"Revealed: victims of UK's cold war torture camp"

[ahctlucabbuS]

Photographs of victims of a secret torture programme operated by British authorities during the early days of the cold war are published for the first time today after being concealed for almost 60 years.

The pictures show men who had suffered months of starvation, sleep deprivation, beatings and extreme cold at one of a number of interrogation centres run by the War Office in postwar Germany.

A few were starved or beaten to death, while British soldiers are alleged to have tortured some victims with thumb screws and shin screws recovered from a gestapo prison. The men in the photographs are not Nazis, however, but suspected communists, arrested in 1946 because they were thought to support the Soviet Union, an ally 18 months earlier.

Apparently believing that war with the Soviet Union was inevitable, the War Office was seeking information about Russian military and intelligence methods. Dozens of women were also detained and tortured, as were a number of genuine Soviet agents, scores of suspected Nazis, and former members of the SS.

Yesterday there were calls for the Ministry of Defence to acknowledge what had happened and apologise. Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrats' defence spokesman, said: "It's too late for anyone to be held personally responsible, or held politically to account, but it's not too late for the MoD to acknowledge what has happened."

Sherman Carroll, of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, said British authorities should also apologise and pay compensation to survivors. "The suggestion that Britain did not use torture during world war two and in the immediate aftermath, because it was regarded as 'ineffective', is a mythology that has been successfully propagated for decades," he said. "The fact that it took place should be acknowledged."

The MoD dismissed the calls, saying questions about the interrogation centres were a matter for the Foreign Office.

Declassified Whitehall papers show that members of the Labour government of the day went to great lengths to hide the ill-treatment, in part, as one minister wrote, to conceal "the fact that we are alleged to have treated internees in a manner reminiscent of the German concentration camps".

Almost six decades later the photographs were still being kept secret. Four months ago they were removed from a police report on the mistreatment of inmates at one of the interrogation centres, near Hanover, shortly before the document was released to the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act.

Although the file was in the possession of the Foreign Office, the pictures were removed at the request of the Ministry of Defence. They have finally been released after an appeal by the Guardian. The photographs were taken in February 1947 by a Royal Navy officer who was determined to bring the torture programme to an end. Pictures of other victims, taken by the same officer, appear to have vanished from the Foreign Office files.

Meanwhile documents about a secret interrogation centre which the War Office operated in central London between 1945 and 1948, where large numbers of men are now known to have been badly mistreated, are still being withheld by the Ministry of Defence. Officials say the papers cannot yet be released because they have been contaminated with asbestos.

It is not clear whether the men in the photographs fully recovered from their mistreatment. It is also unclear, from examination of the War Office and Foreign Office documents now available, when the torture of prisoners in Germany came to an end.

Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1745489,00.html)
Larger pictures (http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/04/03/462656.html)

Quite disturbing. One can only wonder if this is but the tip of the iceberg.

[DanB]

Wow, they are really skinny and thats about it. :dry:

At least we didn't gas them or turn them into soap ay?

[thewizeard]

Officials say the papers cannot yet be released because they have been contaminated with asbestos.

that's a good one...I dont suppose "they" could think of asking someone to don an asbest protection mask or something and then make a copy of the papers....

http://www.health-science-report.com/mesothelioma/asbestos/asbest.html


..it's not like they are radio-active for the next 1000 years

[Busyman™]

Wow, they are really skinny and thats about it. :dry:

At least we didn't gas them or turn them into soap ay?
BamB, it said torture not death camp.:dry:

"We only tortured them, ffs.":blink:

[ahctlucabbuS]

Wow, they are really skinny and thats about it. :dry:

At least we didn't gas them or turn them into soap ay?

Two words for you: Double standards.

If you can't face just problems regarding your own country, you're part of the problem as far as I'm concerned. No more than a mindless zombie of your government.

If you're serious, that is.

[manker]

Wow, they are really skinny and thats about it. :dry:

At least we didn't gas them or turn them into soap ay?

Two words for you: Double standards.

If you can't face just problems regarding your own country, you're part of the problem as far as I'm concerned. No more than a mindless zombie of your government.

If you're serious, that is.Who said Dan can't face the problems.

All that we've seen so far is a few pics and The Guardian (always up for a good bleeding heart story) saying that UK soldiers are to blame for the emaciated state of the gentlemen in the pictures.

When the full documentation is released, if it's released, and it is found that British soldiers used torture in an attempt to extract information from enemy soldiers then, obviously, any British folk who have condemned torture being used by other countries in the past will condemn this too.

Stands to reason.

I have no problems with admitting that some actions of this country are reprehensible and know that there are instances in the past in which we've commited terrible attrocities, the firebombing of Dresden for example.

Why on earth would you think that British people would have a problem admitting that their country have done terrible things in the past. Surely there isn't a reasonable person alive who would think that the various governments of their country have acted in a proper manner 100% of the time in the last century.

[j2k4]

It seems we should at some point decide exactly what we expect these recollections to evoke.

