Shocking revelations about torture under Bush's administration

[Papay]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30401100

The CIA carried out "brutal" interrogations of al-Qaeda suspects in the years after the 9/11 attacks on the US, a US Senate report has said.
The summary of the report, compiled by Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the CIA had misled Americans about what it was doing.
The information the CIA collected this way failed to secure information that foiled any threats, the report said.
In a statement, the CIA insisted the interrogations had helped save lives.
"The intelligence gained from the programme was critical to our understanding of al-Qaeda and continues to inform our counterterrorism efforts to this day," director John Brennan said.
However, the CIA also acknowledged mistakes in the programme, especially early on when it was unprepared for the scale of the operation to detain and interrogate prisoners.
The programme - known internally as Rendition, Detention and Interrogation - took place from 2002-07, during the presidency of George W Bush.
Suspects were interrogated using methods such as waterboarding, slapping, humiliation, exposure to cold and sleep deprivation. Such methods were referred to as "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" (EIT).

Analysis: Frank Gardner, BBC security correspondent This report makes deeply uncomfortable reading but it shines a much-needed torch into some dark places.
The fact that Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, or torture by any other name, was stopped years ago or that some people at the top of the US administration may not have known its full extent, does not excuse the fact it took place at all.
After going through six million pages of documents, the authors concluded that in none of the cases they had looked at did these brutal methods stop a terrorist attack. Meaning that America's reputation, and by extension that of the wider West, has been sullied for no tangible gain.
This will lay the US open to charges of hypocrisy, making it far harder for the West to criticise brutal and dictatorial regimes. It may also encourage terrorists to justify their atrocities by pointing to this past abuse.
It can only be hoped this report's publication means these practices will be consigned to history's dustbin.

I will skip whether its moral or not to torture prisoners(which isnt) and i will say that

1)Torture is nothing more than vengeance
2)Torture does not prove that the confession will be based on reality. The report claims that one of the prisoners lied that there would be an attack on Heathrow airport just to stop being tortured
3)Torture turns hardcore terrorists to heroes
4)And lastly torture makes US losing any morality in the war against terrorism

I am not sure whether the senate was right to publicise these findings but its obvious that this CIA program offered nothing more that glorifying terrorists and "proving" to the Arab world how evil US is

[mrmouth]

Feinstein still has not been able or willing to disprove what multiple CIA directors, etc have said about it in fact leading to important discoveries. Until she or anyone else does that, then I'm still yawning and seeing this as nothing more than a rehashed, simplistic witch hunt.

The only tangible thing it says that is different is that they re-hydrated people through the butt. I had a friend who spent two weeks lost in the mountains and they re-hydrated him through the butt, very much against his wishes. He lived.

[mongrel]

Feinstein still has not been able or willing to disprove what multiple CIA directors, etc have said about it in fact leading to important discoveries. Until she or anyone else does that, then I'm still yawning and seeing this as nothing more than a rehashed, simplistic witch hunt.

The only tangible thing it says that is different is that they re-hydrated people through the butt. I had a friend who spent two weeks lost in the mountains and they re-hydrated him through the butt, very much against his wishes. He lived.

That's odd.

according to the report:

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/s...sscistudy1.pdf

The first finding (page2) is titled "The CIA's use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees"

It is followed by :

"The CIA's justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on inaccurate claims of their effectiveness".

Did you read the same document as everyone else?

What I would say though is that the revelations are not shocking., although I wasn't aware, like Roma that the US government was misled. What is shocking iks that good men stood by and let it happen in the States and in the UK.

[Garbarsardar]

I had a friend who spent two weeks lost in the mountains and they re-hydrated him through the butt, very much against his wishes. He lived.

That's good to know. How is your friend now?

Detainees were forced to stand on broken limbs for hours, kept in complete darkness, deprived of sleep for up to 180 hours, sometimes standing, sometimes with their arms shackled above their heads.

Prisoners were subjected to “rectal feeding” without medical necessity. Rectal exams were conducted with “excessive force”. The report highlights one prisoner later diagnosed with anal fissures, chronic hemorrhoids and “symptomatic rectal prolapse”.

The report mentions mock executions, Russian roulette. US agents threatened to slit the throat of a detainee’s mother, sexually abuse another and threatened prisoners’ children. One prisoner died of hypothermia brought on in part by being forced to sit on a bare concrete floor without pants.http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...erboard-rectal

[Roma_Victrix]

Detainees were forced to stand on broken limbs for hours, kept in complete darkness, deprived of sleep for up to 180 hours, sometimes standing, sometimes with their arms shackled above their heads.

Prisoners were subjected to “rectal feeding” without medical necessity. Rectal exams were conducted with “excessive force”. The report highlights one prisoner later diagnosed with anal fissures, chronic hemorrhoids and “symptomatic rectal prolapse”.

The report mentions mock executions, Russian roulette. US agents threatened to slit the throat of a detainee’s mother, sexually abuse another and threatened prisoners’ children. One prisoner died of hypothermia brought on in part by being forced to sit on a bare concrete floor without pants.http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...erboard-rectal

Well, isn't that just rosy. I'm also reminded of the Bagram Air Force base examples of the guys beaten to death by interrogators.

