PDA

View Full Version : Origins of "Enhanced Interrogation"


Candide's Son
12-18-2008, 03:17 PM
This is from the blog The Daily Dish by Andrew Sullivan.
I decided to post this in light of the recent Senate Armed Services Committee's report on interrogation (http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=305735) techniques.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/29/translationofmuellermemo.jpg

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...
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/images/2007/05/29/agcorpse3.jpg
...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.

The rest is found here. (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html)

Debo
12-18-2008, 07:48 PM
Come on, Bush equals Hitler is so 2003.

BIG PIZZLE
12-18-2008, 08:04 PM
This administration has done a really good job of fooling moron americans by giving things fancy names or names that have nothing to do with what they represent.

mongo
12-18-2008, 08:06 PM
this guy seriously needs to be banned.

Claydon
12-18-2008, 08:14 PM
I <3 enhanced interrogation techniques on brown people.

kid_vidrio
12-18-2008, 08:19 PM
this guy seriously needs to be banned.
Why the 3rd person?

back on topic, enhanced interrogation techniques in use by US interests are from CIA work done at McGill in Canada in the 50's.
all history provides 'gifts' to the present, but i really don't thing they were using techniques because someone used them, unless there was some support for the effectiveness.