There is, of course, the gut reaction, unavoidable in a sentient being.

We can only progress, however, from a logical and reasonable dissection of motivations in historical context, and, in the case of WWII and Dresden, a felt need to do what was done.

This same context extends to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The idea that we need to continually clout each other over the head with such fact stunts debate, but then debate is why we are here, isn't it?

[DanB]

At the moment the only proof is that they were skinny from lack of food. As manker said there is no further evidence of anything else done to them - as and when the evidence comes to light we can start the hand wringing and the denouncing of the 60 year old government.

Notice how just before every mention of torture it says allegedly? That's cos there is no proof.

And as far as I'm aware

starvation, sleep deprivation and extreme cold
are all recognised and approved interrogation tactics.

[ahctlucabbuS]

When the full documentation is released, if it's released, and it is found that British soldiers used torture in an attempt to extract information from enemy soldiers then, obviously, any British folk who have condemned torture being used by other countries in the past will condemn this too.

Stands to reason.

I have no problems with admitting that some actions of this country are reprehensible and know that there are instances in the past in which we've commited terrible attrocities, the firebombing of Dresden for example.

Why on earth would you think that British people would have a problem admitting that their country have done terrible things in the past. Surely there isn't a reasonable person alive who would think that the various governments of their country have acted in a proper manner 100% of the time in the last century.


Declassified Whitehall papers show that members of the Labour government of the day went to great lengths to hide the ill-treatment, in part, as one minister wrote, to conceal "the fact that we are alleged to have treated internees in a manner reminiscent of the German concentration camps".

Almost six decades later the photographs were still being kept secret. Four months ago they were removed from a police report on the mistreatment of inmates at one of the interrogation centres, near Hanover, shortly before the document was released to the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act

Manker, DanB:
It seems to me that documentation on this specific camp exist, which did indeed include pictures of the victims.

Documentation on a separate centre/camp in central London are yet to be released however, apparently under pretences of beeing contaminated with asbestos.....

On your second point (highlighted), don't get me wrong. I'm not generalizing, at all. I responded to DanB's post, which frankly struck me as a prime example of self serving double standards.

j2k4:
It's all too easy to justify past events simply from a point of view of "it had to be done under the circumstances". No, it didn't. Britain's own propaganda machinery took a stance against such techniques on the basis of it beeing inefficient, which it indeed is. Any hope of obtaining valid information under such circumstances are foolish at best.

Obviously I don't know the specifics, but if you look past the whole validity aspect of information, which parties involved in such acts consistently do, I highly doubt that some 18 months after the war ended Britain needed information on "Russian military and intelligence methods" so bad as to justify torture.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a different matter. As I understand it the war were primarily fought in the pacific ocean against military forces. The decission to take civilian casualties as a way of spooking Japan into surrendering are perhaps too justified in western history, if you ask me. Then again, in hindsight, it may have been a necessary evil for later nuclear control. However I'm sure that at the time, the decission were not at all evident as the only plan of action available. We're getting off topic however...

[manker]

Declassified Whitehall papers show that members of the Labour government of the day went to great lengths to hide the ill-treatment, in part, as one minister wrote, to conceal "the fact that we are alleged to have treated internees in a manner reminiscent of the German concentration camps".

Almost six decades later the photographs were still being kept secret. Four months ago they were removed from a police report on the mistreatment of inmates at one of the interrogation centres, near Hanover, shortly before the document was released to the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act

Manker, DanB:
It seems to me that documentation on this specific camp exist, which did indeed include pictures of the victims.

Documentation on a separate centre/camp in central London are yet to be released however, apparently under pretences of beeing contaminated with asbestos.....

On your second point (highlighted), don't get me wrong. I'm not generalizing, at all. I responded to DanB's post, which frankly struck me as a prime example of self serving double standards. Sorry, barky, you're right. I must have gone onto autopilot at the end of the article there and assumed that the unreleased papers related to this detention centre, rather than a different one.

I will say that it doesn't appear to me as if Dan has double standards, altho' I might not agree with him in that sleep deprivation and starvation are legitimate interrogation tactics, he hasn't condemned a different country for doing a similar thing. I might think him wrong - but having double standards is not something I would accuse him of based on what's been written.

It appears that the guilty parties were court martialled at the time for their part in mistreating prisoners, with a doctor sacked and discharged from the army. However, the court martials were done in secrecy - as you'd expect - because they didn't want the Russians knowing that they were holding potential Russian spies.

Sixty years on, it's not as if we can re-try the offenders should any claims of leniency be upheld but, of course, past mistakes shouldn't be buried and people should learn from them.

Which is all anyone can realistically ask as a result of these papers coming to light.

[JPaul]

Torture is wrong, whoever it is done by and for whatever reason. Fortunately people learn from their mistakes and grow more civilized. We have now accepted, as a Nation, that torture is wrong and have signed up to the treaty against it. That is a good thing.

