SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Last year, I gave two speeches in which I reviewed the palette of eleven interrogation techniques which were – according to published accounts in Newsweek and ABC News – being used in connection with what President Bush described on September 6, 2006 as “the program” of “enhanced interrogation techniques.” I noted the rather remarkable similarity between a number of these techniques and practices developed by the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (Narodny Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del or as better know by its initials, NKVD), the predecessor of the Committee for State Security or KGB. Moreover, as I pointed out, the external factors were also similar. In the twenties and early thirties, Communist leaders in Russia remained committed to the observance of legal formalities about torture. And in their view, techniques which avoided the spilling of blood or obvious wounds and bruises could be embraced because they furnished no physical evidence of torture – part of the essential reasoning of John Yoo and his friends in the current debate in the United States.
When I made these points, I got an annoyed question from the audience: “You have no evidence that the United States consciously took the Bolshevik era techniques. You’re just saying this to blacken the advocates of the program by comparison with the Communists.”
Well, how does one respond to that? It seems to me that if we condemn something as brutal torture when it’s done in Moscow’s Lubyanka or Lefortovo prisons, and then adopt the same practices ourselves, we’re hypocrites. And it’s true that we have some problem tracking the path of reception of these techniques. There’s a reason for that, of course, which is that the Bush Administration puts a “highly compartmentalized national security secret” classification on every aspect of “the program.” They do so not to preserve any secrets – for they’re long out of the bag. They do it to obscure their own criminal conduct.
Nevertheless, we know that the Navy SEALS Survival, Evasion, Reconaissance and Escape Program (SERE) was based on a very careful study of what the Pentagon and CIA thought the Soviets and their allies would do to captured American service personnel, and that it included a careful review of the techniques mastered by the NKVD, the GRU and the KGB, among other agencies. The SERE program in turn provided the baseline for techniques adopted in “the program.” And that means that Bush adopted as interrogation techniques a series of tactics developed by the Communists from the Cold War period and earlier.
Sunday’s New York Times features a good summary by Scott Shane of the NKVD/KGB techniques and the matching aspects of the “program.” As Friedrich Nietzsche said, if you stare too long into the abyss, it may very well just stare right back at you. Indeed, as this whole affair shows, it may well hypnotize you.
More from Scott Horton:
Conversation — August 5, 2016, 12:08 pm
Sidney Blumenthal on the origins of the Republican Party, the fallout from Clinton’s emails, and his new biography of Abraham Lincoln
Conversation — March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm
Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.
Chances that a body of water in Mexico is too contaminated to swim in:
Sensory analysts created the perfect cheese sandwich.
Trump issued an executive memorandum expediting the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued the permits required to complete the project to Energy Transfer Partners, a company in which Trump once had a stake of as much as $1 million.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
"It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi. By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times—in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis."