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

[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.

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
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, 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, 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
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?