If it's any consolation we kept torturing our own citizens, in Ireland, for a few decades after the time that report speaks off. That's cool tho' because it dovetailed nicely with the policy of internment. Feck if you can imprison them without trial what's wrong with a wee bit of torture into the bargain.

What's important is that we accept we made mistakes, learn from them and build a better fairer society.

[Busyman™]

At the moment the only proof is that they were skinny from lack of food. As manker said there is no further evidence of anything else done to them - as and when the evidence comes to light we can start the hand wringing and the denouncing of the 60 year old government.

Notice how just before every mention of torture it says allegedly? That's cos there is no proof.

And as far as I'm aware

starvation, sleep deprivation and extreme cold
are all recognised and approved interrogation tactics.
Yet you were basically saying, "Big deal. It's not like we killed them.":blink:

I didn't know the UK recognizes and approves those torture tactics.

I guess this was all ok then, BamB.

[JPaul]

Busyman is right. The UK used to use torture tactics.

See my last.

[DanB]

At the moment the only proof is that they were skinny from lack of food. As manker said there is no further evidence of anything else done to them - as and when the evidence comes to light we can start the hand wringing and the denouncing of the 60 year old government.

Notice how just before every mention of torture it says allegedly? That's cos there is no proof.

And as far as I'm aware

are all recognised and approved interrogation tactics.
Yet you were basically saying, "Big deal. It's not like we killed them.":blink:

I didn't know the UK recognizes and approves those torture tactics.

I guess this was all ok then, BamB.

They aren't classed as torture though, they are interrogation tactics as my post says. If you can't be bothered to read it don't bother replying to it, Bustyfuckwad.

[ahctlucabbuS]

Manker, DanB:
It seems to me that documentation on this specific camp exist, which did indeed include pictures of the victims.

Documentation on a separate centre/camp in central London are yet to be released however, apparently under pretences of beeing contaminated with asbestos.....

On your second point (highlighted), don't get me wrong. I'm not generalizing, at all. I responded to DanB's post, which frankly struck me as a prime example of self serving double standards. Sorry, barky, you're right. I must have gone onto autopilot at the end of the article there and assumed that the unreleased papers related to this detention centre, rather than a different one.

I will say that it doesn't appear to me as if Dan has double standards, altho' I might not agree with him in that sleep deprivation and starvation are legitimate interrogation tactics, he hasn't condemned a different country for doing a similar thing. I might think him wrong - but having double standards is not something I would accuse him of based on what's been written.

It appears that the guilty parties were court martialled at the time for their part in mistreating prisoners, with a doctor sacked and discharged from the army. However, the court martials were done in secrecy - as you'd expect - because they didn't want the Russians knowing that they were holding potential Russian spies.

Sixty years on, it's not as if we can re-try the offenders should any claims of leniency be upheld but, of course, past mistakes shouldn't be buried and people should learn from them.

Which is all anyone can realistically ask as a result of these papers coming to light.

You just can't resist those little stabs in the side, can you? Well, admittedly or not, you're wrong.

http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/04/04/462801.html

An article in norwegian on the case of a different man than were shown in the photos. The documents the reporter received contained three pages on his interrogation, and a short description of the his health condition. He goes on to describe how he was chained, beaten, had his nails pulled etc.
Download, and read his full statement HERE (http://www.dagbladet.no/download/forklaring.pdf)
The report, as you can read, are both verified and attested to by an officer and a translator.

Double standards? Am I right to assume that DanB would be the first one to condemn torture directed at
British individuals? Or to condemn American prison behaviour in Iraq? Please answer DanB, admittingly my judgement of you rely on the freedom I granted myself in assuming your characeter based on your response in this thread...


It appears that the guilty parties were court martialled at the time for their part in mistreating prisoners, with a doctor sacked and discharged from the army. However, the court martials were done in secrecy - as you'd expect - because they didn't want the Russians knowing that they were holding potential Russian spies.


Really? Where's the source of that statement?


Sixty years on, it's not as if we can re-try the offenders should any claims of leniency be upheld but, of course, past mistakes shouldn't be buried and people should learn from them.

Take a look at this thread's first response.

[Busyman™]

Yet you were basically saying, "Big deal. It's not like we killed them.":blink:

I didn't know the UK recognizes and approves those torture tactics.

I guess this was all ok then, BamB.

They aren't classed as torture though,

Yes they are. Maybe not by Bush.:unsure: Oh wait, he even calls it torture...but says it's ok.

If you can't be bothered to read it don't bother replying to it, Bustyfuckwad.
I obviously read it. Torture is torture, BamB. I'm not going gussy it up by saying it's not.:ermm:

So the UK classes the tactics as interrogation but the Geneva Convention classes them as torture. I understand now.

[JPaul]

If the Geneva Convention considered these acts torture, then they were torture. If we did things considered torture and I'm sure we did, then we were guilty of torture. It's bad, we were wrong, we should not have done it.

We are now signatories to the UN Convention on Torture. Which I take to mean we accept that torture is wrong. That is a good thing and a step in the right direction. Anyone who breaches the conditions of that convention, no matter who they are, or on whom they inflict the torture, for whatever reason, should be brought to task over it.

