Abuse by example
Weekend revelations that Australian military forces (and apparently some civilians also) are being trained in "Resistance To Interrogation" techniques provoked a mixture of shock and pragmatic support. Yet virtually none of the reportage mentions that:
- RTI (or R2I) is a defacto method for teaching the methods of torture, while being able to maintain the "instruction" is "defensive"
- The use of sensory deprivation techniques, stress positions, shock of dogs, and nudity in "teaching" Australians are the exact same techniques visible in photos from Abu Ghraib (and as used by Americans and Israelis, not just 'terrorists' who are "unlikely to follow the Geneva Convention"), and also appear straight from the blood-soaked pages of past CIA torture manuals.
The Australian manages to draw the parallel with Abu Grahib, and also recalls that "
Senator Hill acknowledged earlier this year that if the army's training techniques were used on prisoners of war, they would be in breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions". However, the media concern is over the training's potential to abuse the human rights of the "trainees", not its potential to teach such abuse by
example. Nor is it mentioned that the Coalition is just as willing to ignore the Geneva Conventions, or quibble over definitions of "torture", as has been well documented in recent times. The "War" is an effort to which Australia contributes, regardless of whether we argue semantics over
"interviews" or "interrogations".
RTI is about circumvention of human rights protections, encouraging techniques which can easily be excused, couched in the language of defensiveness.
Item posted by AutoEditor at 2:32 pm ::
