DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on May 30, 2007, 03:03:18 PM
-
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
"Verschärfte Vernehmung"
29 May 2007 12:36 pm
Translation of mueller memo
The phrase "Verschärfte Vernehmung" is German for "enhanced interrogation". Other translations include "intensified interrogation" or "sharpened interrogation". 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, are indistinguishable from those described as "enhanced interrogation techniques" by the president. 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.
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. 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. The Nazi defense of the techniques is almost verbatim that of the Bush administration...
Agcorpse3
Here's a document from Norway's 1948 war-crimes trials detailing the prosecution of Nazis convicted of "enhanced interrogation techniques" in the Second World War. Money quote from the cases of three Germans convicted of war crimes for "enhanced interrogation":
Between 1942 and 1945, Bruns used the method of "verschärfte Vernehmung" on 11 Norwegian citizens. This method involved the use of various implements of torture, cold baths and blows and kicks in the face and all over the body. Most of the prisoners suffered for a considerable time from the injuries received during those interrogations.
Between 1942 and 1945, Schubert gave 14 Norwegian prisoners "verschärfte Vernehmung," using various instruments of torture and hitting them in the face and over the body. Many of the prisoners suffered for a considerable time from the effects of injuries they received.
On 1st February, 1945, Clemens shot a second Norwegian prisoner from a distance of 1.5 metres while he was trying to escape. Between 1943 and 1945, Clemens employed the method of " verschäfte Vernehmung " on 23 Norwegian prisoners. He used various instruments of torture and cold baths. Some of the prisoners continued for a considerable time to suffer from injuries received at his hands.
Freezing prisoners to near-death, repeated beatings, long forced-standing, waterboarding, cold showers in air-conditioned rooms, stress positions [Arrest mit Verschaerfung], withholding of medicine and leaving wounded or sick prisoners alone in cells for days on end - all these have occurred at US detention camps under the command of president George W. Bush. Over a hundred documented deaths have occurred in these interrogation sessions. The Pentagon itself has conceded homocide by torture in multiple cases. Notice the classic, universal and simple criterion used to define torture in 1948 (my italics):
In deciding the degree of punishment, the Court found it decisive that the defendants had inflicted serious physical and mental suffering on their victims, and did not find sufficient reason for a mitigation of the punishment in accordance with the provisions laid down in Art. 5 of the Provisional Decree of 4th May, 1945. The Court came to the conclusion that such acts, even though they were committed with the connivance of superiors in rank or even on their orders, must be regarded and punished as serious war crimes.
The victims, by the way, were not in uniform. And the Nazis tried to argue, just as John Yoo did, that this made torturing them legit. The victims were paramilitary Norwegians, operating as an insurgency, against an occupying force. And the torturers had also interrogated some prisoners humanely. But the argument, deployed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the Nazis before them, didn't wash with the court. Money quote:
As extenuating circumstances, Bruns had pleaded various incidents in which he had helped Norwegians, Schubert had pleaded difficulties at home, and Clemens had pointed to several hundred interrogations during which he had treated prisoners humanely.
The Court did not regard any of the above-mentioned circumstances as a sufficient reason for mitigating the punishment and found it necessary to act with the utmost severity. Each of the defendants was responsible for a series of incidents of torture, every one of which could, according to Art. 3 (a), (c) and (d) of the Provisional Decree of 4th May, 1945, be punished by the death sentence.
So using "enhanced interrogation techniques" against insurgent prisoners out of uniform was punishable by death. Here's the Nazi defense argument:
(c) That the acts of torture in no case resulted in death. Most of the injuries inflicted were slight and did not result in permanent disablement.