[tarvu]

In regards to Edward Snowden and other leakers a lot of people on this board (the same who will likely come to the defense of torture yet again) said that they should return to the US to face charges.

That despite possibly having some positive contributions in showing the world what was going on behind closed doors, they still committed a crime and should be punished for it. I wouldn't feel so bad about my nation's torture program if all those involved faced the punishment they deserve. At least then we would have some justice, justice that we call for in most occasions of such heinous crimes regardless of the "good" that was supposedly done (lynchings or the "mercy" killing of children and families by distraught parents). To allow it is a reflection on our society, and not one that I personally am willing to trade for the amazing information these tortured detainees gave that saved millions of lives potentially (even though the report does not back this assertion).

It's pretty disgusting that Americans did this.

On the other hand how exactly are Al Queda, ISIS, and the Taliban going to use this for recruitment again? They not only do far worse, but they openly flaunt it. No person truly concerned about the humanitarian aspect of this report would join a group like that to do worse to people, and innocent civilians often for the pure intimidation factor rather than even pretending to be trying to extract information from them.

[Ludicus]

I had a friend who spent two weeks lost in the mountains and they re-hydrated him through the butt

Really? Its hard to believe, the enema by clyster is a medieval treatment for hypertonic dehydration.

[mrmouth]

Really? Its hard to believe, the enema by clyster is a medieval treatment for hypertonic dehydration.

It wasn't an ideal situation. It was done by mountain rescue medics when they couldn't get to a hospital in time due to weather and couldn't find a vein to start a drip. He wasn't expected to survive.

I'm pretty sure SERE and similar resistance training is a totally different issue and a damn good red herring for the day.

As long as you are pretty sure.

You do understand he was saying that is how he was sold on tactic? What exactly are you disputing? That thousands of our guys were not waterboarded in training and managed to survive, somehow?

[Gaidin]

As long as you are pretty sure.

You do understand he was saying that is how he was sold on tactic? What exactly are you disputing? That thousands of our guys were not waterboarded in training and managed to survive, somehow?

How does that change the legality of it? Oh, we train our people in resisting abuse, thus it's ok to abuse people. Yea. Brilliant legal argument there. Yea. Bravo. Golf clap is called for. Still seeing red herring. He has not dodged it.

[Ludicus]

It wasn't an ideal situation. It was done by mountain rescue medics when they couldn't get to a hospital in time ... and couldn't find a vein to start a drip

Well,if oral and IV rehydration are not feasible, nasogastric rehydration is preferable. (unless there is a contraindication)

[Roma_Victrix]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30401100
1)Torture is nothing more than vengeance

Don't forget sadism, too, since it's a special type of perverted who would apply rectal rehydration and anal feeding to not only prisoners who were on hunger strikes, but random prisoners who were just being obstinate or giving them answers they didn't like. Let's face it, the people doing the torture weren't personally wronged by these suspected terrorists (and I say that because almost none of them have been given a real trial to prove their guilt one way or the other). They just did this to get their rocks off and feel a sexually-satisfying rush of power and control.

2)Torture does not prove that the confession will be based on reality. The report claims that one of the prisoners lied that there would be an attack on Heathrow airport just to stop being tortured

THIS. Why is this so hard to understand, for some people? If North Korea captured and was torturing me, you can bet your ass I'd feed them a bunch of false (but believable) intel just to get them to stop ripping my fingernails out. People will do and say anything under duress, and you're likely to get false testimony. The sad thing is we've known this for a very long time, yet here we are again, water-boarding and torturing people to get confessions and intelligence.

3)Torture turns hardcore terrorists to heroes

That it does. It makes them into religious martyrs for the jihadi cause, and also makes us look even worse in the Arab world, as if we need that right now. Which informant would want to cooperate with the US after this? After knowing that we clearly don't follow the rule of law anymore?

4)And lastly torture makes US losing any morality in the war against terrorism

One of the lesser points, but sure, it should be included.

I am not sure whether the senate was right to publicise these findings but its obvious that this CIA program offered nothing more that glorifying terrorists and "proving" to the Arab world how evil US is

If they didn't publicize this, it would have been buried, except for the fact that we already knew much about the details of the "interrogation" techniques, but not so much that the CIA had actively misled Congress.

[mrmouth]

If North Korea captured and was torturing me, you can bet your ass I'd feed them a bunch of false (but believable) intel just to get them to stop ripping my fingernails out.

And why wouldn't you tell them factual information to get the same result? What do you think happens when they find out you lied or when you are sitting in a room with no control over your present reality and have no idea whether they will find out you lied? Or when. Or how. They probably wouldn't have to torture you again as your own mind would eventually let you down, Mr Rambo.