For our current purposes the Convention states


For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

However that was not in force at the relevant times. Perhaps someone who says this was torture can give us the relevant definition. I'm sure you're right tho'

[ahctlucabbuS]

My intentions with this thread was not to go off on members from the UK, nor did I expect any apologies on the matter. I guess it's inevitable to offend some people though, if they're too attached to their nation / tribe - regardless of the subject at hand.

What's interesting is how this case illustrates the rapid shift of allegiances during this era. Victims in this case fought on soviet side against Nazi germany, only to find themselves tortured by the west some 18 months later, which is quite striking.

[Busyman™]

To clarify, my intentions with this thread was not to go off on members from the UK, nor did I expect any apologies on the matter. I guess it's inevitable to offend some people though, if they're too attached to their nation / tribe - regardless of the subject at hand.

What's interesting though, is how this case illustrates the rapid shift of allegiances during this era. Victims in this case fought on soviet side against Nazi germany, only to find themselves tortured by the west some 18 months later, which is quite striking.
I don't think people should be offended...unless it is to make light of it by saying stuff like, "It not like we boiled them, ffs." If your countrymen tortured folk, they tortured folk.

I think it's fucked up that only American grunt soldiers are the ones getting in trouble for Abu Grabass but not the higher ups when it's CaptainObvious that those soldiers were told to torture by those higher-ups.:dry:

[JPaul]

My intentions with this thread was not to go off on members from the UK, nor did I expect any apologies on the matter. I guess it's inevitable to offend some people though, if they're too attached to their nation / tribe - regardless of the subject at hand.

What's interesting is how this case illustrates the rapid shift of allegiances during this era. Victims in this case fought on soviet side against Nazi germany, only to find themselves tortured by the west some 18 months later, which is quite striking.
You're absolutely right.

FFS we discussed "nuking" Russia straight after the war, as they were perceived as a potential super power. When you think of meeting to discuss genocide then a bit of torture by the UK is sort of put in perspective.
Thankfully we seem to have gone beyond that and are now making agreements not to torture people. At least the civilized World is.

[JPaul]

To clarify, my intentions with this thread was not to go off on members from the UK, nor did I expect any apologies on the matter. I guess it's inevitable to offend some people though, if they're too attached to their nation / tribe - regardless of the subject at hand.

What's interesting though, is how this case illustrates the rapid shift of allegiances during this era. Victims in this case fought on soviet side against Nazi germany, only to find themselves tortured by the west some 18 months later, which is quite striking.
I don't think people should be offended...unless it is to make light of it by saying stuff like, "It not like we boiled them, ffs." If your countrymen tortured folk, they tortured folk.

I think it's fucked up that only American grunt soldiers are the ones getting in trouble for Abu Grabass but not the higher ups when it's CaptainObvious that those soldiers were told to torture by those higher-ups.:dry:


They were only following orders is not and never has been an acceptable defence.

Those who do it and those who order them to do it should both be held responsible.

[j2k4]

j2k4:
It's all too easy to justify past events simply from a point of view of "it had to be done under the circumstances". No, it didn't. Britain's own propaganda machinery took a stance against such techniques on the basis of it beeing inefficient, which it indeed is. Any hope of obtaining valid information under such circumstances are foolish at best.

Obviously I don't know the specifics, but if you look past the whole validity aspect of information, which parties involved in such acts consistently do, I highly doubt that some 18 months after the war ended Britain needed information on "Russian military and intelligence methods" so bad as to justify torture.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a different matter. As I understand it the war were primarily fought in the pacific ocean against military forces. The decission to take civilian casualties as a way of spooking Japan into surrendering are perhaps too justified in western history, if you ask me. Then again, in hindsight, it may have been a necessary evil for later nuclear control. However I'm sure that at the time, the decission were not at all evident as the only plan of action available. We're getting off topic however...

My point was not to offer a justification, only to indicate that whatever has happened in the less-than-recent past, while worthwhile to note, discuss and debate as to cause, and short and long-term effect, is past.

We recently had a news item wherein a journalist of sorts was given a jail term for denying the Holocaust by the country which gave us Hitler, the author of that horrible event.

Middle Europe is a muddle of laws having to do with that particular incident, the effect of which chills any debate or discussion.

I think that, requisite for, and integral to, the posting of information such as you have, you ought to posit your mission in doing so.

Do you wish to debate the incident?

Do you wish to draw a parallel to current events?

Do you wish to indicate the obvious fact of human imperfection?

Do you desire we continue to flog ourselves for allowing this to happen, albeit in a less-enlightened age?

That this is even worth noting is due to it's status as exceptional in western cultures and societies, then and now; we are better than that, you see?

This type of thing happens every day, all over the world, in other places that we do not talk about.

Bottom line:

No knock on your post at all, but how about some perspective?

How do you think we should feel about or look upon this?

Do you believe there is some sort of societal penance or reparation due?