This is the Yoo position. It's what Glenn Reynolds calls the "sensible" position on torture. It was the camp slogan at Camp Nama in Iraq: "No Blood, No Foul." Now take the issue of "stress positions", photographed at Abu Ghraib and used at Bagram to murder an innocent detainee. Here's a good description of how stress positions operate:
The hands were tied together closely with a cord on the back of the prisoner, raised then the body and hung the cord to a hook, which was attached into two meters height in a tree, so that the feet in air hung. The whole body weight rested thus at the joints bent to the rear. The minimum period of hanging up was a half hour. To remain there three hours hung up, was pretty often. This punishment was carried out at least twice weekly.
This is how one detainee at Abu Ghraib died (combined with beating) as in the photograph above. The experience of enduring these stress positions has been described by Rush Limbaugh as no worse than frat-house hazings. Those who have gone through them disagree. They describe:
Dreadful pain in the shoulders and wrists were the results of this treatment. Only laboriously the lung could be supplied with the necessary oxygen. The heart worked in a racing speed. From all pores the sweat penetrated.
Yes, this is an account of someone who went through the "enhanced interrogation techniques" at Dachau. (Google translation here.)
Critics will no doubt say I am accusing the Bush administration of being Hitler. I'm not. There is no comparison between the political system in Germany in 1937 and the U.S. in 2007. What I am reporting is a simple empirical fact: the interrogation methods approved and defended by this president are not new. Many have been used in the past. The very phrase used by the president to describe torture-that-isn't-somehow-torture - "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. The techniques are indistinguishable. The methods were clearly understood in 1948 as war-crimes. The punishment for them was death.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html
-
This is extremely interesting Lanya.
Upon more research there does seem to be an amazing parallel between Gonzales' definition of what constitutes legal torture and that issued by the German Ministry of Justice.
The phrase used by Bush is a complete knockoff. It just goes to prove that when it comes to violating human rights the Nazis were vorsprung durch technik. ;)
-
>>Critics will no doubt say I am accusing the Bush administration of being Hitler. I'm not. There is no comparison between the political system in Germany in 1937 and the U.S. in 2007. What I am reporting is a simple empirical fact: the interrogation methods approved and defended by this president are not new. Many have been used in the past. The very phrase used by the president to describe torture-that-isn't-somehow-torture - "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. The techniques are indistinguishable. The methods were clearly understood in 1948 as war-crimes. The punishment for them was death.<<
As it should be when the US lunatics doing it now hit the Hague.
-
I was born a few years after WW2. I grew up not too far from Los Alamos, where people came from all over the world without saying good bye to their loved ones---they just left, came to NM and started trying to build a bomb that would end the war.
We are not the country I thought we were. Not if we can do this, hoot and holler ("I'm looking for Jack Bauer!" said one GOP presidential hopeful) for more torture.
This is immoral.
-
This goes way beyond immoral, Lanya. It's clear-cut criminal and the perps, from the "President" on down if guilty deserve the death penalty.
It's an amazing thing to consider how all these "law-and-order" Republicans don't blink an eyelid when faced with damning evidence of criminality at the highest levels of "their" administration. Clearest indication you could ever hope for that "law and order" in their mouths means pretty much the same thing as "the Southern way of life" in the mouths of their parents and grand-parents back in the day when they were all Democrats. Well, I guess the good thing is that for the past few generations the bastards have been forced to speak in code.
-
"when faced with damning evidence of criminality "
Oh?
-
I think the administration has approved waterboarding and continues the process of rendition to other countries for further torture.
-
I think the administration has approved waterboarding and continues the process of rendition to other countries for further torture.
You object to rendition?
We should keep everone we ever get?
Water boarding does sound pretty bad , I hate to defend it . What would you call the worst tecnique in interogation that should be allowable?
-
<<What would you call the worst tecnique in interogation that should be allowable?>>
I'd actually go by the Golden Rule. If I didn't want it applied to my guys I wouldn't want to use it on theirs.
In WWII, the British interviewed captured Nazi flyers very politely. Brought them lots of tea, served cup after cup. The Nazi soon had to take a washroom break but was too embarrassed to ask. Eventually the stupid pricks were put in a position where they had to tell the interrogators something of what they were after or risk peeing in their pants.
