Interrogators of captured Nazis speak out against torture

[quote]When about two dozen veterans got together yesterday for the first time since the 1940s, many of the proud men lamented the chasm between the way they conducted interrogations during the war and the harsh measures used today in questioning terrorism suspects.

Back then, they and their commanders wrestled with the morality of bugging prisoners’ cells with listening devices. They felt bad about censoring letters. They took prisoners out for steak dinners to soften them up. They played games with them.

“We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture,” said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler’s deputy, Rudolf Hess.[/quote]

Fort Hunt’s Quiet Men Break Silence on WWII

Meanwhile… the NYT just did this little expose on the Bush Administration’s secret endorsement of torture being used on detainees…

[quote]…soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time [color=red]provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.[/color]

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.[/quote]

Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations

What’s more, ironically, the implementation of these “harshest of techniques” is shown by the following article to be similar to that used by the Nazis themselves!

Torture techniques used by US interrogators same as those of pre-WWII Nazis

[quote]The phrase “Verschärfte Vernehmung” is German for “enhanced interrogation”. Other translations include “intensified interrogation” or “sharpened interrogation”. [color=red]It’s a phrase that appears to have been concocted in 1937, to describe a form of torture that would leave no marks, and hence save the embarrassment pre-war Nazi officials were experiencing as their wounded torture victims ended up in court. The methods, as you can see above (see URL), are indistinguishable from those described as “enhanced interrogation techniques” by the president.[/color] As you can see from the Gestapo memo, moreover, the Nazis were adamant that their “enhanced interrogation techniques” would be carefully restricted and controlled, monitored by an elite professional staff, of the kind recommended by Charles Krauthammer, and strictly reserved for certain categories of prisoner. At least, that was the original plan.

[color=red]Also: the use of hypothermia, authorized by Bush and Rumsfeld, was initially forbidden. 'Waterboarding" was forbidden too, unlike that authorized by Bush. As time went on, historians have found that all the bureaucratic restrictions were eventually broken or abridged. Once you start torturing, it has a life of its own. The “cold bath” technique - the same as that used by Bush against al-Qahtani in Guantanamo - was, according to professor Darius Rejali of Reed College, pioneered by a member of the French Gestapo by the pseudonym Masuy about 1943.[/color] The Belgian resistance referred to it as the Paris method, and the Gestapo authorized its extension from France to at least two places late in the war, Norway and Czechoslovakia. That is where people report experiencing it.

In Norway, we actually have a 1948 court case that weighs whether “enhanced interrogation” using the methods approved by president Bush amounted to torture. The proceedings are fascinating, with specific reference to the hypothermia used in Gitmo, and throughout interrogation centers across the field of conflict. [color=red]The Nazi defense of the techniques is almost verbatim that of the Bush administration…[/color][/quote]

AND, the following interview with a former US interrogator in Iraq shows exactly how torture affects those who implement it, ultimately leading to the way, as stated above, “all the bureaucratic restrictions were eventually broken or abridged. Once you start torturing, it has a life of its own…”

The Tortured Lives of (US) Interrogators

[quote]“At every point, there was part of me resisting, part of me enjoying,” Lagouranis said. “Using dogs on someone, there was a tingling throughout my body. If you saw the reaction in the prisoner, it’s thrilling.”

In Mosul, he took detainees outside the prison gate to a metal shipping container they called “the disco,” with blaring music and lights. Before and after questioning, military police officers stripped them and checked for injuries, noting cuts and bumps “like a car inspection at a parking garage.” Once a week, an Iraqi councilman and an American colonel visited. “We had to hide the tortured guys,” Lagouranis said.

[color=red]Then a soldier’s aunt sent over several copies of Viktor E. Frankel’s Holocaust memoir, “Man’s Search for Meaning.” Lagouranis found himself trying to pick up tips from the Nazis. He realized he had gone too far.[/color][/quote]

But the difference is that, unlike the Islamofascists, the Nazis were decent honorable human beings:

captainsquartersblog.com/mt/ … 014381.php

And you have to love the logic of this:

Yes, you use it to train them to deal with enemy torture techniques

That gave me a laugh! I suspect the detainees probably also consider themselves “civilized”!

What if torturing Nazis were the only way to prevent a giant meteor from wiping out all life on earth? Would you do it then? Huh, wouldja?

How about the central question though? I don’t think it’s been addressed. Is a lesser evil (torturing an individual) in order to avert a greater evil (the violent deaths of thousands of innocent people) ever morally justified?

We can pretend that it never need come to that but the suicidal religious fanaticism coming out of the Middle East these days is an order of magnitude more virulent than the fascism or communism of the 20th century. We can pretend that torture isn’t torture but that’s mere sophistry.