What is your point?

EDIT: I guess the fact we've had several threads like this recently, resulting in nothing but the assignation of blame, etc., keep me from wanting to do it again, ergo I am compelled to ask if your intent was different.

[Busyman™]

j2k4:
It's all too easy to justify past events simply from a point of view of "it had to be done under the circumstances". No, it didn't. Britain's own propaganda machinery took a stance against such techniques on the basis of it beeing inefficient, which it indeed is. Any hope of obtaining valid information under such circumstances are foolish at best.

Obviously I don't know the specifics, but if you look past the whole validity aspect of information, which parties involved in such acts consistently do, I highly doubt that some 18 months after the war ended Britain needed information on "Russian military and intelligence methods" so bad as to justify torture.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a different matter. As I understand it the war were primarily fought in the pacific ocean against military forces. The decission to take civilian casualties as a way of spooking Japan into surrendering are perhaps too justified in western history, if you ask me. Then again, in hindsight, it may have been a necessary evil for later nuclear control. However I'm sure that at the time, the decission were not at all evident as the only plan of action available. We're getting off topic however...

My point was not to offer a justification, only to indicate that whatever has happened in the less-than-recent past, while worthwhile to note, discuss and debate as to cause, and short and long-term effect, is past.

We recently had a news item wherein a journalist of sorts was given a jail term for denying the Holocaust by the country which gave us Hitler, the author of that horrible event.

Middle Europe is a muddle of laws having to do with that particular incident, the effect of which chills any debate or discussion.

I think that, requisite for, and integral to, the posting of information such as you have, you ought to posit your mission in doing so.

Do you wish to debate the incident?

Do you wish to draw a parallel to current events?

Do you wish to indicate the obvious fact of human imperfection?

Do you desire we continue to flog ourselves for allowing this to happen, albeit in a less-enlightened age?

That this is even worth noting is due to it's status as exceptional in western cultures and societies, then and now; we are better than that, you see?

This type of thing happens every day, all over the world, in other places that we do not talk about.

Bottom line:

No knock on your post at all, but how about some perspective?

How do you think we should feel about or look upon this?

Do you believe there is some sort of societal penance or reparation due?

What is your point?

EDIT: I guess the fact we've had several threads like this recently, resulting in nothing but the assignation of blame, etc., keep me from wanting to do it again, ergo I am compelled to ask if your intent was different.
I thought it was a decent post. It was simply news I guess.

I remember some British soldiers beating some Iraqi kids and it was caught on camera. It was news. Our Abu Grabass prison scandal...news.

What do you think about that regarding Abu Grabass? Do you think that the soldiers their were acting on orders and that their commanders are guilty as well (maybe even more)?

[JPaul]

Again I agree with Busy, the chap was only posting news I guess.

Albeit 60 years ago.

The soldiers and their commanders were probably guilty, excellent point. Lets see how many of them are still alive and try them for their crimes. I'd support that.

[j2k4]

What do you think about that regarding Abu Grabass? Do you think that the soldiers their were acting on orders and that their commanders are guilty as well (maybe even more)?

Actually, I don't.

What I heard about as well as the pictorial evidence was...aimless, pointless-however you want to refer to it.

There may well have been a lack of oversight (I expect that there was that, minimally), but I doubt such inanities were ordered.

I believe the offenses were limited to on-site personnel, and the administrative staff quite possibly chose not to act upon any guilty knowledge they might have had.

JP-I agree with you.

Again, no problem with the original post apart from a lack of qualification.

I remember, long ago, a thread started by myfiles3000, if anybody remembers him.

He posted pictures and script unattended on the subject of the statue of Saddam (in Baghdad) being toppled by coalition forces, cheered on and abetted by a bunch of joyous Iraqis.

After several aimless followup posts by the members, he attempted to make the case that the whole thing was staged, or somesuch; I remember it reminded me of the conspiracy theorists who refuse to believe Neil Armstrong ever set foot on the moon.

Anyway, since then, I've tried to remember to request context in these situations.

I don't mean to imply ahctlucabbuS is playing the provocateur as myfiles obviously was.

Speaking of myfiles, I must say that I miss his presence here.

Once he got his wheels beneath him, he was a pip to have around. :)

[ahctlucabbuS]

My point was not to offer a justification, only to indicate that whatever has happened in the less-than-recent past, while worthwhile to note, discuss and debate as to cause, and short and long-term effect, is past.

We recently had a news item wherein a journalist of sorts was given a jail term for denying the Holocaust by the country which gave us Hitler, the author of that horrible event.

Middle Europe is a muddle of laws having to do with that particular incident, the effect of which chills any debate or discussion.

I think that, requisite for, and integral to, the posting of information such as you have, you ought to posit your mission in doing so.

Do you wish to debate the incident?

Do you wish to draw a parallel to current events?

Do you wish to indicate the obvious fact of human imperfection?

Do you desire we continue to flog ourselves for allowing this to happen, albeit in a less-enlightened age?

That this is even worth noting is due to it's status as exceptional in western cultures and societies, then and now; we are better than that, you see?

This type of thing happens every day, all over the world, in other places that we do not talk about.

Bottom line:

No knock on your post at all, but how about some perspective?

How do you think we should feel about or look upon this?

Do you believe there is some sort of societal penance or reparation due?

What is your point?

EDIT: I guess the fact we've had several threads like this recently, resulting in nothing but the assignation of blame, etc., keep me from wanting to do it again, ergo I am compelled to ask if your intent was different.


I think that, requisite for, and integral to, the posting of information such as you have, you ought to posit your mission in doing so.

My original intent, as pointed out, were purely the posting of news. Of course discussion tend to take different directions as one goes along, often regardless of original intent.


Do you wish to debate the incident?

Do you wish to draw a parallel to current events?

Do you wish to indicate the obvious fact of human imperfection?

Do you desire we continue to flog ourselves for allowing this to happen, albeit in a less-enlightened age?

That this is even worth noting is due to it's status as exceptional in western cultures and societies, then and now; we are better than that, you see?

In a way, yes. We are better, most of the time. To achieve enlightenment you need awareness, and awareness of human nature and its pitfalls are not reached by denying past activities as irrelevant to the present (I do not think you're advocating such, mind you). In that sense, this topic is important all by itself. My point, if you're looking for any intention on my part other than the posting of news, this paragraph should sum it up.

By the way, I do not in any way support a ban on opinions as is the case of the historian David Irving (however wrong that opinion were - which he himself seem to have come to terms with).

(bed awaits)

[j2k4]

Well done, then.

Perhaps we might soon discuss the futility of expecting perfection in human behavior, or why it persists despite our best and unending efforts.

Or whether we might do well to accept ourselves as imperfectable.

That would get to the bottom of things...someday. :)

[manker]

Sorry, barky, you're right. I must have gone onto autopilot at the end of the article there and assumed that the unreleased papers related to this detention centre, rather than a different one.

I will say that it doesn't appear to me as if Dan has double standards, altho' I might not agree with him in that sleep deprivation and starvation are legitimate interrogation tactics, he hasn't condemned a different country for doing a similar thing. I might think him wrong - but having double standards is not something I would accuse him of based on what's been written.

It appears that the guilty parties were court martialled at the time for their part in mistreating prisoners, with a doctor sacked and discharged from the army. However, the court martials were done in secrecy - as you'd expect - because they didn't want the Russians knowing that they were holding potential Russian spies.

Sixty years on, it's not as if we can re-try the offenders should any claims of leniency be upheld but, of course, past mistakes shouldn't be buried and people should learn from them.

Which is all anyone can realistically ask as a result of these papers coming to light.

You just can't resist those little stabs in the side, can you? Well, admittedly or not, you're wrong.

http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/04/04/462801.html

An article in norwegian on the case of a different man than were shown in the photos. The documents the reporter received contained three pages on his interrogation, and a short description of the his health condition. He goes on to describe how he was chained, beaten, had his nails pulled etc.
Download, and read his full statement HERE (http://www.dagbladet.no/download/forklaring.pdf)
The report, as you can read, are both verified and attested to by an officer and a translator.

Double standards? Am I right to assume that DanB would be the first one to condemn torture directed at
British individuals? Or to condemn American prison behaviour in Iraq? Please answer DanB, admittingly my judgement of you rely on the freedom I granted myself in assuming your characeter based on your response in this thread...


It appears that the guilty parties were court martialled at the time for their part in mistreating prisoners, with a doctor sacked and discharged from the army. However, the court martials were done in secrecy - as you'd expect - because they didn't want the Russians knowing that they were holding potential Russian spies.


Really? Where's the source of that statement?


Sixty years on, it's not as if we can re-try the offenders should any claims of leniency be upheld but, of course, past mistakes shouldn't be buried and people should learn from them.

Take a look at this thread's first response.What are you talking about with 'stabs in the side'. I honestly have no idea, I'm usually completely overt with any sarcasm.

I also can't understand why you think I'm wrong or how you're contradicting what I said.

The source for my statement (about the court martials) is here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,1745662,00.html), which is a link at the bottom of the article you posted. The relevant parts about the court martial are toward the bottom.

I'm not claiming responsibility for Dan's comments, just pointing out that you can't say he has double standards based on what he wrote here. Judging soley on his first reply, which is what you did, how on earth do you KNOW that he would feel differently if it was another country and not the UK who were responsible for this.

You don't.

That's all there is to it.

[ahctlucabbuS]

What are you talking about with 'stabs in the side'. I honestly have no idea, I'm usually completely overt with any sarcasm.

I also can't understand why you think I'm wrong or how you're contradicting what I said.

The source for my statement (about the court martials) is here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,1745662,00.html), which is a link at the bottom of the article you posted. The relevant parts about the court martial are toward the bottom.