THAT'S about as far as I'd go. Of course I'd mike their cells, add informants into the mix, etc. But, I'd stick with the Golden Rule. It's a good guide for a lot of things in life.
-
<<What would you call the worst tecnique in interogation that should be allowable?>>
I'd actually go by the Golden Rule. If I didn't want it applied to my guys I wouldn't want to use it on theirs.
In WWII, the British interviewed captured Nazi flyers very politely. Brought them lots of tea, served cup after cup. The Nazi soon had to take a washroom break but was too embarrassed to ask. Eventually the stupid pricks were put in a position where they had to tell the interrogators something of what they were after or risk peeing in their pants.
THAT'S about as far as I'd go. Of course I'd mike their cells, add informants into the mix, etc. But, I'd stick with the Golden Rule. It's a good guide for a lot of things in life.
You would have them sit in a puddle of their own excreta?
I 'm shocked at you .
-
I was born a few years after WW2. I grew up not too far from Los Alamos, where people came from all over the world without saying good bye to their loved ones---they just left, came to NM and started trying to build a bomb that would end the war.
We are not the country I thought we were. Not if we can do this, hoot and holler ("I'm looking for Jack Bauer!" said one GOP presidential hopeful) for more torture.
This is immoral.
Jack Bauer is popular.
Imigine yourslf as a caricter in that fictional story , what would you do to Jack Bauer?
How would you write that story to an happy ending?
Are you unaware that Guliani was the voice of many when he said that?
Is preventig all harsh treatment actually a practical suggestion?
-
<<You would have them sit in a puddle of their own excreta?>>
They've done worse to others. But nothing stopped them from asking for a pee break.
<<I 'm shocked at you.>>
Hey, what can I tell ya? I'm a badass.
-
<<You would have them sit in a puddle of their own excreta?>>
They've done worse to others. But nothing stopped them from asking for a pee break.
<<I 'm shocked at you.>>
Hey, what can I tell ya? I'm a badass.
Anything you do allow will be exploitable for the oppositions propaganda , even if you don't allow it.
Do you remember the hoopla over the roumor that the guards at Guntanimo were treating copys of the Koran with disrespect?
Turns out to not be true , but the propaganda ,once spread ,takes on a life of its own.
There is a line to be drawn somewhere between not even trying to interrogate and allowing abuses that destroy or own self respect.
-
Plane, of course I'm aware that Guiliani is the voice of many. That is exactly why I say we are no longer the country I thought we were. We are now committing horrible acts, acts for which people were sentenced to death in the Nuremburg war criminal trials.
Just because there is a pack of dogs that is OK with killing a pup doesn't make it OK. It is NOT OK.
And just because there are people who want blood and guts and gore and tortured enemies does not make them OK and it doesn't make the man who speaks for them OK. They are sick fucks, all of them. May they see the error of their ways.
-
<<Anything you do allow will be exploitable for the oppositions propaganda , even if you don't allow it.
Do you remember the hoopla over the roumor that the guards at Guntanimo were treating copys of the Koran with disrespect?>>
It sounds to me like you worry a lot more about how you appear in the press than you do about doing the right thing and not doing the wrong thing. It shouldn't matter how you appear in the press. I don't know much about the Christian religion but it seems to me there is a quote in there somewhere about people who focus on angelic appearances that hide the moral rot within. Was that the "whited sepulchres" thing? Or am I way off base on that?
I also find it extremely strange that of all the press reports that show torture, disrespect, murder, rape, etc. YOU single out the one about disrespecting the Koran which you claim was a crock. Doesn't it matter that the press got it right time after time with horrific examples of real abuse? THAT'S what ought to concern you, not that your Neanderthal thugs got hit one time with a bad rap.
-
The press has exaggerated a lot , the Koran thing was what struck the Islamic world as extremely offensive and as it turns out entirely unfounded.
The stuff you find offensive might not be fully true either , I tend to take news with a grain of salt when it is very politicly usefull.
I am not especially worried about the appearance of things itself , but on the effect that the appearance has and on the manipulation that the appearance gets for the sake of political advantage.
-
Plane, of course I'm aware that Guiliani is the voice of many. That is exactly why I say we are no longer the country I thought we were. We are now committing horrible acts, acts for which people were sentenced to death in the Nuremburg war criminal trials.
Just because there is a pack of dogs that is OK with killing a pup doesn't make it OK. It is NOT OK.
And just because there are people who want blood and guts and gore and tortured enemies does not make them OK and it doesn't make the man who speaks for them OK. They are sick fucks, all of them. May they see the error of their ways.
I think that if you were more sceptical you might be happyer.
-
Skeptical? Of the depravity humans can descend to, call for, applaud, and appear to enjoy?
BRING US BARRABAS! BRING US BARRABAS!
There is nothing new under the sun.
-
<<I am not especially worried about the appearance of things itself , but on the effect that the appearance has and on the manipulation that the appearance gets for the sake of political advantage.>>
Well in that case I guess you'd agree that the APPEARANCE of dogs biting prisoners and the APPEARANCE that illuminated nightsticks are forced up the guy's ass and the APPEARANCE that hooded prisoners are wired up to generator boxes should be avoided, because of the "political advantage" that these "appearances" could give to your enemies, right?
And could you imagine a better way of avoiding the APPEARANCE of these things than (a) not doing them in the first place, (b) maintaining all prisoners in prisons in the U.S.A. or on U.S. territory, (c) opening them to regular International Red Cross/Red Crescent inspections, including surprise inspections at any time and finally (d) -- - GASP!!! actually observing the "quaint and outmoded" Geneva Conventions as if these guys possessed the same humanity as any fucking Nazi war prisoner?
just askin
-
<<I am not especially worried about the appearance of things itself , but on the effect that the appearance has and on the manipulation that the appearance gets for the sake of political advantage.>>
Well in that case I guess you'd agree that the APPEARANCE of dogs biting prisoners and the APPEARANCE that illuminated nightsticks are forced up the guy's ass and the APPEARANCE that hooded prisoners are wired up to generator boxes should be avoided, because of the "political advantage" that these "appearances" could give to your enemies, right?
And could you imagine a better way of avoiding the APPEARANCE of these things than (a) not doing them in the first place, (b) maintaining all prisoners in prisons in the U.S.A. or on U.S. territory, (c) opening them to regular International Red Cross/Red Crescent inspections, including surprise inspections at any time and finally (d) -- - GASP!!! actually observing the "quaint and outmoded" Geneva Conventions as if these guys possessed the same humanity as any fucking Nazi war prisoner?
just askin
Several of the things you have just mentioned have already been prosecuted and the results were lost careers or imprisonment .
That is about the best that can be done .
I know that you suffer the illusion that Prescient Bush could know the guilt of each malcreat and order them shot , but h is not omniscient and not authorized to order an execution witout trial.
Everything FDR ever did to ensure the good treatment of prisoners and innocent bystanders President Bush did but more.
-
Skeptical? Of the depravity humans can descend to, call for, applaud, and appear to enjoy?
BRING US BARRABAS! BRING US BARRABAS!
There is nothing new under the sun.
Now I am sure that if you were more sceptical you would be happyer.
Our military is no more depraved than any other ever was , probly less.
Our present leadrship is doing no less to encourage good behavior than any previous one.
You are drinking the propaganda as if from a fire hose.
It is just not possible that it is ALL true.
-
<<Several of the things you have just mentioned have already been prosecuted and the results were lost careers or imprisonment .>>
For offences that drew death penalties at Nuremburg
<<That is about the best that can be done . >>
Yeah, from a party that can push legislation authorizing detention without trial but can't legislate death for torturers and murderers.