We can also ignore the fact that the confluence of weapons of mass death technology with religious fanaticism makes this question far more pressing and real than it’s ever been historically.

Is there any way to make sense of this question other than burying our heads in the sand or engaging in denial?

Snappy tagline there for the Luxor to Aswan Upper Egypt package tour.

BroonAbuSimbel

[quote]How about the central question though? I don’t think it’s been addressed. Is a lesser evil (torturing an individual) in order to avert a greater evil (the violent deaths of thousands of innocent people) ever morally justified?
[/quote]

Don’t you read Screaming Jesus:

The key question (which encumbuses but doesn’t fully describe the ethical issues) has always been whether humane treatment leads to better information than torture.

This is a good site full of quotes on torture:

Not in My Name.
ellamazel.org/notinmyname/chapter11.htm

No, I don’t read Screaming Jesus–he’s on my block list.

One day I’m going to run for some kind of politician, and then get to make statements like this: “Killing Jews? Well I for one certainly hope it never comes to that, but I feel it would be irresponsible to rule it out. After all, what if killing Jews was the only way to save our country? You’d do whatever it takes to save our country, wouldn’t you? WOULDN’T YOU?”

“Er, but Jesus…that’s not very realistic?”

“But WHAT IF you had to make that choice?”

So then one set of newspaper headlines reads “Jesus refuses to rule out killing Jews,” while the other says “Antichrist waffles on defending America.”

It’s not about the reliability of information gained–it’s about priorities (consistent human rights vs. marginally greater security, maybe). I suppose even the defenders of torture would balk as supporting merely recreational torture, unless consensual of course. Is that how liberals argue these days? “Torture, in addition to being categorically wrong, probably doesn’t provide useful information anyway.” (“But WHAT IF…”)

Your what if scenarios are a red herring. Let’s cross that bridge when we get there. Wow. let’s recap the southpark episode: would you have sex with your dad if someone was holding a gun to your mother’s head.

and it’s also a tail wags dog argument, because the question is you don’t know if that person has vital information or not.

:loco:

but yes, I agree with Mike N, I suspect there is some latent racism involved. The Germans were a western power while the jockey camels are nothing but dirty… barbaric… jockey camels or so goes the argument.

I’m ambivalent about torture in war. it all depends on how far your want to take war. civilian firebombings, nukes on city populations, unrestricted submarine warfare - everyone’s got an excuse, right or wrong.

But it’s a slippery slope for you and your enemy. and plenty of opportunity for reciprocity.

but yes, the Western powers seemed to treat each other better generally speaking (UK v. German or German v. US) than say Germans v. “slavs” or Japanese v. everyone. What does that say about civilization?

Do you serious believe that? IMO the threat of Islamo fascism is magnitudes lower on the scale than that of Germany and Japan in the 40s.

Even the dreaded nuclear weapon going off in one of our cities would kill probably less than the number of auto fatalities a year.

Do you expect 20 million to die over a 5-6 year period from terrorists? Do you really think they are capable of killing off our way of life? We survived the destruction of a city (New Orleans) without any significant effect on the economy. The west is simpy too big too powerful too rich to collapse because of this.

It’s a threat but even those who believe it is the central challenge of our age are not calling for the mobilization of the entire west against it, as was necessary in WWII.

Do you serious believe that? IMO the threat of Islamo fascism is magnitudes lower on the scale than that of Germany and Japan in the 40s.

Even the dreaded nuclear weapon going off in one of our cities would kill probably less than the number of auto fatalities a year.

Do you expect 20 million to die over a 5-6 year period from terrorists? Do you really think they are capable of killing off our way of life? We survived the destruction of a city (New Orleans) without any significant effect on the economy. The west is simpy too big too powerful too rich to collapse because of this.

It’s a threat but even those who believe it is the central challenge of our age are not calling for the mobilization of the entire west against it, as was necessary in WWII.[/quote]

Virulent, not scale of destruction. I’m referring to the lengths a suicidal religious extremist will go to versus the typical Nazi soldier.

I don’t agree.

If torture led to certainties then the argument for its usage would be overwhelming and compelling, but it simply doesn’t.

In fact, if torture led to certainties there would be less torture then there is now. The threat of it along with the occasional public example would be all that was required. It’s its innate unreliability that leads to there being all the more of it.

virulent, like not bathing during several weeks of seriously hot weather?

or virulent like the Black Death (which may well have been a virus, and was most likely not the plague)?

Dick: Jane, let’s have casual sex this Thursday.

