Geneva Conventions – Engaging Peace

By guest author Mike Corgan

One senses a barn door closing after the horses have gone out.

There are well-substantiated rumors that NATO convinced Slobodan Milosevic to abandon his war in Kosovo by demonstrating what we could to do to him with our computers beyond just our airstrikes.

Hellfire missile on predator drone — Hellfire missile on Predator drone, inscribed with "In memory of Honorable Ronald Reagan." Image in public domain.

Several years later, Russians, probably with government support, used computers to shut down Estonia for three days over a perceived slight to a statue honoring Russian liberation of Estonia.

Obama administration officials declined to use cyber war against Qaddafi for fear of the example it might set.

We’ve also taken the lead in using drones to strike targets anywhere in the world. What the Bush administration started, the Obama administration has just about perfected. Think of what goes on daily on the Afghan-Pakistan border. Recall the recent stir about killing two Americans by drone strikes in a remote area of Yemen.

Even the Administration realized that here, too, a line may have been crossed. And drones are a relatively cheap technology available to many countries.

The question for us is what rules or laws specific to this new technology are in force? Simple answer, there really aren’t any.

There have been no conferences, no updates of Geneva Conventions, no sustained discussion in public forums about any of these new ways of war that take us far beyond what troops, tanks and ship have always
done.

These weapons are equally effective no matter who uses them and they are available to all.

The capabilities are here. We need to bring out into the open a discourse about rules, laws and norms now.

Michael T. Corgan, Associate Professor and Associate Chair, International Relations, Boston University

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Our second post for Torture Awareness Month is a book review about alternatives to torture.]

By Rachel Tochiki

In his book, How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq, Matthew Alexander, with John R. Bruning, describes his experience as interrogator in a prison in Iraq.

How do you “break” a terrorist, i.e., get a prisoner to open up and give information under interrogation?

Alexander’s answer is to appeal to human emotion and build rapport and trust– a strategy that contrasts sharply with old-school tactics of fear and control.

In describing his process of interrogation, he explains that he is an actor, taking on whatever personality or life experiences are necessary to appeal to the prisoner.

Despite the skepticism and disagreement of other interrogators, his strategy produced successful results, leading to the intelligence necessary to find Abu Musab al Zarqawi, one of the top priority terrorist leaders in Iraq.

Avoiding dehumanization of the enemy did not come easily for Alexander, who was often exposed to Al Qaida’s anti-America propaganda videos showing suicide bombings and beheadings. Yet his determination not to hate the enemy enabled him to reach a new level of understanding with the prisoners.

He found that many people work for Al Qaida because they need money, or are afraid of Shia militias. They see Al Qaida as a form of protection for their families. Few of the prisoners he interrogated actually believed in the ideology of Al Qaida.

He emphasizes that techniques upholding the Geneva Conventions are successful, and dismisses the need for enhanced interrogation. To obtain useful and accurate information from prisoners, fear and control are not as successful as methods of rapport and trust.

The book shows that even in times of war, soldiers need to remain humane, and Alexander emphasizes that doing so pays off.

Lawless technology available to all (Just war, Part 10)

Using brains instead of brutality