I'm not claiming responsibility for Dan's comments, just pointing out that you can't say he has double standards based on what he wrote here. Judging soley on his first reply, which is what you did, how on earth do you KNOW that he would feel differently if it was another country and not the UK who were responsible for this.

You don't.

That's all there is to it.

I probably went over board with my assumptions based on you using my old nick. Granted, the nick were quite dubious by and of itself :lol:
I'd prefer it if you use my current one.


The only officer at Bad Nenndorf to be convicted was the prison doctor. At the age of 49, his sentence was to be dismissed from the army. The commanding officer, Colonel Robin Stephens, was cleared of a charge of "disgraceful conduct of a cruel kind" and told he was free to apply to rejoin his former employers at MI5.

I missed that article, and of course I can't know, but I doubt the doctor were solely responsible for any mistreatment. Part of the problem is of course the cover up, which seems to be going on to this day.

No, I can't claim he has double standards, that's a bit of a reach (which I admitted) based only on this thread. Though if I remember correctly I'm sure I can dig up the thread about Iraqi prison behaviour and his response there. In any case, I'd say double standards in this case is better than supporting torture across the board, no?

Of course you're not responsible for any comments by DanB. He's perfectly welcome to respond if he so choose to.

[DanB]

No, I can't claim he has double standards, that's a bit of a reach (which I admitted) based only on this thread. Though if I remember correctly I'm sure I can dig up the thread about Iraqi prison behaviour and his response there. In any case, I'd say double standards in this case is better than supporting torture across the board, no?


Please try, I think you will be mistaken.

While I may not support forcing people to carry out homosexual acts, tying electrical wires to them, throwing menstrual blood them or kicking the shit out of prisoners, I have no problem with sleep depravation, stress psositions and exposure to cold etc as interrogation methods. In fact as part of of British Army training you are taught how to cope with these interogation methods.

Anyone watch the series on BBC2 a couple of years ago called SAS: Are you tough enough? :unsure:

[Busyman™]

No, I can't claim he has double standards, that's a bit of a reach (which I admitted) based only on this thread. Though if I remember correctly I'm sure I can dig up the thread about Iraqi prison behaviour and his response there. In any case, I'd say double standards in this case is better than supporting torture across the board, no?


Please try, I think you will be mistaken.

While I may not support forcing people to carry out homosexual acts, tying electrical wires to them, throwing menstrual blood them or kicking the shit out of prisoners, I have no problem with sleep depravation, stress psositions and exposure to cold etc as interrogation methods. In fact as part of of British Army training you are taught how to cope with these interogation methods.

Anyone watch the series on BBC2 a couple of years ago called SAS: Are you tough enough? :unsure:
Yeah part of many soldiers' training deals with coping with torture.

If you have no problem with those methods of interrogation then you support that type of torture and it is not allowed per the Geneva Convention.

As I said, torture is torture.

[j2k4]

Sometimes I think the Geneva Conventions were written by pussies, for pussies.

Hell, if I miss dessert, I've tortured myself.

If I don't get to bed on time, I've tortured myself.

If I fall asleep with a light on, ditto.

Oh, dear me. :(

[Barbarossa]

My wife says under the Geneva Convention I have to fix that dripping tap, I mean, wtf??? :angry:

[ahctlucabbuS]

No, I can't claim he has double standards, that's a bit of a reach (which I admitted) based only on this thread. Though if I remember correctly I'm sure I can dig up the thread about Iraqi prison behaviour and his response there. In any case, I'd say double standards in this case is better than supporting torture across the board, no?


Please try, I think you will be mistaken.

While I may not support forcing people to carry out homosexual acts, tying electrical wires to them, throwing menstrual blood them or kicking the shit out of prisoners, I have no problem with sleep depravation, stress psositions and exposure to cold etc as interrogation methods. In fact as part of of British Army training you are taught how to cope with these interogation methods.

Anyone watch the series on BBC2 a couple of years ago called SAS: Are you tough enough? :unsure:

I disagree, I see your examples as reflecting torture and agrees with Busyman's latest.

Psychological torture is often worse than blatant physical. The uncertainty aspect of beeing constantly alert and unsure of what and when to expect "the treatment" is just as responsible for later psychological problems as purely reliable physical torture.

[lynx]

My wife says under the Geneva Convention I have to fix that dripping tap, I mean, wtf??? :angry:Water torture. :nono:

Is she of chinese origin, by any chance?

[DanB]

Ok then, bit off tangent to the original post but I think quite a valid discussion point.

How would you suggest information is extracted from people that have been captured who do not wish to pass on the information they have? :unsure:

[Busyman™]

Ok then, bit off tangent to the original post but I think quite a valid discussion point.

How would you suggest information is extracted from people that have been captured who do not wish to pass on the information they have? :unsure:
Ask them nicely and reward them with dessert, of course.

[DanB]

Ok then, bit off tangent to the original post but I think quite a valid discussion point.

How would you suggest information is extracted from people that have been captured who do not wish to pass on the information they have? :unsure:
Ask them nicely and reward them with dessert, of course.

