T Nation

Hitler, Bush, and Torture.

Ok, here’s a Republican blogger doing some very disturbing revelations:

[i]The phrase “Versch?rfte 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. [/i]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html

Read the whole thing, it’s pretty scary.

What do you guys reckon? Don’t you think standing up by your principles should be favored over the impression of safety?

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed claims he was “tortured” while in US custody.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/15/guantanamo.mohammed/index.html

Lixy, I know you lose sleep worrying about whether the guy’s toilet is facing mecca at the proper angle, or if he’s being served pork… But frankly, who gives a fuck if this piece of filth was given the waterboard treatment?

Interestingly, A check of the Amnesty International website directory for Iraq also finds no mention whatsoever of al-Qaeda?s torture networks and methods.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-irq/reports

Which is exactly why they have no credibility. You’re a big fan though I’ve noticed.

I think the “I was just following orders” excuse has not been exhausted as of yet.

I’m curious if anyone involved in these situations has refused what they considered an illegal order?

Regardless of whether or not there are ever any repercussions this is a sad chapter in history. Our standards should not be defined by the level to which the enemy sinks.

However, the twins hatred and fear can certainly be used to justify a lot.

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
Interestingly, A check of the Amnesty International website directory for Iraq also finds no mention whatsoever of al-Qaeda?s torture networks and methods.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-irq/reports

Which is exactly why they have no credibility. You’re a big fan though I’ve noticed.
[/quote]

Before accepting your reasoning we need to know if Amnesty International only deals with the behaviors of states or nations… anyone?

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
But frankly, who gives a fuck if this piece of filth was given the waterboard treatment?
[/quote]

I do.

What don’t you people get?

Is it that hard to see that its not about WHO they are torturing, but the fact that they ARE torturing ANYFUCKINGBODY in the first place?

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
Interestingly, A check of the Amnesty International website directory for Iraq also finds no mention whatsoever of al-Qaeda?s torture networks and methods.
[/quote]

Dude. Dude, dude.

Are you shitting me?

“They started it!”

You sound like a child.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
But frankly, who gives a fuck if this piece of filth was given the waterboard treatment?

I do.

What don’t you people get?

Is it that hard to see that its not about WHO they are torturing, but the fact that they ARE torturing ANYFUCKINGBODY in the first place?
[/quote]
Sorry I can’t muster up sympathy for your boy. You did read about what he admitted to didn’t you? Give him truth serum, and a chance to cough up the information necessary to save other innocent lives.

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
Interestingly, A check of the Amnesty International website directory for Iraq also finds no mention whatsoever of al-Qaeda?s torture networks and methods.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-irq/reports
[/quote]

To quote Glenn Greenwald:

“The reason that it is news that the U.S. tortures, but not news that Al Qaeda does, is because Al Qaeda is a barbaric and savage terrorist group which operates with no limits, whereas the U.S. is supposed to be something different than that. Isn’t it amazing that one even needs to point that out?”

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/01/al_qaeda/index.html

Just noting that there is a lack of balance with the reporting, and their priorities.

[quote]vroom wrote:
I’m curious if anyone involved in these situations has refused what they considered an illegal order? [/quote]

Sure. Many refused to be involved in what they described as “war crimes”. I’m bad with names, but I’ve seen interviews with at least a couple of them.

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
But frankly, who gives a fuck if this piece of filth was given the waterboard treatment?

I do.

What don’t you people get?

Is it that hard to see that its not about WHO they are torturing, but the fact that they ARE torturing ANYFUCKINGBODY in the first place?

Sorry I can’t muster up sympathy for your boy. You did read about what he admitted to didn’t you? Give him truth serum, and a chance to cough up the information necessary to save other innocent lives.

[/quote]

Ok, first things first… do you really think you’re making a point by calling him “my boy”?

Do you really REALLY honestly even-when-you-stop-and-think-about-it subscribe to the “If you’re not with us you’re with the enemy” mantra?

Do you really think my opposition to the United States government torturing ANYONE means I support or “am boys with” this one particular person they DID torture?

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
But frankly, who gives a fuck if this piece of filth was given the waterboard treatment?

I do.

What don’t you people get?

Is it that hard to see that its not about WHO they are torturing, but the fact that they ARE torturing ANYFUCKINGBODY in the first place?

Sorry I can’t muster up sympathy for your boy. You did read about what he admitted to didn’t you? Give him truth serum, and a chance to cough up the information necessary to save other innocent lives.

Ok, first things first… do you really think you’re making a point by calling him “my boy”?

Do you really REALLY honestly even-when-you-stop-and-think-about-it subscribe to the “If you’re not with us you’re with the enemy” mantra?

