Log in

View Full Version : Justice Department ,CIA approved using torture on occasion


mburbank
May 17th, 2004, 11:20 AM
The article is posted bellow if you care to read the whole piece. Here's my central question. How can yousay this technique, which we admit we have used:

"water boarding," in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown.

Isn't torture? Dunking is a classic time honored form of torture, used with great succsess in America and Europe to get people to confess to witchcraft. I think the salient point here, is it gets people to tell you things you want to hear that aren't true, just so you'll stop. It's not only torture, it's ineffective.






Harsh C.I.A. Methods Cited in Top Qaeda Interrogations
By JAMES RISEN, DAVID JOHNSTON and NEIL A. LEWIS

Published: May 13, 2004

WASHINGTON, May 12 — The Central Intelligence Agency has used coercive interrogation methods against a select group of high-level leaders and operatives of Al Qaeda that have produced growing concerns inside the agency about abuses, according to current and former counterterrorism officials.
Advertisement

At least one agency employee has been disciplined for threatening a detainee with a gun during questioning, they said.

In the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a high-level detainee who is believed to have helped plan the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, C.I.A. interrogators used graduated levels of force, including a technique known as "water boarding," in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown.

These techniques were authorized by a set of secret rules for the interrogation of high-level Qaeda prisoners, none known to be housed in Iraq, that were endorsed by the Justice Department and the C.I.A. The rules were among the first adopted by the Bush administration after the Sept. 11 attacks for handling detainees and may have helped establish a new understanding throughout the government that officials would have greater freedom to deal harshly with detainees.

Defenders of the operation said the methods stopped short of torture, did not violate American anti-torture statutes, and were necessary to fight a war against a nebulous enemy whose strength and intentions could only be gleaned by extracting information from often uncooperative detainees. Interrogators were trying to find out whether there might be another attack planned against the United States.

The methods employed by the C.I.A. are so severe that senior officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation have directed its agents to stay out of many of the interviews of the high-level detainees, counterterrorism officials said. The F.B.I. officials have advised the bureau's director, Robert S. Mueller III, that the interrogation techniques, which would be prohibited in criminal cases, could compromise their agents in future criminal cases, the counterterrorism officials said.

After the attacks of Sept. 11, President Bush signed a series of directives authorizing the C.I.A. to conduct a covert war against Osama bin Laden's Qaeda network. The directives empowered the C.I.A. to kill or capture Qaeda leaders, but it is not clear whether the White House approved the specific rules for the interrogations.

The White House and the C.I.A. declined to comment on the matter.

The C.I.A. detention program for Qaeda leaders is the most secretive component of an extensive regime of detention and interrogation put into place by the United States government after the Sept. 11 attacks and the war in Afghanistan that includes the detention facilities run by the military in Iraq and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

There is now concern at the agency that the Congressional and criminal inquiries into abuses at Pentagon-run prisons and other detention centers in Iraq and Afghanistan may lead to examinations of the C.I.A's handling of the Qaeda detainees. That, in turn, could expose agency officers and operations to the same kind of public exposure as the military now faces because of the Iraq prison abuses.

So far, the agency has refused to grant any independent observer or human rights group access to the high-level detainees, who have been held in strict secrecy. Their whereabouts are such closely guarded secrets that one official said he had been told that Mr. Bush had informed the C.I.A. that he did not want to know where they were.

The authorized tactics are primarily those methods used in the training of American Special Operations soldiers to prepare them for the possibility of being captured and taken prisoners of war. The tactics simulate torture, but officials say they are supposed to stop short of serious injury.

Counterrorism officials say detainees have also been sent to third countries, where they are convinced that they might be executed, or tricked into believing they were being sent to such places. Some have been hooded, roughed up, soaked with water and deprived of food, light and medications.

Many authorities contend that torture and coercive treatment is as likely to provide information that is unreliable as information that is helpful.

El Blanco
May 17th, 2004, 11:49 AM
I think the salient point here, is it gets people to tell you things you want to hear that aren't true, just so you'll stop. It's not only torture, it's ineffective.

I have to disagree. If he is cognicient enough to lie, he must be cogniciant to realize that if he gets caught lying, something worse will happen to him.

That is, if he has his wits about him to think about all this crap.

mburbank
May 17th, 2004, 12:25 PM
What if the questions are fundmentally flawed, as in, are you a witch?

What if we've been torturing people demanding they tell us where the weapns of mass destruction are hidden?

davinxtk
May 17th, 2004, 03:07 PM
"UNDER THE SAND!"

"What sand?!"

*dunk, hold for 90 seconds, release*

"What sand?!"

"FUCK IT JUST DROWN ME!"

Sethomas
May 17th, 2004, 04:20 PM
USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!

El Blanco
May 17th, 2004, 07:14 PM
What if the questions are fundmentally flawed, as in, are you a witch?

What if we've been torturing people demanding they tell us where the weapns of mass destruction are hidden?

How would an al Queda operative know where the WMD are? That you ask one of Saddam's advisors.

The One and Only...
May 17th, 2004, 07:35 PM
Of course we torture. Part of the deal with China is 50% off bamboo shoots.

mburbank
May 18th, 2004, 11:29 AM
See, that's very funny.

My point is, we torture. We do it, we subcontract it. You start with serious rules about when and where you torture people, sets of conditions. Then those rules get ratoinalized and widened.

James Yee was kept in Solitary for more than three months. For some of that time he was kept in sensory deprivation, his eyes and ears sealed. How long? We don't know. He's under a gag order from the military. All charges against him were dropped. But he still can't tell you what happened to him while he was in solitary.

That's how an American citizen, who's name the media knew, who's arrest was a matter of public record faired.

What protections does an annonymous Iraqi or Afghani have?

There have to be oversights and standards that apply to everyone. It doesn't matter what you think they've done, what they have done or what they might do. It's not just about the human rights of the tortured. It's about what becomes of a country that uses torture. Our presumptive president likes to talk about evil. You can't condemn evil and practice it.

Command Prompt
May 18th, 2004, 11:55 AM
But, everything America does is automatically fair and just. Jeez, don't you watch the news???