Military prison abuse and English usage

Question

Following the "first open trial in Iraq since 1959" (according to Iraqi human rights minister Bakhtiar Amin) and the sentencing and dishonourable discharge of an American soldier, the Abu Ghraib scandal seems to produce a number of usage-related questions. Are "coercive interrogation techniques" necessarily abusive? Does "prepare them for interrogation" mean "brutalize them"? Is detention of prisoners deemed especially "dangerous" under harsh and demeaning conditions
"abuse"?
See, for example:
http://tinyurl.com/3yov2
http://tinyurl.com/yujpz
http://tinyurl.com/2vb3e

Michael West

Usenet · Accepted Answer

It depends on which side is talking. I'm not kidding. It's already an axiom "one peoples' terrorists are another peoples' freedom fighters".
[nq:1]Does "prepare them for interrogation" mean "brutalize them"? Is detention of prisoners deemed especially "dangerous" under harsh and demeaning conditions ... "prepare them for interrogation" mean "brutalize them"? Is detention of prisoners deemed especially "dangerous" under harsh and demeaning conditions "abuse"?[/nq]
There is a Geneva Convention and some time honored traditions to respect the higher brass, to feed the prisoners, etc. But the Frech put it more briefly: "A la guerre comme a la guerre".

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Following the "first open trial in Iraq since 1959" (according to Iraqi human rights minister Bakhtiar Amin) and the sentencing and dishonourable discharge[/nq]
Barely relevant technicality: "Bad conduct discharge." There is scant practical difference between a BCD and a DD.
[nq:1]of an American soldier, the Abu Ghraib scandal seems to produce a number of usage-related questions. Are "coercive interrogation techniques" necessarily abusive? Does "prepare them for interrogation" mean "brutalize them"? Is detention of prisoners deemed especially "dangerous" under harsh and demeaning conditions "abuse"?[/nq]
Both the military and the intelligence services are of course notorious for euphemizing just about everything they do. "Collateral damage," "terminate with extreme prejudice" we all know at least some of them.
It's interesting, I think, and very depressing, that the military and the use similar terminology to obscure, perhaps even to themselves, what they are up to.

Bob Lieblich
Posting with extreme prejudice

Usenet · Answer

Mafia. The Mafia. How could I have deleted that?

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]It's interesting, I think, and very depressing, that the military and the[/nq]
[nq:1]Mafia. The Mafia. How could I have deleted that?[/nq]
Being obscure again?
[nq:2]use similar terminology to obscure, perhaps even to themselves, what they are up to.[/nq]
Michael West

Usenet · Answer

Michael West wrote on 19 May 2004:
[nq:1]Following the "first open trial in Iraq since 1959" (according to Iraqi human rights minister Bakhtiar Amin) and the sentencing and dishonourable discharge of an American soldier,[/nq]
It was not a dishonorable discharge but a "less than honorable discharge", viz. "a bad conduct discharge". An honorable discharge is the default expectation. Beneath that comes a "general discharge", and after that come "bad conduct" and "dishonorable" dicharges.
[nq:1]the Abu Ghraib scandal seems to produce a number of usage-related questions. Are "coercive interrogation techniques" necessarily abusive?[/nq]
I'd say that anything that demeans a person and robs him of his dignity is abusive, especially the use of force during interrogation.
[nq:1]Does "prepare them for interrogation" mean "brutalize them"?[/nq]
Not necessarily. Injecting someone with Sodium Pentathol(1) is popularly considered one method of preparing someone for interrogation. Hypnosis is another.
[nq:1]Is detention of prisoners deemed especially "dangerous" under harsh and demeaning conditions "abuse"?[/nq]
That seems to be a matter of perspective.
[nq:1]See, for example: [/nq]
(1)Dorlands' Illustrated Medical Dictionary describes truth serum as "ultra-short-acting barbiturate (drug) to produce general anesthesia, and for narcoanalysis in psychiatric disorders." The proper name for this drug is thiopental sodium; it is also called Sodium Pentothal, because it is actually a trademark of Abbott Laboratories - the drug's manufacturer. Sodium Pentothal is a yellow crystal, which can be dissolved in water or alcohol. It has alliaceous, garlic-like odor.
If you were to drink a glass of water with Sodium Pentothal, it would depress your central nervous system, slow your heart rate and lower your blood pressure. All of the listed above affects are the functions of any sedative. Sodium Pentothal is commonly used as an anesthetic during surgery. The patient is unconscious within 30 to 60 seconds after the drug administration to the veins. The duration of the anesthesia is very short; it only causes a few minutes of sedation.
http://www.psicologia.freeservers.com/diversos/soro verdade.html

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.

Usenet · Answer

If "we all know", how does the terminology obscure?

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]It's interesting, I think, and very depressing, that the military and the use similar terminology to obscure, perhaps even to themselves, what they are up to.[/nq]
From a psychological standpoint, it is nearly a necessity with some of these words. Most people abhor the thought of killing another human being. For that reason, mainly, we had gooks, krauts, ****, yanks for the Brits during the Revolutionary War, as we called it, and so on. It dehumanizes the opponents, making it more acceptable, in the minds of those holding the rifles, when killing them. War sucks, as General Sherman observed.

Charles Riggs
- Primarily northeast US upbringing
- Currently living on the west coast of Ireland; passingly familiar with Hibernian-English expressions
- No discernable Irish accent
My email address: chriggs/at/eircom/dot/net

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Michael West wrote on 19 May 2004:[/nq]
[nq:2]Is detention of prisoners deemed especially "dangerous" under harsh and demeaning conditions "abuse"?[/nq]
That's a question no-one, other than a barbarian, should have to ask.
Charles Riggs
- Primarily northeast US upbringing
- Currently living on the west coast of Ireland; passingly familiar with Hibernian-English expressions
- No discernable Irish accent
My email address: chriggs/at/eircom/dot/net

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Are "coercive interrogation techniques" necessarily abusive? Does "prepare them for ... prisoners deemed especially "dangerous" under harsh and demeaning conditions "abuse"?[/nq]
These are not rhetorical questions in mid-air.
The USA has a 200-year record of attention to
such matters in military law, both in the Code
of Military Justice and in its case law. Neither
supports serious doubts about these questions.
At the same time, whatever the cause, we are
now alert to common legal errors and fictions.
The most notorious of these is that, when a
country adopts Geneva Conventions it is not
obliged to fulfil these obligations towards citizens of countries that have not similarly signed.
This was what **** defendants suggested on
trial before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremburg 1945-46. (They said that while Germany had accepted Geneva Conventions the USSR had not:
so that Germans were not bound by Geneva when
handling Russian prisoners of war.) This position was assessed by the IMT judges and rejected.
The judges ruled that a country's acceptance of
Geneva Conventions governs all future conduct
toward PoWs: no difference is permitted in the
case of enemies whose governments did not sign.
The US Code of Military Justice is similar.
When action X is a crime, it is no less a crime when inflicted on one individual rather than another.

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Michael West wrote on 19 May 2004:[/nq]
[nq:1]That's a question no-one, other than a barbarian, should have to ask.[/nq]
Except that conditions under which dangerous
prisoners are kept everywhere in the US are,
by my standards, harsh and demeaning. Which
is not to say that they might be necessary.
My point is that these are questions that hinge
on language and the interpretation of words as
much as anything else.

Michael West

Military prison abuse and English usage

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions