"Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"

The following is from Andrew Sullivan at Atlantic Online. Note his last paragraph:

"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."

"Verschärfte Vernehmung"
29 May 2007 12:36 pm

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...



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.

Permalink :: Trackback (12) Sphere It!

Surprise! Bush Holds His Breath and Gets What He Wants!

Watch Keith Olbermann's commentary here.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), co-chairwoman of the Progressive Caucus, called on Congress to be bolder in confronting the president.

"This capitulation proves once and for all that we cannot negotiate with this president," she said. "He won't listen to his military generals on the ground, he won't listen to outside experts like the Iraq Study Group, he won't listen to the Congress, and worst of all he won't listen to the American public.... If we continue to take piecemeal steps such as today's vote, then we must accept our complicity in his continued occupation of Iraq."

We need to give deadlines to Congress and while we're at it give 'em benchmarks too! Let's see, how are they doing so far?

1) Ending the war. Grade: "F"
2) Holding hearings and holding the Bush White House accountable for its lies and crimes. Grade: "F"

Hmm. "If we leave they'll be a civil war" the GOP pundits keep saying about Iraq. Maybe if Congress leaves D.C., abandons the pretense of representing the people who voted them into office and declares itself a vestigal organ like the appendix and cuts itself out (see last posting), a civil war in the U.S. would break out.

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

LAW OF THE LAND

Bush grants presidency extraordinary powers
Directive for emergencies apparently gives authority without congressional oversight

Posted: May 23, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

President Bush has signed a directive granting extraordinary powers to the office of the president in the event of a declared national emergency, apparently without congressional approval or oversight.

The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" was signed May 9, notes Jerome R. Corsi in a WND column.

It was issued with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive.

The directive establishes under the office of the president a new national continuity coordinator whose job is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.

"Catastrophic emergency" is loosely defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

Corsi says the president can assume the power to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.

The directive says the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, currently Frances Fragos Townsend, would be designated as the national continuity coordinator.

Corsi says the directive makes no attempt to reconcile the powers created for the national continuity coordinator with the National Emergency Act, which requires that such proclamation "shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register."

A Congressional Research Service study notes the National Emergency Act sets up Congress as a balance empowered to "modify, rescind, or render dormant" such emergency authority if Congress believes the president has acted inappropriately.

But the new directive appears to supersede the National Emergency Act by creating the new position of national continuity coordinator without any specific act of Congress authorizing the position, Corsi says.

The directive also makes no reference to Congress and its language appears to negate any requirement that the president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists.

It suggests instead that the powers of the directive can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight.

Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke affirmed to Corsi the Homeland Security Department would implement the requirements of the order under Townsend's direction.

The White House declined to comment on the directive.

On Gary Kamiya's "Why Bush Hasn't Been Impeached"

Gary Kamiya recently posted a piece at Salon.com attempting to explain why Bush hasn't yet been impeached. I'm glad that someone in major media is addressing this question. But while Kamiya makes a few good points in his piece, his overall analysis is incorrect. He attributes the underlying problem to a kind of mass psychological problem - an alleged American culture accepting of spin as equivalent to the truth. (See an earlier posting of mine on this blog for a discussion of this question in more depth: "On the Relationship Between Media/Political Leaders and the Public." See, also, a talk I gave in March '07: "Why Isn't There More Outrage?")

Kamiya cites, for example, Lindorff and Olshansky's quote of Sen. Lowell Weicker: "'Bush obviously lied to the country and the Congress about the war, but we have a system of elections in this country. Everyone knew about the lying before the 2004 elections, and they didn't do anything about it... Bush got elected. The horse is out of the barn now.'"

One of the problems with this analysis is that the majority of Americans didn't vote for Bush in 2004 (or 2000 for that matter!). The election was stolen. As I wrote at the start of Chapter 2 of Impeach the President:

"In order to believe that George Bush won the November 2, 2004 presidential election, you must also believe each and every one of the following [19] extremely improbable or outright impossible things.

1) New voter registrations in the lead up to the election hit record levels, with Democrats swamping Republicans in voter registrations (outstripping them by a factor of 5:1 in Florida and by 6:1 and better in Ohio), but despite this Bush still somehow won.

2) Pre-election day momentum carried through on Election Day with a record turnout and a highly energized and motivated electorate, but for the first time in history a large turnout favored the GOP instead of the Democrats.

3) CNN reported at 9 p.m. EST on election evening that Kerry was leading by 3 points in the national exit polls based on well over 13,000 respondents. Several hours later at 1:36 a.m. CNN reported that the exit polls, now based on a few hundred more—13,531 respondents—were showing Bush leading by 2 points, a 5-point swing. In other words, a swing of 5 percentage points from a tiny increase in the number of respondents somehow occurred despite being mathematically impossible.

4) Early-day voters picked up by initial exit polls (showing Kerry rolling to a 5 million-vote landslide win) apparently reflected GOP supporters waiting to vote until very late in the day, even though there was a complete lack of evidence of any late GOP surge to observers on the ground. This was, moreover, contrary to historic patterns of GOP supporters voting early.

5) Bush loses big to Kerry nationally among the only groups from which Bush could legitimately fashion a win: first-time voters, lapsed voters (those who didn’t vote in 2000), and undecideds. In addition, Bush loses people who voted for him in the cliffhanger 2000 election. Like Athena springing full-grown from Zeus’ brow, however, Bush is nonetheless credited ex nihilo with a 3.4 million-vote surplus in the official tally...."

