How Poland sold itself to support CIA torture

[Thanas]

Arianism is taking things back to ancient Rome; see my previous post. Arianism didn't disappear until after the fall of Rome, granted. But it is still part of the Roman era of Christianity and was pretty much gone as a religious force by, say, the time of Charlemagne- which was quite early in the medieval period.

Small correction, while Arianism arose when there was still a Western Roman Empire, it only became a major challenge to the Church after it had fallen, because many of the newly converted germannic kingdoms which had risen in its wake took a liking to it. It took about 300 years for the Church to fully defeat it. Charlemagne BTW was crowned emperor because the papacy knew it needed strong secular allies against its challengers.

Or because the powerful Roman aristocracy wanted an out from under the thumb of Constantinople. Much better to rule if there is no overlord over you.

[Grumman]

According to the part of Metahive's post you cropped, the soldier didn't murder them in cold blood. If an enemy soldier is wounded but still fighting (and if they're reaching for a weapon, that qualifies), they're still a combatant and still a legitimate target. Playing possum, on the other hand, is a war crime.

I think that's what Stas was getting at when he said "glamorized", by portraying a warcrime as fully justified and necessary. BTW, the insurgent in question wasn't playing possum, but he was reaching for an IED detonator.

Then Stas is wrong, because it's not a war crime to shoot someone reaching for a detonator, even if they're wounded.

BTW, contrast that with the scene in Red Dawn where one of the girls booby-traps herself with a hand grenade in the end and blows up a bunch of commies who come investigating her. Remember, it's only evil if the enemy's doing it.

I have never seen Red Dawn, so I couldn't say whether that was justified or not. Exploiting an enemy's altruism is evil and a war crime, while exploiting an enemy's bloodthirstiness is not.

[Flagg]

According to the part of Metahive's post you cropped, the soldier didn't murder them in cold blood. If an enemy soldier is wounded but still fighting (and if they're reaching for a weapon, that qualifies), they're still a combatant and still a legitimate target. Playing possum, on the other hand, is a war crime.

I think that's what Stas was getting at when he said "glamorized", by portraying a warcrime as fully justified and necessary. BTW, the insurgent in question wasn't playing possum, but he was reaching for an IED detonator.

Then Stas is wrong, because it's not a war crime to shoot someone reaching for a detonator, even if they're wounded.

BTW, contrast that with the scene in Red Dawn where one of the girls booby-traps herself with a hand grenade in the end and blows up a bunch of commies who come investigating her. Remember, it's only evil if the enemy's doing it.

I have never seen Red Dawn, so I couldn't say whether that was justified or not. Exploiting an enemy's altruism is evil and a war crime, while exploiting an enemy's bloodthirstiness is not.

Is this real Red Dawn or new yellow peril Red Dawn? Because 80s Red Dawn was basically just an allegory for the Soviet war in Afghanistan. As far as war crimes go, it may well be but you invade my home and expect me to follow the rules? Ha.

[Thanas]

But here is the thing though - JAG had that nasty habit of producing some episodes which clearly were based on real events and then change facts to suit the US propaganda or to exonerate the military. For example, after the whole Okinawa rape scandal they produced an episode where there a US soldier was accused of rape only to have the victim be a prostitute who willingly had sex.

[Flagg]

It's interesting to see the evolution of certain long running shows that started in the early 90s and ran long after 9/11 and the cowardization of America. Like in season 2 or 3 of Law and Order you have Logan just pulling a gun on a suspect and that being this huge dramatic moment, then on SVU you get Stabler frequently abusing his powers. Though there were at least consequences the vast majority of the time.

My favorite cartoon, 24, is probably one of the worst things to ever happen to US society with it being the Darth Cheneys favorite show and inspired who knows how many acts of torture by US service members. Great show, though.

[mr friendly guy]

But here is the thing though - JAG had that nasty habit of producing some episodes which clearly were based on real events and then change facts to suit the US propaganda or to exonerate the military. For example, after the whole Okinawa rape scandal they produced an episode where there a US soldier was accused of rape only to have the victim be a prostitute who willingly had sex.

Vomits after reading that.

Good thing I never watched JAG except when channel surfing. Law shows don't do it for me and neither did Catherine Bell. Although Tamlyn Tomita when she had a recurring role looked stunning.

[K. A. Pital]

Exploiting an enemy's altruism is evil and a war crime, while exploiting an enemy's bloodthirstiness is not.

I'm not sure about the particular scene Metahive refers to, but execution of wounded and general slaughter and careless destruction are recurring topics in American films. Hell, in the recent flicks about American adventures in Russia (like that ugly Die Hard sequel), American characters easily kill or maim bystanders and civilians when they need to "get somewhere" (in a car chase) and then just go away free. Very same things happen when American agents act in other countries, too. It seems that for Americans civilian lives are only sacred if these are American civilians. If these are foreigners, it is permissible to depict casual maiming or murder of such characters with zero consequences.

I find it revolting, but I don't insist on blaming a particular show if the situation in it is not exactly like what I described above.

