"No Blood, No Foul"

From TPM Muckraker, we see a very high probability that there were in fact two standards for the military to follow in regards to interrogations. One from the regular military that complies with the Geneva Conventions, and one for the special forces that earned the slogan, “No Blood, No Foul.”

I find this particularly interesting as the book I’m currently reading for review on behalf of University of Michigan Press and Pluto Press, American Torture, is at the very heart of this issue.

Indeed the opacity of whatever interrogation techniques are involved would follow suit with the Reagan and Bush II administrations’ efforts to narrowly define torture so as to make many practices legal (I mean, we’re talking some backdoor loophole stuff here like specific intent. By defining torture by “specific intent” what you are essentially doing is saying that torture is illegal, but only if the GOAL of the torture is to intend harm. If you are using torture methods, however, in order to attain information, then the act does not meet the specific intent clause, and therefore is legal).

And from the sounds of it, the types of things that we see going on here are in keeping with the DDD (disability, dependance, dread) doctrine that had evolved from decades of CIA and Military research into interrogation techniques that stem from research at the onset of the cold war. Part of which being that when you are engaging in coerced interrogation, the idea is to regress the interrogatee, but don’t leave a mark (thereby at least putting a superfluously innocent facade on the techniques used to extract information).

In other words, No Blood, No foul.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook