The current New York Review of Books contains a review (by Patricia Meehan) of Giles MacDonogh’s book After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation (Basic Books). A subscription is required to view the article, but the URL is http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20693

According to the review, this book documents the history of brutality and torture used by the Allies against former Nazi soldiers and commanders (as well as German civilians, if my memory is correct).

Naomi Klein, among others, has also documented the continuing American use of torture (by us or by our proxies around the globe, trained by US military, CIA and other agents). See, for example, “Torture’s Dirty Secret: It Works” in the 30-May-2005 issue of The Nation, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050530/klein

I’m not intending to condone the current American use of torture, or saying that it shouldn’t stop. And arguably the Bush policy is, basically, former American torture policy on steroids. It’s therefore an open question whether current policy can correctly be classified as an aberration, as so many critics from both the center and the left (and even, occasionally, the right) have preferred to claim over the last 5 years or so, or rather merely an extension and intensification of previous policy.

Naomi Klein’s point is that, as is widely recognized by experts, torture is an exceptionally poor method for obtaining accurate information. But it is an exceptionally _good_ method for achieving two aims: (1) obtaining answers from prisoners that the interrogator has PREVIOUSLY determined to be the “right” or “desired” answer (”Yes, Yes! I am a witch! I am a Communist! I am a Jew! I am Al Qaeda! So are all my friends! Here are their names! I’ll say anything, just stop hurting me!); and (2) social control — the fear of being tortured among ordinary civilians tends to keep us in line and prevent us from doing — or even thinking — things that are too “subversive.” (Klein: “When this intense surveillance is paired with the ever-present threat of torture, the message is clear: You are being watched, your neighbor may be a spy, the government can find out anything about you. If you misstep, you could disappear onto a plane bound for Syria [like Maher Arar], or into ‘the deep dark hole that is Guantánamo Bay….’”) Torture is, ultimately, an instrument of terror, and one the United States, its clients and its proxies, have used continuously. The pro-torture folks posting on this forum (e.g. MarloweC @13) will never acknowledge this, but any objective analysis of torture will determine this to be the case.

I personally believe that torture policy, like so much Bush policy, is less an aberration than an extension and intensification of previous policy. It’s politically convenient, since Bush is so incredibly bad on so many things, to describe these policies as aberrant. But politically convenient positions are not necessarily accurate. Ultimately, if we are serious about being anti-torture, and endorsing similar American values, we need to be honest about our own history and complicity.

We were able to keep much of the world on our side during the CW because we were not the Soviets, and did not use the KGB’s tactics. The Marshall Plan did more good to build alliances than any action by CIA interrogators ever could have. There was an article in WaPo last week discussing how WWII interrogators got information. It wasn’t through torture. These men took pride in their ability to get information from enemy captives by using their wits, not force. Sometimes they would reach out to isolated depressed men in friendship, and learn a great deal. Other times they would use deception and tricks. But when they came home, they could live with what they had done to contribute to winning the war.

If we act like the terrorists, we become them. We already see the lines blurred with the BW scandal, where employees felt free to fire with no provocation, because there was no threat of retribution.

Show me one ex-military commander or Sec of State that recommends torture. This isn’t just about the current conflict, but future ones. Senator McCain is one of the biggest war hawks out there, and also one of the biggest opponents to torture. He’s been on the receiving end of the argument, and argues that approving torture degrades our side. Colin Powell- still a respected voice of experience has also rejected this route.

And, given what appears to be arresting and torturing people who pretty much were wrong-place wrong-time folks as much ‘bad guys’ … Ugh. For instance did you know there is apparently a bounty paid for ‘bad guys’. No? Yep, and no real bother to follow up on whether they were really bad guys or not, oh no. Just grab someone off the street, or a clan rival, and cha-ching collect some cash. Well, if you can sleep well torturing those sorts of folks then I don’t know what to say… I can’t.

That and the other little thing. This global war on terror will not be won militarily, unless you soul is so dark as to postulate ‘final solution’ type scenarios. Oh, military is a component no doubt. But at the end of the day, its about what is essentially police work and winning hearts and minds. I should not have to say much more about the obvious conclusions our actions will lead to. If you are no better than the enemy, then its danged hard to get on the morale soapbox and reach out believably. Face it folks, W lost the war on terror pretty much within months of invading Iraq.

As to what constitutes torture? Well, I would have to say waterboarding and giving people hyperthermia and sensory deprivation are indeed torture. But, if that don’t cut for you – and shame on you if it does not IMHO – how about that Afghani cab driver? Arrested and beat to death over several days by dozens of our soldiers each taking a whack at him in passing from time to time as he called out to Allah? I won’t disagree that bad things happen in war, and can recount a few I heard from GW I. But, there is a big dfifference between poop that happens periodically in the field, and a general green light to ‘go to town.’

I have heard the ‘If we just fought dirtier, we would win”, mantra for each war we did not. No, you would not win. Get real. You would just make it worse. You can at beast occupy a group that way. And, we have neither the man power nor the will (I hope!) to do so. Assuming you can do it. You are simply going to watch a boiling pot forever without rest. Look at the dictators who have done so. Sure for a time they manage, but it is always close to going boom isn’t it?

Fear is simply historically not a long term viable control method. Piss enough people off and eventualy people simply fear death less than taking up arms against you.

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.

BeavertonJB – If your interested in a technical site in regards to Iran and their enrichment go to ArmsControlWonks.com .

Seriously, I feel sick. To feel better, first I’ll talk about torture, then I’ll talk about the two wars (that’s right, two!) wars on terror.

Modern torture, or, “What, my drugs aren’t good enough for you!?” My understanding is that people “break,” and start saying anything to make it stop. It’s so “effective” it delivers uselessly huge amounts of information, similar to our computerized surveillance. But that’s what I know from the internet, so who knows.

The real issue is, which war on terror? That is to say, why were the British fighting the Pashtuns back in 1900? Imperialism.

Imperialism, imperialism, imperialism. Did I mention IMPERIALISM?

So if we’re going to be an aggressor nation, and try to drive deep into the heart of the Eurasian landmass as a part of the “Great Game” (War on Terror Type I), all the tools of human brutality will be “necessary” in order to quell those barbaric fucking brown people (Kipling!).

If we actually want to reduce terrorism (War on Terror Type II), we’ll want to come off nice. No torture, no invading nations, just working for stability, using our massive economic, cultural and political resources to grow democracy where we can. In places where they aren’t ready for democracy, we can lay the foundation by working for prosperity, equity and the spread of science.

And of course, in the end, equitable and democratic nations have there own sets of wussy liberals to put the brakes on their leaders’ brutal, imperial designs, reducing our need to exercise global hegemony to prevent the emergence of competitor empires. By gum, it could be a positive feed-back loop of peacefulness!

But instead of seizing this opportunity to improve the world, our leaders use an attack by a handful of psychos who we trained during our last imperialistic struggle as an excuse for renewed imperial striving. Awesome. (Why would they do that?)

In case I didn’t make it clear, unless one is considering the war on terror a “clash of civilizations” (code words for imperial conquest), torture, even not-really-real torture a pussy like Frank Rich complains about, radicalizes a new generation of terrorists. In the war on terror, any victory gained by torture is a pyrrhic victory.

Does that make sense?

You complained about the comparison between the Nazis and our own government policy, but then you turned around and defended the effectiveness of torture based on its usefulness to–the Soviets!!

I agree that torture is useful if the torturer is just looking for revenge or degradation. But it’s a terrible tool for acquiring information: whoever is being tortured will say anything to make it stop. Nor is it useful in winning hearts and minds.

No one, of course, is required to believe in American ideals.

Krit, I disagree. The history of torture…and there is a considerable literature on the subject…reveals that it is extraordinarily effective. The NKVD, later the KGB, could usually break someone in about 3 days. Hard core ideologues and true believers took longer. Yet, in the entire history of the organization and the millions of Soviets who faced its interrogators, there were only a handful who successfully resisted.

This current meme that torture is ineffective is ahistorical. It is only now…in the past ten years of human history…that torture is considered ineffective. The ideological orientation of those making this claim clearly shapes their view.

As for “putting our own troops in jeopardy”…Krit, those few instances when US troops have been captured in Iraq by insurgents, they have been tortured (real torture), castrated, executed, and their bodies booby-trapped.

The claim that in this war “you are convincing those that you are trying to win over that you hold the higher moral ground” is another liberal meme…one that George Orwell dispatched a half-century ago.

Orwell noted that Gandhi was successful only because he was applying moral persuasion against Brits…who believe in justice, fair play, etc. He noted that against Hitler, Gandhi would have been quickly executed.

Afghans laughed at British fair play in the 19th century, and the Taliban and bin Laden mock US anxieties about “torture” today.

Let me add…I understand something of the idealism Krit, Joe, Domajot etc. express here. Really I do. I am not American, my partner is, and I find her belief in “American ideals” sometimes inspiring, and sometimes infuriating.

I think you won wars in the past barely by the hairs of your chinny, chin chins.

Roosevelt was a devious and brilliant titan, but he got lucky at Pearl Harbor.

Were it not for that, America would have kept its hands clean of foreign entanglements – American consciences would have been pure – and the Nazis and the Empire of Japan would have happily
wiped up Britain and the Soviet Union between them.

