The Guardian newspaper reports secret training manuals instruct interrogators to make prisoners feel insecure, disorientated, exhausted and anxious.

The paper cites one PowerPoint presentation from 2005 telling trainees to strip prisoners before interrogation.

It reads: "Get them naked. Keep them naked if they do not follow commands."

A manual from 2008 suggests prisoners - known as captured personnel, or "Cpers" - should be kept in conditions of physical discomfort and intimidated.

Interrogators are also reportedly advised to ensure a prisoner has been properly searched by checking behind his foreskin and spreading his buttocks.

The Guardian says the material was produced after the death of the Iraqi hotel receptionist Baha Mousa, who died in custody in 2003 after suffering 93 separate injuries.

The 1949 Geneva Conventions prohibit "physical or moral coercion" techniques in interrogations as well as the humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees.

news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Report..._Humiliate_Prisoners

====

Next time you see a soldier in uniform - remember, you are looking at a pervert
(and possible war criminal).

Thanks ITK,

Soldiers are just obeying orders. The perverts are the ones who give them.

The job of a baker is to bake bread.
The job of a bus driver is to drive a bus.
The job of a soldier is to obey orders.

That's just what they do.

Politicians, on the other hand, give the orders. We elect them, and then sit around feeling smug when we don't approve of what they do.

Best Wishes,
Jim

Yes Jim; that was the Gestapo excuse too.

Yes Jim..actually soldiers have a right to disobey illegal orders.

Not that they would get very far of course doling so.

Friendly Fire can be deadly.

Jim wrote:
Thanks ITK,

Soldiers are just obeying orders.

Absolutely NO DEFENCE under the Geneva Convention, Jim !

Thanks JK, you write:

"Yes Jim; that was the Gestapo excuse too."

That was not the defence of junior ranking Gestapo members carrying out orders. It was the defence of Goring, original head of the Gestapo, and of the remaining political and military leadership of the Nazis at Nuremberg.

You may want to review your history.

But you help me make my point, and if only your mind were less addled you would have seen it.

We prosecuted the Nazi leaders at Nuremberg. We did not prosecute a single junior ranking soldier for carrying out the orders of these monsters. We prosecuted the leaders who gave the orders for crimes against peace, crimes of war, and crimes against humanity.

We were, of course, right to do so, because unlike you, we saw without the slightest hesitation at the time that it was the leaders who must bear the most responsibility.

If you want to take the view that leaders should *not* be prosecuted and that we should pick instead on the junior ranking soldiers who obey their orders, then that's fine so long as you go back now and exonerate the Nazi leaders in retrospect. Just let me know so I can write down your name in my list of Nazi sympathizers. At least your position would have the merit of consistency.

If, on the other hand, you want to apply the minimal standards that we applied at Nuremberg, you would join me in encouraging ITK to condemn those who bear the most responsibility for the crimes of these soldiers and of many other crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, namely the members of the cabinet at the times of the invasions and occupations of these countries. They are the correlates of the Nazi leaders we prosecuted at Nuremberg.

With your Gestapo reference, then, you are unwittingly making my point for me. But as you said yourself in an earlier response to me, you're only a music and entertainment type and can't be expected to understand these more serious issues.

Best Wishes,
Jim

So it's either/or is it Jim? I must pick whether it's the leaders or the men who are to blame and not condemn both. I can't quite understand why not - but I'm only a music and TV person and these complex morality issues are probably way beyond me. My stupid, simplistic approach that both the actual killers and those who told them to kill are guilty is - for you - unacceptable, is it? Why?

oh come on Jim even humble entertainers are entitled to a view.

You are very correct though that we did only prosecute those at the top after WW2 or in positions where they can be identified-such as concentration camp leaders and there would have been thousands of ordinary soldiers in uniform who were equally as murderous (and no doubt many on our side as well).

The awful thing is that we do not seem to have learnt much from the Nuremberg trials and hideous politicians make up all sorts of reasons to go on the rampage today.

I also just watched an extraordinary documentary called
The Ghosts Of Mai Lai about the dreadful massacre during the (also illegal) Vietnam War. It is an amzing insight into how powerless ordinary soldiers are when their comrades kill innocents.

Something that struck which I never realised- the US organiser of the mass killing of at least 500 spent about 2 years in jail.

I think JK agrees-we really are an appaling species at times.

veritas wrote:
Something that struck which I never realised- the US organiser of the mass killing of at least 500 spent about 2 years in jail.

Not so veritas, Lt William Calley was released - on Presidential orders (Tricky Dickie)- after 2 days !

"After seven hours the jury sentenced Calley to life of hard labor. In the end, he only served days in a Fort Benning stockade before being placed under house arrest. His sentence was repeatedly reduced. Finally, his sentence was commuted to time served by President Nixon. He was paroled in November, 1974".


Calley apologises (after 40 years) -
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/60720...s-after-Vietnam.html

Jim wrote:
If, on the other hand, you want to apply the minimal standards that we applied at Nuremberg, you would join me in encouraging ITK to condemn those who bear the most responsibility for the crimes of these soldiers and of many other crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, namely the members of the cabinet at the times of the invasions and occupations of these countries. They are the correlates of the Nazi leaders we prosecuted at Nuremberg.

Ah ... the Mi Lai massacre (500 women, children and elderly) "defence" (as stated by William Calley at his "trial" -

"I was ordered to go in there and destroy the enemy. That was my job that day. That was the mission I was given. I did not sit down and think in terms of men, women and children. They were all classified as the same, and that's the classification that we dealt with over there, just as the enemy. I felt then and I still do that I acted as I was directed, and I carried out the order that I was given and I do not feel wrong in doing so."

May he ... and all his kind .... rot in hell forever.