Is that what the US tried with Zacarias Moussaoui (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/03/27/mouusaoui-trial060327.html )? Cos I'd suggest that it doesn't work. :frusty:

[Busyman™]

Ask them nicely and reward them with dessert, of course.

Is that what the US tried with Zacarias Moussaoui (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/03/27/mouusaoui-trial060327.html )? Cos I'd suggest that it doesn't work. :frusty:
Mmk.

[DanB]

Is that what the US tried with Zacarias Moussaoui (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/03/27/mouusaoui-trial060327.html )? Cos I'd suggest that it doesn't work. :frusty:
Mmk.

Do you not think in some cases the end outweighs the means Busy? :unsure:

If they had used questionable torture/interogation methods on this man he may have broken and a whole lot of shit would never have taken place.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Ask them nicely and reward them with dessert, of course.

Is that what the US tried with Zacarias Moussaoui (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/03/27/mouusaoui-trial060327.html )? Cos I'd suggest that it doesn't work. :frusty:
DannyBoy,

you haven't been keeping up. the US govt has decided that, because of it's constitution, torture is allowed so long as it is not on a US citizen or on US soil. there's been quite the broohaha about it. they signed up to the treaty and then found it inconvenient. so they used some constitution trickery to come up with this current stance. true story.

[Busyman™]

Mmk.

Do you not think in some cases the end outweighs the means Busy? :unsure:
Absolutely.

However, in the Abu Grabass case for instance, I think most of that shit was uncalled for. Furthermore, I think the soldier's superiors should be court martialed and not just the soldiers.

These are done covertly by all countries but if you get caught, you should be in trouble.

[ahctlucabbuS]

Ok then, bit off tangent to the original post but I think quite a valid discussion point.

How would you suggest information is extracted from people that have been captured who do not wish to pass on the information they have? :unsure:

You know, '24' is entertaining and all, but something have got to be said about Bauer's methods. :lol:

There's a reason they send trained professionals to handle sensible interrogation. There are countless of benign, intelligent ways to extract information (how are police cases solved?). Cases where said information are impossible to extract, and in the matter of absolute necessity are quite few, I'm sure. And even then, the information they receive can hardly be called reliable. As the article mentioned, propaganda or not, your own government have denied use of torture on the basis of it beeing inefficient...

As Busyman points out, and as this case illustrated, torture is more often than not used as a means to cruelty, not information. If you ask me, applying torture is a quite irrational behaviour used by irrational individuals.

[Rat Faced]

Ok then, bit off tangent to the original post but I think quite a valid discussion point.

How would you suggest information is extracted from people that have been captured who do not wish to pass on the information they have? :unsure:

Get them pissed...then interrogate with a trained psycologist.

Takes longer than Sodium Pentathol, but its legal. :P

Takes more Brain Power to lie, so anything that deminishes the higher thought processes makes it easier to get at the truth.

... of course you make then trample on Religious beliefs in some cases.. then try Hypnotism 1st.


Hell Dan, you know there are lots of ways to get at information that are better than torture... even if some of those ways are just as illegal.

I'd think better of someone that had accidently OD'd someone than if they had killed them through consistant brutality.

Either way they should be convicted if caught.

[Busyman™]

Ok then, bit off tangent to the original post but I think quite a valid discussion point.

How would you suggest information is extracted from people that have been captured who do not wish to pass on the information they have? :unsure:

Get them pissed...then interrogate with a trained psycologist.

Takes longer than Sodium Pentathol, but its legal. :P

Takes more Brain Power to lie, so anything that deminishes the higher thought processes makes it easier to get at the truth.

... of course you make then trample on Religious beliefs in some cases.. then try Hypnotism 1st.


Hell Dan, you know there are lots of ways to get at information that are better than torture... even if some of those ways are just as illegal.

I'd think better of someone that had accidently OD'd someone than if they had killed them through consistant brutality.

Either way they should be convicted if caught.
Anything can be considered torture that makes a prisoner uncomfortable. I think it's mad that sleep deprivation can't be used.

I wonder is one allowed to place a prisoner in a mostly dark room with a swinging overhead lamp. The captors will probably get in trouble for causing vertigo.:ermm:

[Barbarossa]

Anything can be considered torture that makes a prisoner uncomfortable. I think it's mad that sleep deprivation can't be used.


:lol:

Iwould imagine being locked up in a cell is pretty uncomfortable. They should let all the prisoners go, or at least put them up in 5 star hotels for the duration of their incarceration... :wacko:

[Busyman™]

Anything can be considered torture that makes a prisoner uncomfortable. I think it's mad that sleep deprivation can't be used.


:lol:

Iwould imagine being locked up in a cell is pretty uncomfortable. They should let all the prisoners go, or at least put them up in 5 star hotels for the duration of their incarceration... :wacko:
Eggzacklee. It's seems that's what'll have to be done. Don't make too much noise either. They might not get their 8-hours sleep. Serve'em gourmet meals 3 times a day too.:stars: