LIBERADIO(!)

We listen in disbelief to the Commander-in-Chief who insists “this government does not torture people” and that the program he authorized to “question terrorists and extremists” was put in place “to better protect the American people.” He says there are “professionals who are trained in this kind of work to get information that will protect the American people.” He tells us that “the techniques that we use have been fully disclosed to appropriate members of the United States Congress.”

We read in horror the details of secret memos passed back and forth between lawyers and politicians and approved by President Bush endorsing and authorizing the use of the “harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency” including “a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.” We don’t understand the parsing of words that clearly indicate cruel and unusual punishment, violate the U.N.’s Declaration of Human Rights, and turn prisoners into “detainees” not covered by our founding documents.

But, baby, it doesn’t have to be this way. Several World War II interrogators recently broke their silence, accepting medals for their service and speaking out about their techniques and protesting our current torture policy.

When about two dozen veterans got together yesterday for the first time since the 1940s, many of the proud men lamented the chasm between the way they conducted interrogations during the war and the harsh measures used today in questioning terrorism suspects.

Back then, they and their commanders wrestled with the morality of bugging prisoners’ cells with listening devices. They felt bad about censoring letters. They took prisoners out for steak dinners to soften them up. They played games with them.

“We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture,” said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler’s deputy, Rudolf Hess.

Blunt criticism of modern enemy interrogations was a common refrain at the ceremonies held beside the Potomac River near Alexandria. Across the river, President Bush defended his administration’s methods of detaining and questioning terrorism suspects during an Oval Office appearance.

Several of the veterans, all men in their 80s and 90s, denounced the controversial techniques. And when the time came for them to accept honors from the Army’s Freedom Team Salute, one veteran refused, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq and procedures that have been used at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

“I feel like the military is using us to say, ‘We did spooky stuff then, so it’s okay to do it now,’ ” said Arno Mayer, 81, a professor of European history at Princeton University.

When Peter Weiss, 82, went up to receive his award, he commandeered the microphone and gave his piece.

“I am deeply honored to be here, but I want to make it clear that my presence here is not in support of the current war,” said Weiss, chairman of the Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy and a human rights and trademark lawyer in New York City.

These men used words like “pride,” “honor,” “respect,” “humanity,” and, “justice.” They’re proud to say that during their interrogations they never laid hands on anyone using their wits to extract information instead. Forget 24. Give me a TV show based on these guys.

So, who will be the first to stand up and impugn the patriotism of these men? Who will be the first to label them irrelevant?

As for Mr. Bush’s claim that the “American people expect their government to take action to protect them from further attack,” you might want to also check with us, Sir, to see exaclty how we want you to do that.