oldenGoldenDecoy's picture

    Enhanced Interrogation? A Repost from April 24, 2009...

    You can find my original post here.

    After the teaser break you will find the complete article by Andrew Sullivan that I originally *mirrored* in the event that Andrew's site ever went offline..

    The Case Of Richard Wilhelm Hermann Bruns, Et Al.

    ---begin cite---

    ---begin cite---

    Longtime Dish readers will know what I'm referring to. It is a famous war crime prosecution against Nazi officers in occupied Norway, and the trial took place in 1946. The men were accused of using "enhanced interrogation" techniques - or in the original German "verschaerfte Vernehmung" - against captives. The Dish's first coverage of this case can be read here. The online account of the trial can be found here. Two things are worth noting. The first is the Nazi definition of the term "enhanced interrogation." Here's the formal description:


    Notice how the Nazis ensured that doctors were present at all times so that they could monitor the captives' response to torture and make sure they didn't die or suffer visible permanent injuries that could embarrass the regime in public (see the Bradbury and Bybee memos for the Bush equivalent). Notice the careful measurement of how many times someone can be beaten (another Cheney innovation). And notice that we are not talking about waterboarding - something even the Nazis excluded from their "enhanced interrogation" methods. In the case of Bruns, et al., this translated to these charges:

        On 19th December, 1942, Bruns was present at the interrogation of a sick Norwegian. Leg screws were fastened to his legs and he was beaten with various implements. Later he was thrown unconscious into a cellar, where he remained for four days before receiving medical attention.

        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.

    So you have the abuse of someone with a pre-existing injury (Zubaydah), neglect of prisoners (ubiquitous at Bagram, Abu Ghraib and testified to by FBI agents at Gitmo), measured beatings, sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, and hypothermia or cold baths (also documented in the Bybee and Bradbury memos and the ICRC report). Now check out the defense against the charge of war crimes:

        All three defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. Their appeal was based on the following arguments :

        (a) That the acts of torture which the defendants had committed were permitted under International Law as reprisals against the illegal Military Organisation whose activities were at variance with International Law.

        (b) That the acts were carried out on superior orders and that the defendants acted under duress.

        (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.

    Do these defenses sound familiar? They failed in court. And while modern Americans debate whether we can even use the word 'torture' with respect to these techniques, previous generations, closer to the reality of war and torture than we are, had no qualms.

    The punishment for these crimes was the death penalty.

    ---end cite---





    The torture rebuttal of 3 CIA Directors.

    It is another remarkable coincidence in American history that the Bush administration and the CIA claim they had no inkling whatsoever of the massive 9/11 attack, but, armed with 'enhanced interrogation' they became 100% effective in 'keeping us safe' in subsequent years.

    This means our intelligence services underwent some incredible improvement in terror detection almost overnight (excepting of course the anthrax attacks (which Bush and Co. anticipated and started themselves on CIPRO before the first letter was mailed,-10 years later blamed on a dead American defense worker - not Saddam as was bellicosely implied by Bush at the time) and masterfully tortured people to be able to stop any and all al Qaeda threats to the Homeland.

    Not even a terror-cell-of-one-with a gun inflicted a single death in America. Just the one big one on 9/11, which 'changed everything'.

    A miracle.....or......well...there may be other explanations....

    Oh... hurumpf...

    The torture rebuttal of 3 CIA Directors?

    Maybe they've all been subjected to hourly doses of Rectal Feedings so as to brainwash them into spewing the crap found in those rebuttals.




    Thanks. This is the first thing I've read responding to today's release from the Committee.It was a good way to start.

    Does anyone recall this?

    . . .

    Now we know why...

    (Reuters) - Poland threatened to halt the transfer of al Qaeda suspects to a secret CIA jail on its soil 11 years ago, but became more "flexible" after the Central Intelligence Agency gave it a large sum of money, according to a U.S. Senate report.



    You mean stuff like this from the just created ciasavedlives.com:

    certain knowledge that bin Laden had met with Pakistani nuclear scientists

    we had hard evidence that al Qaida was trying to manufacture anthrax.

    disruption of terrorist plots that saved thousands of American and allied lives.

    didn't scare the Beejesus out of Poland and persuade compliance with the humble heroes of the CIA? Hey, and if the website address says they saved lives it must be true right? It's not ciastucktubesupbungholes.com folks...take notice.

    I also like the way Republicans say the Majority Report is "tainted"  (see cia website above and AEI neocon D. Pletka, A Document Too Tainted to Matter).....because no CIA were spoken to or interviewed!!!

    Why not let CIA guys tell their side, right? ...THEY ALREADY are on record as bald faced liars...exposing those on record lies was THE POINT of the report.  How dumb do they think Americans are? OK...yeah...they are probably right on that one.

    What a farce is the rationalization that we were suddenly in the dire situation. The fact is that CIA/Bush/Cheney didn't pick up on the imminent danger---which is what caused the dire situation.

    The premise that something worse might happen next doesn't hold up. Why would a terrorist use his lesser weapon first, knowing we'd then be on high alert for any follow-on.

    Good point.

    Caught a little of the NPR Diane Rehm show on the CIA report. She had former 30 year lawyer John Rizzo on for the CIA side, when asked did 'enhanced interrogation' work he said:

    'A guy he knew in the program thought it did'. Diane was OK with that. He regretted that he couldn't testify about that bit of hearsay to clear his buddies....these guys always have great imaginations...I am still waiting for Rand Pauls imagined Navy Ebola Plague Ships.

    Anyone recall this post from the TPM Cafe days?

    Cooked Intel & Torture Abuse: So the 'Stovepipe' Stops Where?

    I'm simply dredging up the past to help connect it to the current ongoing yammering about the latest report from the Senate...



    Latest Comments