Jane: No way! That would be an immoral act. Besides, I’m busy this Thursday.

(rimshot)

Conservative: Let’s torture people to get information out of them.

Liberal: No way! That would be an immoral act. Besides, it’s ineffective.

(rimshot)

[quote=“urodacus”]virulent, like not bathing during several weeks of seriously hot weather?

or virulent like the Black Death (which may well have been a virus, and was most likely not the plague)?[/quote]

#2 and #3

Main Entry: vir·u·lent
Pronunciation: 'vir-&-l&nt, 'vir-y&-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin virulentus, from virus poison
1 a : marked by a rapid, severe, and destructive course b : able to overcome bodily defensive mechanisms : markedly pathogenic
2 : extremely poisonous or venomous
3 : full of malice : MALIGNANT
4 : objectionably harsh or strong

[quote]Do you serious believe that? IMO the threat of Islamo fascism is magnitudes lower on the scale than that of Germany and Japan in the 40s.

Even the dreaded nuclear weapon going off in one of our cities would kill probably less than the number of auto fatalities a year.

Do you expect 20 million to die over a 5-6 year period from terrorists? Do you really think they are capable of killing off our way of life? We survived the destruction of a city (New Orleans) without any significant effect on the economy. The west is simpy too big too powerful too rich to collapse because of this.

It’s a threat but even those who believe it is the central challenge of our age are not calling for the mobilization of the entire west against it, as was necessary in WWII.[/quote]

That’s right. The threat is real, but it’s a beat up. 911 was a lucky punch if it were a puch at all and not a false flag.

“In 1999, there were 28,874 gun-related deaths in the United States.” That’s three times the size of the minimum population requirement for “city” status in Australia gunned down by their own citizens. I used to think why doesn’t some bunch of terrorists just pick up a gun and start blasting away in a mall until I realized they’d been beaten to it, no cache in that.

Great editorial from the NYT:

[quote]On Torture and American Values

[b]Once upon a time, it was the United States that urged all nations to obey the letter and the spirit of international treaties and protect human rights and liberties. American leaders denounced secret prisons where people were held without charges, tortured and killed. And the people in much of the world, if not their governments, respected the United States for its values.

The Bush administration has dishonored that history and squandered that respect. As an article on this newspaper’s front page last week laid out in disturbing detail, President Bush and his aides have not only condoned torture and abuse at secret prisons, but they have conducted a systematic campaign to mislead Congress, the American people and the world about those policies.[/b]

After the attacks of 9/11, Mr. Bush authorized the creation of extralegal detention camps where Central Intelligence Agency operatives were told to extract information from prisoners who were captured and held in secret. Some of their methods — simulated drownings, extreme ranges of heat and cold, prolonged stress positions and isolation — had been classified as torture for decades by civilized nations. [color=red]The administration clearly knew this; the C.I.A. modeled its techniques on the dungeons of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Soviet Union.

The White House could never acknowledge that. So its lawyers concocted documents that redefined “torture” to neatly exclude the things American jailers were doing and hid the papers from Congress and the American people. Under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Mr. Bush’s loyal enabler, the Justice Department even declared that those acts did not violate the lower standard of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”[/color]

That allowed the White House to claim that it did not condone torture, and to stampede Congress into passing laws that shielded the interrogators who abused prisoners, and the men who ordered them to do it, from any kind of legal accountability.

Mr. Bush and his aides were still clinging to their rationalizations at the end of last week. The president declared that Americans do not torture prisoners and that Congress had been fully briefed on his detention policies.

Neither statement was true — at least in what the White House once scorned as the “reality-based community” — and Senator John Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, was right to be furious. He demanded all of the “opinions of the Justice Department analyzing the legality” of detention and interrogation policies. Lawmakers, who for too long have been bullied and intimidated by the White House, should rewrite the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act to conform with actual American laws and values.

For the rest of the nation, there is an immediate question: Is this really who we are?

Is this the country whose president declared, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” and then managed the collapse of Communism with minimum bloodshed and maximum dignity in the twilight of the 20th century? Or is this a nation that tortures human beings and then concocts legal sophistries to confuse the world and avoid accountability before American voters?
[color=blue]
Truly banning the use of torture would not jeopardize American lives; experts in these matters generally agree that torture produces false confessions. Restoring the rule of law to Guantánamo Bay would not set terrorists free; the truly guilty could be tried for their crimes in a way that does not mock American values.

Clinging to the administration’s policies will only cause further harm to America’s global image and to our legal system. It also will add immeasurably to the risk facing any man or woman captured while wearing America’s uniform or serving in its intelligence forces.[/color]

This is an easy choice.[/quote]