Andrew Sullivan doesn’t say so in so many words. But, well, speaking empirically… it wouldn’t be the first time despicable, sadistic torture boosters have been sentenced to death.
There is, after all, precedent for such a thing, as Sullivan notes—citing a Norwegian war crimes trial that found the Nazis guilty in 1948 of torturing, by way of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” Norwegian paramilitary insurgents caught out of uniform (likely the rest of the Nazi atrocities during WWII, many of which came to light after the fact, did nothing to color the opinion of Court).
Now, such a trial, I suppose, would be analogous to the Islamists capturing President Bush, then— after a lengthy legal back and forth in which high-profile litigators on the world stage fight over just what constitutes “serious physical and mental suffering” (which, the Islamists could plausibly argue, include such things as leaving women uncovered, leaving cans of Spam about, and allowing Jews to exist)—find Chimpy guilty and cut off his head while chanting “God is Great.”
Until then, however, the question is still one of semantics—and equating the Bushies with the Nazis (something Sullivan goes out of his way to deny he’s doing even as he’s doing it) is yet another bit of Sullivanesque hysterics, overblown rhetoric attempting to draw parallels between what he himself admits are completely different political and historical paradigms.
All of which is just a roundabout way of saying I need to find a sympathetic Norwegian willing to declare posts like this latest from St Andrew of The Perpetually Puckered Scold’s Maw “torture” under the “serious mental suffering” component of the 1948 war crimes definition.
Because it certainly pains me to read the damn things.
(h/t Allah.)
I hate this kind of drivel. If Mrs. Sullivan wants to compare or equate President Bush to Hitler, he should have the intestinal fortitude to actually do so. He spends an entire article doing just that, and then has the temerity to write a conclusion that suggests that the multitude of comparisons he has made were not actually comparisons. St. Andrew of the Perpetually Aggrieved is the official Queen of Mendacity.
… and I was shocked, shocked to discover that Sully engaged in some rather selective quotation as well.
He quoted from a 1948 Norwegian case:
Now, even the quoted passage contains repeated references to physical blows that caused suffering for a considerable period of time.
But Sully had to do more than ignore that difference from US policy. Here’s the text immediately prior to the Sully quote:
Sully had to overlook that, as even someone taken in by Alex Jones knows this is nowhere near US policy, which is why he’s trotting out the “slippery slope” argument.
Of course, when the full facts of the 1948 case are read, it is no surprise that the court found the defendants had inflicted serious physical and mental suffering on their victims, just as it is no surprise that Sully had to be intellectually dishonest to make the comparison.
Where did he get the information to the following?:
Sorry for the slapdash nature of the initial post. I was on my way out the door. I’ve corrected some rough patches.
How can you find yourself making statements like this and not realize that you’ve gotten off track somewheres?
Silly git.
Well, Hitler wouldn’t recognize the right for two men to get married, and Bu$hCo won’t either. Ipso facto, dude.
I’ve had some time to think about this now, and I think, on balance, Glenn Reynolds should live.
Don’t judge me.
Sully’s just upset that the little party games that he and his furry friends play are now out in the open.
You have to marvel at the intellectual dishonesty of a man who can write an entire post about how the Nazis’ interrogation techniques, basically saying several times, “LOOK, D00D, TEHY EVEN USED TEH SAME NAME!!!1!1one!” and then turns around at the end and says that, well, he’s not comparing the Bush admin to Nazis or anything. I’d say it was unbelievable, but consider the source.
Oh, and if babelfish can be trusted, the German term Sully uses actually translates into English as “intensified hearing.”
Every time I read something of Andrew’s I hear it said in the same way that Andrew answered Hugh Hewitt during Hugh’s interview of Andrew. Not just outraged indignation, but flustered outraged indignation.
Fortunately I haven’t ever heard Greenwald speak. Dave Neiwert, though, I see as one of those guys who goes around muttering under his breath. I can almost hear it: Nazis. Republican Nazis. Transmitting memes. What’s the frequency, Kenneth?.
Sean M.:
According to my Oxford Superlex, Vernehmung means ‘questioning, examination’, so Babelfish probably means ‘hearing’ as in a judicial hearing or examination, not the act of listening.