Do you really think my opposition to the United States government torturing ANYONE means I support or “am boys with” this one particular person they DID torture?
[/quote]

I believe that when it comes to Kalid Sheik Mohammed there is an important difference between terrorists like him and their victims that should mute talk of the terrorists’ “rights.”

Kalid Sheik Mohammed’s victims are at risk unintentionally, not having asked to be endangered. But the terrorist knowingly initiated his actions. Unlike Kalid Sheik Mohammed’s victims, he volunteered for the risks of his deed.

By threatening to kill for profit or idealism, I think that the Sheik renounces civilized standards, and he can have no complaint if civilization tries to thwart him by whatever means necessary.

We just disagree. If you can get Kalid Sheik Mohammed to tell you about the next 9/11 by a less hands on methodology, more power to you. If that works fine. I’m for whatever gets you the most effective intelligence. Again, if that’s the truth serum, fine.

I thought the right wing liked to decry what they called moral relativism?

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
We just disagree. If you can get Kalid Sheik Mohammed to tell you about the next 9/11 by a less hands on methodology, more power to you. If that works fine. I’m for whatever gets you the most effective intelligence. Again, if that’s the truth serum, fine.

[/quote]

lixy’s method would be:

Tea and biscotti. The result? Hm. He has no information. Shucks.

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
I believe that when it comes to Kalid Sheik Mohammed there is an important difference between terrorists like him and their victims that should mute talk of the terrorists’ “rights.”

Kalid Sheik Mohammed’s victims are at risk unintentionally, not having asked to be endangered. But the terrorist knowingly initiated his actions. Unlike Kalid Sheik Mohammed’s victims, he volunteered for the risks of his deed.

By threatening to kill for profit or idealism, I think that the Sheik renounces civilized standards, and he can have no complaint if civilization tries to thwart him by whatever means necessary.

We just disagree. If you can get Kalid Sheik Mohammed to tell you about the next 9/11 by a less hands on methodology, more power to you. If that works fine. I’m for whatever gets you the most effective intelligence. Again, if that’s the truth serum, fine.

[/quote]

So you support torture as long as you feel the person being tortured deserves it, or the implied benefit of said torture is great enough.

This, to me, is very scary thinking. Sure, today its terrorists… but why not rapists, or child molesters, or plain ol normal murderers (whos victims do not choose to be in danger)? If torture is effective for stopping terrorism, why not apply it to other (or all) crimes as well? Would you be as opposed to the “rights” of pedophiles?

My position is that the United States government should never be allowed to torture anyone for any reason, because (as this very thread points out) the risk does not outweigh the benefit.

By the way, next time you “Just disagree” with someone, it would be a lot more civil of you not to insinuate that they align themselves with terrorists. It greatly inhibits rational debate to throw up ad hominem strawmen like that.

[quote]kroby wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
We just disagree. If you can get Kalid Sheik Mohammed to tell you about the next 9/11 by a less hands on methodology, more power to you. If that works fine. I’m for whatever gets you the most effective intelligence. Again, if that’s the truth serum, fine.

lixy’s method would be:

Tea and biscotti. The result? Hm. He has no information. Shucks.[/quote]

Meanwhile, your method is to cut his fingers off one by one.

And then wonder why the rest of the world doesn’t share your warped view of America (and Americans) being a bastion of righteousness, purity, and goodness in an otherwise heartless world.

CappedandPlanIt wrote:

“If torture is effective for stopping terrorism, why not apply it to other (or all) crimes as well? Would you be as opposed to the “rights” of pedophiles?”

To be honest, if I caught a pedophile trying to harm one of my kids, I’d probably have his “rights” pretty far down on my list of priorities. Yes, I’d be guilty of that all right.

You and I have different priorities. No big deal.

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
To be honest, if I caught a pedophile trying to harm one of my kids, I’d probably have his “rights” pretty far down on my list of priorities. Yes, I’d be guilty of that all right.
[/quote]

This isn’t the same thing at all. You are not a government and in the example you give you’d be directly involved in the situation.

Generally, victims don’t get to decide the official punishment, at least not in a country governed by laws.

Perhaps try answering the question?

[quote]vroom wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
To be honest, if I caught a pedophile trying to harm one of my kids, I’d probably have his “rights” pretty far down on my list of priorities. Yes, I’d be guilty of that all right.

This isn’t the same thing at all. You are not a government and in the example you give you’d be directly involved in the situation.

Generally, victims don’t get to decide the official punishment, at least not in a country governed by laws.

Perhaps try answering the question?[/quote]

Vroom, to answer the question, No. I am not really that concerned with the rights of pedophiles. But that’s just me. Perhaps you are. Again, I’m sure we have different priorities.

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
Again, I’m sure we have different priorities. [/quote]

My priorities include protecting the rights of citizens (individuals) and protecting against abuse of power (government)…