Part of winning is psychological- convincing those that you are trying to win over that you hold the higher moral ground. We are losing that ground and are destroying the integrity of our interrogators by ordering torture. We will look back on this as a shameful time in our history – just like we regret our years as slave owners and the decision during WWII to put Japanese-Americans in internment camps.

Read the history of Britain’s First and Second Afghan wars in the 19th century. They were horror shows the likes of which Frank Rich’s liberal soul could not imagine.

In the Second Afghanistan War the entire British legation in Afghanistan and its supporting troops were slaughtered…and yes, by “innocent civilian” women and children. Only 1 Briton actually got out of Afghanistan alive.

The British retaliation was brutal, but they found themselves outclassed in ruthlessness by the Afghans.

Britain’s solution: they found a truly evil SOB whom they placed on the Afghan throne…and they got out. He deciminated the Pashtuns, earned a reputation for ruthlessness that impressed even the Afghans, and brought peace to the country.

This is not an option open to the US, as any American client would have to uphold American human rights to the levels acceptable to Frank Rich and the NYT, or else be cut off of any support.

Today, for the first time, I actually think the US will lose the War on Terror. America is being forced to fight with one hand, and two legs tied behind its back…against an opponent that respects nothing but force and victory.

The NYT attacks the “Gestapo tactics” of the American government…while alone of all the papers in New York City these past days…it ignores the sacrifice of a brave New Yorker who was honored for fighting for his country and his fellow soldiers.

You go, Frank Rich. And more power to you….

No, I emphatically disagree! Frank Rich feeds his audience what they want…but to liken waterboarding, sleep deprivation and rendition to “Gestapo tactics”??!

Comments about talk about learning from history.

Have you actually read about the “Gestapo”…which was not actually the SS…but close enough?

“Gestapo tactics” are bullets in the back of the head…bullets in the face…part of the reason they resorted to Zyklon B was that Hitler’s interrogators and executioners were traumatized from days of wading LITERALLY knee deep in blood.

I am currently reading Winston Churchill’s account of his fighting on the Northwest frontier a century ago against Pathan tribesmen. Absolutely ruthless war, in which captured British soldiers were tortured and then slaughtered.

No, not “torture” in the Frank Rich definition…or in the definitions of some here…but the real deal! Mutilation…castration…then execution.

Churchill and the British responded fiercely, but they tried to retain honor. Even so, shit happened.

Churchill records how the Sikh soldiers hated the Pathan tribesmen so much that they burned a prisoner alive in an incinerator. Their British officers turned a blind eye.

There is nothing pretty about war…there never has been. Grant knew that. As did Sherman. Many Americans seem to have forgotten how assassination was a part of their conduct in WWII.

Americans are fighting today against the descendents of the Pathans. Kipling knew this war…as did Churchill…in a way Frank Rich never ever will:

“When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.”

Bin Laden was right when he made the analogy between the fast horse and the slow horse years ago to illustrate how America simply does have what it takes to fight a bloody war.

You might as well pack up and go home. Leave Iraq and Afghanistan….and for that matter the Middle East. Don’t monitor any phone calls. Just hope and pray that they all leave you alone.

I’m lost as to your meaning. It was wrapped up in penumbras emanating from, errr…emanations or emissions or ejaculations…or…whatever.

The funny thing is that these people worried about the ‘loss of American values’ pretty much rejected all American values except those they created ex nihilo ca. 1968. To them the America of pre-1968 was Satan’s evil spawn.

Have we bothered to ‘ask where our country is going?’ Would that we had asked that 60 million immigrants and 2,500 Supreme Court verdicts ago.

What you say is true about a lot of issues, but on some, like torture, it’s not as easy as just saying ‘change’ to the government.

Everything is secret for ‘national security’ reasons, so all that’s out in the open is circustantial, personal testimonies and the few trickles, like the torture memos, that the NYT has been able to unearth.

They can just deny, deny deny and there is no way to haul them on the carpet. What we can do now is to demand clear statements on these issues from the candidates and to make it a first tier issue in the elections.

We need to change the channel: inform ourselves by searching out dissenting voices online, instead of watching CNN and reading the NYT. For example: the IAEA found that Iran is only producing a trickle of enriched uranium, much less than they could be. Are they indicating a willingness to negotiate, or just having technical problems? We don’t know. And guess what? I had to read about it in the Financial Times, it wasn’t reported in America!

But that’s the next round of atrocities. As for the current, well, everyone knows what’s going on. We need to hit the streets and protest, except we’re all full of shit cowards. In that sense Rich’s right, we are “Good Germans.” We can whine about the Dems’ ineffectiveness all we want, but the people aren’t out there putting on the pressure and giving them the cover they need.

So we let the media turn us into imbeciles, then we sit on our asses and wonder why our government is evil. Just change!