Ok, I actually used the link went to St. Andrew’s column and started reading.
I got to the first paragraph:
“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.
Courts run by Nazis.
Courts that didn’t allow a defense attorney.
Courts that read statements, but didn’t hear testimony.
Courts that read real, genuine tourtured confessions and accepted them with no question.
Courts that handed down summary execution orders, to be carried out immediately.
And St. Andrew really, seriously thinks that the SS would be embarrassed in front of such a travesty?
Sweet jumpin’ Jeebus on a pogo stick.
TW: St. Andrew apparently doesn’t know much about the past21.
Sorry, I’m not free with my sympathies, although they can be purchased for a few kroner..
I’m afraid that St Andrew’s drivel doesn’t rise to the level of torture. More like self-abuse if you continue to read and respond. Like St Cindy, he’s an attention whore who finds himself lacking attention. Unlike St Cindy, he lacks any redeeming sincerity or naivete.
Best to ignore him when he comes link-whoring, which might also the best way to throw him into a complete paw-chewing rage meltdown.
Sure, they acted all butch with the leather and chrome and riding crops, but it was largely over-compensation for their incredible sensitivity. And nuance.
St. Andy, the patron Saint of Hysteria, is in possession of levels of hubris and chutzpah well beyond those found in mere mortals. The idea that they would be embarassed by evidence of actual torture when they were baking millions of Jews in ovens is so brain poundingly stupid that it would make Paris Hilton blush.
Then, he would have us believe that an entire article consisting of Hitler and Bush tortured people, Hitler and Bush used similar language to describe said torture, Hitler and Bush did not permit gay marriage, and Hitler and Bush are comparable, is not actually a comparison of Hitler and Bush.
BECAUSE OF THE TORTURE !!!!!
And yet I have to fill out a form to buy a freaking box of Sudafed.
Hmmm.
Let’s have an internet poll.
Just add the question:
Should Andrew Sullivan, aka Mr. Jackass, be tied by his feet to the next rocket that takes off for the moon?
I’m still guessing but I think my guess is that I’ll vote “yes”.
happyfeet: Okay. How about “no meaningful or relevant comparison that isn’t an opposition”?
That better? Shall we remember common English usage now, perhaps?
Sig, I guess that would be good. What else would be good is waffles. But I’ll probably just get that breakfast burrito I always get.
Sullivan is sch a candy ass
OK, OK. Mea culpa (sort of). In response to Andrew’s blog question
I, and presumably others, emailed him last Friday that this is a fairly decent translation of the Gestapo euphemism Verschärfte Vernehmung, which it is. I was just trying to be…helpful. The next time I get such an urge I promise to sit on my hands until it goes away.
I’ve just been reading The Gulag Archipelago, and Solzhenitsyn says that the Soviets also were careful to use “interrogation techniques” that didn’t leave marks, such as making someone stand motionless in a room for days on end or stuffing them into a box full of bedbugs.
But these techniques were not employed to extract intelligence that might save lives; they were employed to force people to sign confessions that were complete fabrications. (The officials were required to fill quotas of people arrested.)
People seem to forget that yes, people will tell you what you want to hear if you’re trying to extract a confession, but if you’re asking where and whenâ€â€which can be verifiedâ€â€nothing but the truth will do.
What happens to someone who gets stuffed in a boxful of bedbugs?
How do you procure a boxful of bedbugs?
This will haunt me.
Anyone else feel itchy?
They go crazier than a boxful of bedbugs.
The torturers know their job is done when all the bedbugs start fleeing the box, yelling, “That dude is fucking crazy!”
This is insightful, but, really, get a better hobby.
Based on happyfeets findings, we seem to have a contradiction here. Are Russian bedbugs more discreet, perhaps?
I’m Norwegian. Where do I sign?
[…] Hamid shows he does know how to echo Andrew Sullivan’s torture hysteria and jihad against “Christianists”, not to mention Glenn Greenwald(s)’s fevered […]
memomachine (#17) – I was looking for him at the shuttle launch. No such luck. Damn.