Here is what I just posted at Salon.com:

Wrong Analogy

A better analogy than a bad marraige would be an evil stepfather. It's much, much harder to get rid of a bad stepfather than a lousy husband.

Kamiya correctly notes that the main reason Bush hasn't been impeached is because of the Democrats, and he also correctly notes that the establishment media have treated "impeachment talk as if it were the unseemly rantings of half-crazed hordes." But then he attributes media's stance to BUYING into the paradigm that Kamiya spends most of his article articulating - "our acceptance of the universality of spin."

This is where his analysis goes very wrong. He fails to distinguish between those who are responsible for spinning the truth (the White House, the right-wing, mainstream media, and the rest of the political leadership) and those who are the recipients of that spin (the public). See this for more.

When Kamiya cites, for example, the senior WH spokesman who told Ron Suskind that the WH was a proud member of the "faith-based community" he treats this as a statement about the whole American psyche. In fact the WH spokesman was referring to the WH alone and was DERIDING Suskind and others for being members of the "reality-based community." Similarly, when Kamiya seeks to support his contention that 9/11 created a "John Wayne" moment among all Americans, he cites Kissinger and Friedman, neither of whom can be said to be representative of the American public as a whole.

The American public HAD TO BE LIED TO in order to justify our illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. There's no way anyone would have gone along with it absent those lies. The notion that Saddham was responsible for 9/11 isn't something that emerged somehow from the public. The people were not overall engaging in mass, self-deception.

It is not the American people who are strangely disconnected. A majority for some time have been saying they support impeachment (e.g., the 10/06 Newsweek poll showing 51% wanting impeachment). Indeed, they voted powerfully against the war in 11/06 and before that a majority voted against Bush/Cheney in 11/04 (except that the election was stolen AGAIN - see my analysis of this in Chap. 2 of "Impeach the President: the Case Against Bush and Cheney," ed. by Dennis Loo and Peter Phillips).

The problem is that the people cannot act to change public policy or accomplish impeachment without political leadership advancing their sentiments. The media, by treating impeachment as verboten, and the Democratic Party, in doing the same, have effectively blocked what the majority of Americans want - the impeachment and conviction of Bush and Cheney. If the NY Times or John Kerry were to come out for impeachment tomorrow, would anybody be wondering why the American people have allowed these reactionaries in the WH to remain? Of course not, because the outpouring of public sentiment in support of impeachment would be immense.

What Kamiya treats as a mass, psychological state of mind among Americans is more properly seen as a fraud perpetrated upon the public by opinion-leaders. David Brock in "The Republican Noise Machine" traces the historical development of this egregious state of affairs. We further analyze this phenomenon in "Impeach the President" - our authors including Howard Zinn, Mark Crispin Miller, Greg Palast and many others.

As I wrote in the Preface to ITP:

"The central problem here is that truth and facts have been barricaded off from reaching most of the American people. If Americans truly knew exactly what was going on in their names, they would mass outside 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, scale the gates, haul these perpetrators out of the White House by their shirt collars and put them on trial immediately for crimes against humanity. This has yet to happen because the right wing has been resoundingly successful in the plans it laid beginning in the early 1970s to dramatically alter the political landscape. Through the very deep pockets of people like Rupert Murdoch, Adolph Coors and the 'Four Sisters,' they have invested tens of billions of dollars in establishing their own media empire such as Fox News and Clear Channel, their own think tanks, publishing houses, their heavy subsidy and cultivation of right wing scholars and writers, and so on. From these pulpits they have bullied, lied and twisted. Their media empire’s impact cannot be overestimated. They have cowed the Democratic Party and the mainstream media. Like the shadow cast by the immense alien ship in the movie Independence Day, Bush/Cheney and the radical right have generated a black cloud over this country. We wrote this book to help to dispel this.

"These times call for nothing less than that the people take extraordinary measures to repudiate these 'leaders.' An unprecedented mass popular upheaval is what must occur."

Monopoly

Bush and Cheney behave as if they’re playing a game of Monopoly and have just drawn the following card from Community Chest:

“Ignore warnings, scientists and scientific assessments. Move forward on the basis of faith. Don’t bother doing any analysis. Do not envision contingencies and do not prepare for them. Extol the virtues of the free market and slash social programs. Drive up deficits to historic levels. Slash taxes for the wealthy. Privatize what’s public, outsource anything you can, treat regulation and government as a device to further the private gain of private interests, award your friends with posts on the basis of their ideological affinity and loyalty, not on the basis of their expertise or experience. When disaster strikes ignore it as long as possible. Blame others. Promise grand things. Deliver little. In the aftermath of disasters demand more power and less oversight. When things go to hell, claim that ‘no one anticipated that’ things could go to hell. Instill fear as often and as widely as possible. Pass Go, Collect Another Several Billion Dollars for yourself and your buddies. “

On KPFK 90.7 FM Today

I will be on Michael Slate's show today, Thursday, May 10, 2007 at about 5:35 pm PST. We'll be talking about impeachment and about my book, Impeach the President. If you're out of the listening area you can also tune in via the Internet. Go to KPFK's webpage and tune in live.

Impeachment Sunday

I recommend Impeachment Sunday.