren't going to send troops to die in a cause they don't believe in because they think the US is cool.

However, all the political power of the countries against the war were unable to influence the US from going in anyway. So much for unbacked "political influence" winning the day.

so with political power you wouldn't be in this situation.

I see. So if the US was just nicer to them then they would have joined this foolish war and sent their citizens to die? But since the US was mean then all of a sudden the cause wasn't worth dying for. It seems to me that the decision to join the war was based on other factors than like or dislike for the US.

bush is trying very hard to get international help

And he's not getting it because noone wants in not because of a dislike for the US. If they truly believed they could save Iraqi lives but held back because of a dislike for Bush then that would be reprehensible on their part.

 

[Ægir]

I myself have been against the war. But not because of this but because Iraq was not a threat in the "War on Militant Fundamentalist Islam". If Iraq was truly a threat then I would have been for the war and would have wanted it fought as a war should be fought. Destroy the enemy, his infrastructure, and his ability to make war or otherwise harm you. Then you leave. No liberation. No re-building.

Sounds harsh but under my policy WW2 was the only war we would have fought over the last 100 years.

That's exactly how I feel about the whole thing. Iraq wasn't the threat. There are other countries that pose real threats yet we consider them our allies. total baloney

 

[stormbind]

If you have no facts then that's fine. Just say it earlier so we don't waste time discussing it. No big deal.

You are well versed in the art of frustrating people

Possibly. But I doubt the effectiveness of this on a religious fanatic. And to me this would be crueler than looking at me naked.

There is much more to it than simple isolation which is merely a support upon which to build the real assault, and these are incredibly cruel in that it the prisoner may never fully recover from the targetted psychological disruptions, which were not disclosed. However, and as far as I am aware, these methods do not breach the rules of the Geneva Convention which is the crux of the matter, but as a bonus, these methods do also leave no trail of political landmines for national leaders to step on

 

[Bobo the Ape]

@stormbind

You are well versed in the art of frustrating people

Well I am quite accomplished at baiting people. You might even say that I'm the Master Baiter.

However, and as far as I am aware, these methods do not breach the rules of the Geneva Convention which is the crux of the matter, but as a bonus, these methods do also leave no trail of political landmines for national leaders to step on

Quite true. I guess everyone responds differently to certain pressures. Stick me in a confined place and I'd probably lose it pretty quick. I'd prefer lethal injection to life imprisonment.

Though if you pulled my pants down and showed me some bolt cutters I'd be talking real fast. I imagine this would work with pretty much all males of all cultures.