<<I know that you suffer the illusion that Prescient Bush could know the guilt of each malcreat and order them shot >>
I know he could press hard for a law with teeth that WOULD carry a death penalty for torture, I know he never has, despite the obvious need, I know he never will, and I know WHY he never has and never will
<<, but h is not omniscient>>
Excuse me, did I ever claim that Bush was omniscient? moi?
<< and not authorized to order an execution witout trial.>>
and has never been asked to do so, by me or anyone else I'm aware of.
<<Everything FDR ever did to ensure the good treatment of prisoners and innocent bystanders President Bush did but more.>>
Why would you say such a thing when you know it's not true? You yourself saw the figures on how many American servicemen were executed for rape and murder in WWII. You haven't been able to point to one WWII case like Abu Ghraib and it's absurd to speculate that shit like that could have gone down and been kept secret for 62 years, given the millions of men who served. All you could come up with was speculation that somebody, somewhere "punched" a Nazi. What an absurd comparison.
-
<<Everything FDR ever did to ensure the good treatment of prisoners and innocent bystanders President Bush did but more.>>
Why would you say such a thing when you know it's not true? You yourself saw the figures on how many American servicemen were executed for rape and murder in WWII.
[][][][][][][][][]][][][][]][][][][][]
Could you show me that again?
I do not remember you showing me one, or a link to one.
Perhaps I missed something.
Never the less , I hereby contend tht FDR did nothing at all to encourage good behavior on the part of US soldiers that President Bush has not also done or surpassed.
-
<<I know that you suffer the illusion that Prescient Bush could know the guilt of each malcreat and order them shot >>
I know he could press hard for a law with teeth that WOULD carry a death penalty for torture, I know he never has, despite the obvious need, I know he never will, and I know WHY he never has and never will
This is already present in the UCMJ.
The main diffrence between the UCMJ and the earlyer laws reguarding the military is that the authoity of commanders to dispense ustice with out review is less.
-
"You haven't been able to point to one WWII case like Abu Ghraib and it's absurd to speculate that shit like that could have gone down and been kept secret for 62 years, given the millions of men who served. All you could come up with was speculation that somebody, somewhere "punched" a Nazi. What an absurd comparison.
"
Isn't the lack of prosicutions a sure indication of coverup?
-
"You haven't been able to point to one WWII case like Abu Ghraib and it's absurd to speculate that shit like that could have gone down and been kept secret for 62 years, given the millions of men who served. All you could come up with was speculation that somebody, somewhere "punched" a Nazi. What an absurd comparison.
"
I personaly know a WWII vet who told me of shooting surrendering Japaneese , and I have heard this from several sorces .
I think Abu Graib is an egregious case and the prosicutions will take years . Other than the most egregious cases I consider the main diffrence a lesser acceptance of such things as the normal course of war now. One of the prosicuted cases is of an officer who discharged a pistol near an Iriqui to frighten him but with no other ill effect , I don't think this would have drawn repremand or even notice in WWII.
-
Skeptical? Of the depravity humans can descend to, call for, applaud, and appear to enjoy?
BRING US BARRABAS! BRING US BARRABAS!
There is nothing new under the sun.
Now I am sure that if you were more sceptical you would be happyer.
Our military is no more depraved than any other ever was , probly less.
Our present leadrship is doing no less to encourage good behavior than any previous one.
You are drinking the propaganda as if from a fire hose.
It is just not possible that it is ALL true.
Plane, what on earth are you talking about? I'm not talking about our military.
The people calling for more torture were from the audience at the last Republican presidential debate.
If you think that torture is made up, that it's all really just fraternity pranks, then I'm sorry for you. But I see how it might be easier to live with yourself, believing that.
Show me what you call "propaganda." I will show you the legal niceties that said we can too do this and the other thing, because that old Geneva Accord was so quaint and it didn't pertain to us anyhow, not now.
-
Skeptical? Of the depravity humans can descend to, call for, applaud, and appear to enjoy?
