INTERROGATION OR TORTURE... WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

by Dawn Johnson

THIS IS FACT
THIS CANNOT BE DENIED
THIS CANNOT BE DEBUNKED
Let's look at the definition in the dictionary

According to Wikipedia " interrogation" covers various aspect of getting information a from a person by asking questions to downright torture. link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogation

Definition of Torture Torture is the act of deliberately inflicting severe physical or psychological pain and possibly injury to a person (or animal). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture.

Therefore Torture is a type of interrogation which causes the subject to feel pain and even results in death.

If a POW (Prisoner of War) is interrogated BY HIS CAPTORS, IT IS REQUIRED a POW to give his/her only

• NAME
• RANK &
• SERIAL NUMBER

according to the Geneva convention.

.

"Convention III: One of the treaties created during the 1949 Convention, this defined what a Prisoner of War was, and accorded them proper and humane treatment as specified by the first Convention. Specifically, it required POWs to give only their name, rank, and serial number to their captors. Nations party to the Convention may not use torture to extract information from POWs". http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/geneva_conventions

.

POW's can't be tortured in order to find out information they may hold under any circumstances.

"The United States has ratified the four Conventions of 1949, but has not ratified the two additional Protocols of 1977." But they have signed the part that covers "nation parties to the Convention may not use torture to extract information from POWS."

We know Drake Kent Bailey served in Vietnam as a soldier therefore while his time in the 1960's etc During the Vietnam conflict Drake Kent Bailey should have adhered to the Geneva Convention and not tortured (inflicted pain to any POW in any way what so ever).

Did he stick by this rule? Apparently not, he admitted on a radio programme he violated the Geneva Convention.

This is a transcript from

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drakebailey/2014/11/14/thursday-update-show-replacing-last-nights-debacle from 57 minute 40 mark onwards

".....We need somebody that we can interrogate, and believe me, I've got some interrogation techniques that were employed in the battlefield in Vietnam. It never failed. NEVER.

Even the nastiest hard core North Vietnamese regular army Commanders! Generals!
They tried to make them talk "Oh you think you can do better son?" I know I can Ah HAHAHAH!

They thought I was going to do nasty things to them, because they could actually feel me getting close to doing exactly those nasty things. that was one of the worse things that they could think of in their mind. The part that made them talk was the thought I might actually enjoy doing that to them.

After I explained that I liked the smell of burning flesh in a certain particular area. I was in, that you definitely don't want to get over heated especially fried . ah HA HAH. Believe me they "talked".

Now, here's the neat part, because they believed that I was "insane" . I've always been crazy, NOW remember that. Acting crazy is a form of insanity, if applied correctly you can make other people believe your totally nutzoid. your totally off the wall . You make no abs no sense whatsoever, Arr and yet deep down inside. you're in full control. calm cool, collected about it. you know exactly what you're doing!

The ideology comes from being a sociopath. A sociopath is that person who is devoid of emotion, specifically compassion and other things that make a human being, human When you turn that off you start becoming a machine, a nasty insidious one that's going to do whatever their imagination TELLS them I'm going to do ... You win.

Nothing complicated about it........The worse I've done, um in the terms of interrogation I raised blister in a certain particular place nobody I know of wants blisters. That's as nasty as it got. nothing, nothing fantastic about it. Just that simple

"Oh that was beautiful man, you want me to make another one?"
" NO I'll talk! I'll talk!"

This is a full admission of his guilt in a crime. He is only to blame for the act of torture which he freely admitted to in front of possibly hundreds of thousands of people on Internet Radio.

It is clear that damage was done to a POWS body to cause a blister. Also there is evidence that Drake Kent Bailey psychologically tortured a POW by acting crazy in his own admission giving the impression (which he went into detail over) that he actually enjoyed causing harm and pain to others.

Who is to Blame?

Drake Kent Bailey and his commanding officer for allowing him to torture a person by violating the Geneva convention. Also remember that Drake was not given an order to torture the POW Drake stepped forward and OFFERED HIS SERVICES.