[Metahive]

No I remember the show having a few really boring episodes about the military trials long after the debate had already started.

A so, I stopped watching the show shortly after they started making Iraq episodes, because they just pissed me off.

Then Stas is wrong, because it's not a war crime to shoot someone reaching for a detonator, even if they're wounded.

God, man, you don't quite know how propaganda works, do you? Say in RL, your troops are accused of frequently doing X. Well, what do you think the purpose of a fictional portrayal where X is shown to be necessary and justified is? That's glamorization.

I have never seen Red Dawn, so I couldn't say whether that was justified or not. Exploiting an enemy's altruism is evil and a war crime, while exploiting an enemy's bloodthirstiness is not.

Completely besides the point. Read below.

Is this real Red Dawn or new yellow peril Red Dawn? Because 80s Red Dawn was basically just an allegory for the Soviet war in Afghanistan. As far as war crimes go, it may well be but you invade my home and expect me to follow the rules? Ha.

It's in the original. I couldn't watch the remake for more than twenty minutes so I don't know if they replicated that scene. My point is however that it provides a contrast. If Americans resort to underhanded means to kill foreign occupiers it's heroic and OK. If foreigners do the same resisting american occupation they're portrayed as villainous.

Also, check out the intro to CoD Ghosts were the story is told of american special ops playing dead to catch enemies unaware and kill them to a man and then play CoD World At War were the Japanese do the same but are vilified for it.

EDIT:
O wait, it gets better! The abovementioned playing possum thing in WaW? It encourages the player to shoot corpses. What happens in the intro cutscene to the russian part of the campaign? The Germans shoot corpses, those bastards! Of course, since you, the player character are actually just playing dead and become a major pain in the German asses later...

[Siege]

Couldn't it be though that many of the problematic episodes mentioned here are in fact not products of post-9/11 culture shock but simply the result of a changing TV-landscape?

The traditional American TV-show format is 20+ 40-minute 'episodes of the week' that plod along without much of an overarching story. Then at some point along come 24, miniseries like BSG and HBO productions that capture huge shares of the market with much higher production values and movie-like high-stakes plots.

In response writers of much more traditional shows like NCIS introduce high-stakes plots in their own shows because that's what they believe the viewer wants, but because their format really isn't well-suited for it and in fact actively discourages things like character evolution or long-term consequences it just comes off as hackneyed and awful.

That's not to say bad writing cannot have an insidious effect on what viewers will accept or tolerate from designated heroes, but I'd be hesitant to attribute awful writing on NCIS or Hawaii 5-0 to sweeping cultural trauma when it's more easily explained by a shift in the world of American TV. In which case it'd be more of a matter of unintended consequences than deliberate propaganda.

[Thanas]

That falls flat when you have episode after episode of drama either advocating for use of torture and see cops using it everytime they got a problem. You don't get 15 episodes of every suspect being tortured on Hawaii 5-0 unless it is clearly intended to be a central part of the show from the get go.

[Simon_Jester]

This reminds me of an Orwell essay, commenting on how the genre of 'crime novel' had changed from 1900 to 1940: more brutality, more casual acceptance of the brutality. And he interpreted this as the result of the rise of power-worship in that era, the tendency to view a powerful figure as being if anything more impressive if they were capable of acts of cruelty and casual violence.

Raffles and Miss Blandish

More on this later, maybe, when

[Flagg]

That falls flat when you have episode after episode of drama either advocating for use of torture and see cops using it everytime they got a problem. You don't get 15 episodes of every suspect being tortured on Hawaii 5-0 unless it is clearly intended to be a central part of the show from the get go.

I honestly think it's a combination of lazy unintelligent writing and post 9/11 acceptance of "extra legal" means of information gathering by the audience. Intelligently written shows like Law and Order Criminal Intent and The Closer showed honest cops doing their jobs and solving crimes through hard detective work and realistic interrogation methods that use mind games and trickery to be sure, but all of which is legal in the US justice system.

[TheHammer]

NEVER assume the CIA or any other intelligence agency actually knows what the hell they're doing in the absence of oversight. Intelligence and security organs going off the rails and inventing hairbrained schemes or chasing imaginary plots is so routine that it's practically an entire subgenre built around subverting the traditional image of the spy story.

The belief that the spies and secret-ish police actually know what they're doing is one of the cornerstones of support for authoritarianism. Big Brother is watching, such people assume, because he's strong and will keep you safe, NOT because he's a lunatic peeping Tom. Unfortunately, the "lunatic peeping Tom" explanation tends to be more accurate.

I have no trouble believing that a large scale strategy might well turn out to be a "hairbrained scheme". It involves long range planning, accounting for multiple unknowns, and may be based on faulty assumptions. However I'm less inclined to believe that at the small scale tactical level which yields far more immediate results which are more plain to see. If Tactic "A" - traditional interrogation is yielding better results that tactic "B" - enhanced interrogation/torture, then why would you ever bother with tactic "B"? Remember, in this case the CIA's goal isn't to intimidate, rather to gather actionable intelligence. One would presume they would use the combination of tactics that yields the best results in that regard.

While I don't adhere to the notion of the all-knowing, all-wise big brother intelligence community, to presume they would use a tactic that for a long time has been known to be less successful than another tactic is to presume gross incompetence. Which is why I'm more inclined to believe it is used in combination with other tactics to yield better results than either tactic would be able to obtain by themselves. Its not as though the idea of the good cop/bad cop scenario is revolutionary.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Exploiting an enemy's altruism is evil and a war crime, while exploiting an enemy's bloodthirstiness is not.

I'm not sure about the particular scene Metahive refers to, but execution of wounded and general slaughter and careless destruction are recurring topics in American films. Hell, in the recent flicks about American adventures in Russia (like that ugly Die Hard sequel), American characters easily kill or maim bystanders and civilians when they need to "get somewhere" (in a car chase) and then just go away free. Very same things happen when American agents act in other countries, too. It seems that for Americans civilian lives are only sacred if these are American civilians. If these are foreigners, it is permissible to depict casual maiming or murder of such characters with zero consequences.

I find it revolting, but I don't insist on blaming a particular show if the situation in it is not exactly like what I described above.

I haven't seen the latest Die Hard, but Stas that sounds about par for the course in just about any Hollywood action flick no matter the setting or protagonists. Look at all the collateral damage inflicted on U.S. locales and civilians in Con Air, Terminator 2, or any of the Michael Bay Transformers movies. Action movies are about pretty explosions and rule of cool, if you stop to think about the real world consequences of such actions (such as I've done on many occasions) you're over-thinking it. Really what they are is a fireworks, or insert your preferred form of pyrotechnics, show with some semblance of a a plot attached.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

According to the part of Metahive's post you cropped, the soldier didn't murder them in cold blood. If an enemy soldier is wounded but still fighting (and if they're reaching for a weapon, that qualifies), they're still a combatant and still a legitimate target. Playing possum, on the other hand, is a war crime.

I think that's what Stas was getting at when he said "glamorized", by portraying a warcrime as fully justified and necessary. BTW, the insurgent in question wasn't playing possum, but he was reaching for an IED detonator.

Then Stas is wrong, because it's not a war crime to shoot someone reaching for a detonator, even if they're wounded.

I don't think this is what either Stas or Metahive were going for.

This is not an abstract scenario to discuss. This is a TV show, so everything put to screen must be assumed to be there by design. Then it becomes a question of why the creators chose to tell this kind of story, and why they chose to tell it the way they did (assuming you want to ask these questions, and there are perfectly legitimate reasons not to). Better yet, because works of art carry meaning, it is natural to assume whether the meaning you took away is what the creators wanted you to take away.

So in our case: Stas and Metahive say that this is a wish fulfillment story, where the author takes an existing problem (US soldiers shooting surrendering enemies) and just writes for himself a happy solution (they were feigning surrender, so it's alright). The catch is that people can easily make the connection between the problem and the happy solution. If this linked problem-solution presentation persists, people will begin expecting to see them together, and this expectation will bleed out of the media and into everyday life. What began as a simple story is now, by sheer persistence, dictating what people should expect in life.

Exploiting an enemy's altruism is evil and a war crime, while exploiting an enemy's bloodthirstiness is not.

I've got a weird question. Side A decides to surrender, only for Side B to shoot them out of hand. If Side A then feigns surrender to get Side B out of cover, which sentiment do they exploit? Who is considered a war criminal at that point? That's an honest question, I don't remember if it has ever happened and I don't allude to anything.

[bilateralrope]

I have no trouble believing that a large scale strategy might well turn out to be a "hairbrained scheme". It involves long range planning, accounting for multiple unknowns, and may be based on faulty assumptions. However I'm less inclined to believe that at the small scale tactical level which yields far more immediate results which are more plain to see. If Tactic "A" - traditional interrogation is yielding better results that tactic "B" - enhanced interrogation/torture, then why would you ever bother with tactic "B"? Remember, in this case the CIA's goal isn't to intimidate, rather to gather actionable intelligence. One would presume they would use the combination of tactics that yields the best results in that regard.

Try to put yourself in the mind of the torture supporters. People who believe that torture works and will interpret all evidence in that light. How will they see evidence that contradicts their belief ?
For example, say they are convinced that someone is part of a terror plot. So they torture him until he confesses and provides a list of people who helped him. They believe that everyone on that list is part of the terror plot, because if they weren't they wouldn't have been named by the first terrorist, so they bring in the people on that list and torture them. Which gets them a larger list and a giant terrorist conspiracy that they wouldn't have uncovered without the torture.

To convince them that the torture isn't working, you need to prove that everyone involved is innocent.

[Batman]

That's not even needed. Torture supporters can end up knowing perfectly well that torture is essentially useless for getting reliable information yet continue supporting it because otherwise they'd have to admit they were wrong from the word go.