BRING US BARRABAS! BRING US BARRABAS!
There is nothing new under the sun.
Now I am sure that if you were more sceptical you would be happyer.
Our military is no more depraved than any other ever was , probly less.
Our present leadrship is doing no less to encourage good behavior than any previous one.
You are drinking the propaganda as if from a fire hose.
It is just not possible that it is ALL true.
Plane, what on earth are you talking about? I'm not talking about our military.
The people calling for more torture were from the audience at the last Republican presidential debate.
If you think that torture is made up, that it's all really just fraternity pranks, then I'm sorry for you. But I see how it might be easier to live with yourself, believing that.
Show me what you call "propaganda." I will show you the legal niceties that said we can too do this and the other thing, because that old Geneva Accord was so quaint and it didn't pertain to us anyhow, not now.
How does the set of treatys between nations apply? Has Osama now signed them? Are they puting on uniforms and carrying military IDs?
Under the Geneva treaty ,every combatant we have caught so far that was not wearing a uniform should be shot.
Under the Geneva treatys we should be holding the all without trial for the duration of the war , if not sooting them for being out of uniform.
I think I would like the enforcement of the Geneva treatys on these people better than you would.
One of the most eregious examples of propaganda I know about is the story about the guards at Guntanimo showing disrespect to copys of the Koran. That wasenough to cause riots around the world and these riots killed dozens but of course there was nothing to it. The effect desired was the riots so I imagine , and I imagine the author of the roumor was pleased. I also imagine this author ro be conteplateing further fiction.
Some of the worst examples of abuse by Americans have lead to prosictions , some minor ones too, so what do you want to happen ? MT reccomends summary execution , but I imagine you being satisfed with a little less. A lot of people are dissatisfied with the length of time the usual offender spends in jail here , should the soldiers found guilty of robbery , rape or murder overseas be reated more severely than the would be as domestic criminals?
-
<<I personaly know a WWII vet who told me of shooting surrendering Japaneese , and I have heard this from several sorces .>>
Are you totally nuts? Do you have ANY IDEA what those fucking bastards did to Allied prisoners? I had a neighbour, they cut off his fucking tongue! My friend's 19-year-old uncle in Scotland was taken prisoner at Singapore, strong as an ox and three months later he was dead. YOU figure it out. My dad's cousin was a prisoner in China, he saw prisoners whose stomachs were exploded from the inside, dying in agony. And you're wringing your hands because somebody SHOT them? That was at least a humane way of putting them out of their misery.
Anyway, I see you're back to your old tricks again. A German got "punched," a Jap got "shot." BFD. Abu Ghraib, Baghram Base, Guantanamo, rendition - - these things are about TORTURE, you know, anal rape, waterboarding, dogs, suffocation, hanging by the wrists arms tied behind the back - - get the picture yet?
-
<<I personaly know a WWII vet who told me of shooting surrendering Japaneese , and I have heard this from several sorces .>>
Are you totally nuts? Do you have ANY IDEA what those fucking bastards did to Allied prisoners? I had a neighbour, they cut off his fucking tongue! My friend's 19-year-old uncle in Scotland was taken prisoner at Singapore, strong as an ox and three months later he was dead. YOU figure it out. My dad's cousin was a prisoner in China, he saw prisoners whose stomachs were exploded from the inside, dying in agony. And you're wringing your hands because somebody SHOT them? That was at least a humane way of putting them out of their misery.
Anyway, I see you're back to your old tricks again. A German got "punched," a Jap got "shot." BFD. Abu Ghraib, Baghram Base, Guantanamo, rendition - - these things are about TORTURE, you know, anal rape, waterboarding, dogs, suffocation, hanging by the wrists arms tied behind the back - - get the picture yet?
But it was safe to shoot them , we do not tolarate that stuff anymore.
If the behavior of the Japaneese excuses their mistreatment in turn , what is the problem you see in the present ?