There is torture on the scale of what occurred in the Tower of London and then there is physical interrogation. You don't go into the latter not knowing some things to use against that person. That is what leads to a guy being water boarded 150+ times, in desperation. That is what the CIA is guilty of - desperation. Working an incredibly confused situation and battlefields where 1-in-5 were ultimately not guilty and where they did not know the some answers, to get answers to the other questions they didn't.

Otherwise, the threat or implementation is just motivating tool that is used alongside the overall interrogation. If you can put your feelings aside, it's actually very scientific and interesting. Mark Bowden wrote a great article on the process - while not defending what the CIA did. Again, in a perfect situation, it never gets that far.

Israel is very good at this. But what they dont tell you is that the threat is never off the table. It's just that they dont use it. Reportedly.

"The CIA's justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on inaccurate claims of their effectiveness".

Did you read the same document as everyone else?

Yes. And Im also currently reading Leon Panetta's book. The CIA director who oversaw the shift in tactics as he didnt agree with it on a moral level. But he also paints as vivid a picture as he can that those tactics did in fact work and dismissing them outright is foolish. That he would have used them again in an imminent attack scenario.

Again, if at any point, Feinstein would like to even engage the question on the level of former CIA and national security people have, then I would be very willing to change my mind. Instead, the only people who have provided anywhere near a proper context to back up their claims, are the CIA.

[Dr Zoidberg]

And why wouldn't you tell them factual information to get the same result?

Say you do tell them the truth and they don't believe you. What if your true answer is "I don't know". What then?

[AqD]

THIS. Why is this so hard to understand, for some people? If North Korea captured and was torturing me, you can bet your ass I'd feed them a bunch of false (but believable) intel just to get them to stop ripping my fingernails out. People will do and say anything under duress, and you're likely to get false testimony. The sad thing is we've known this for a very long time, yet here we are again, water-boarding and torturing people to get confessions and intelligence.

No you're talking about a very different approach of torture.

If you're deprived of sleep long enough, you can no longer think straight and make up clever lies easily. That's how it works. It's not meant to make you fear, but to turn your mind into chaos and render you defenseless mentally. I suspect they could also achieve that by alcohol or drugging, or even tickling.

[Papay]

The funny thing is that the report claims that usefull information came from detaines that were not tortured. The people who were tortured only gave false information

[mrmouth]

The funny thing is that the report claims that usefull information came from detaines that were not tortured. The people who were tortured only gave false information

That's just wrong. And again, the CIA is the only one engaged in providing any context. The key factor in this debate appears to be that people blindly opposed to this are totally willing to settle for talking points with no context of facts.

Bizarrely, Feinstein and her staffers refused even to interview the very CIA officials who ordered and carried out the program in question.

This is from a Justice Department Lawyer on the issue of legality, in 2002:

I would want to know if they lied to me and other Bush administration officials, as the Feinstein report asserts. If it turned out that the facts on which I based my advice were wrong, I would be willing to change my opinion of the interrogation methods. As economist John Maynard Keynes reportedly said to a critic, “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?” But given its profoundly partisan tenor and fiercely disputed details, I have significant reason to doubt this report’s veracity.

Take, for example, an absolutely critical fact related to the utility of enhanced interrogation tactics — about how the U.S. tracked down and ultimately killed Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.

According to several former CIA directors, harsh interrogations and waterboarding of Al Qaeda leaders such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed allowed U.S. analysts to identify Bin Laden’s courier (he would not use electronic communications). Tracking the courier then led us to Bin Laden’s hideout.

The Feinstein report alleges that other sources had already provided the name of the courier independently.

But the CIA’s rebuttal — signed by Obama’s appointee Director John Brennan — makes clear this information “was insufficient to distinguish him from many other Bin Laden associates until additional information from detainees put it into context and allowed CIA to better understand his true role and potential in the hunt for Bin Laden.”

The CIA is right. While it may have had the courier’s name, it had hundreds if not thousands of possible Al Qaeda agents in its files. Only the interrogations pinpointed his importance.

And of course this is just the most famous case. But lets remember, this entire issue is only actually confined to a handful of cases:

I was swayed by the fact that our military used waterboarding in training thousands of its own soldiers without harm, and that the CIA would use the technique only on top Al Qaeda leaders thought to have actionable information on pending plots.

A torture report for the dustbin

[Gaidin]

A torture report for the dustbin

I'm pretty sure SERE and similar resistance training is a totally different issue and a damn good red herring for the day. Bravo, writer. Bra-frakking-vo. This is what we call an article for the dustbin.

[Roma_Victrix]

And of course this is just the most famous case. But lets remember, this entire issue is only actually confined to a handful of cases:


A torture report for the dustbin

The writer of that article, John Yoo, is hardly an uninvolved observer and impartial actor in all of this. During the Bush administration, he was the Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice. Moreover, he was THE author of the infamous Torture Memos that informed the Bush administration that they could be excused for authorizing torture to be carried out by the CIA, under the lighter and fluffier non-legal term "enhanced interrogations." When you read anything that is written by John Yoo, go ahead and do so with a grain (or rock) of salt about this big:

[justicar5]

That's just wrong. And again, the CIA is the only one engaged in providing any context. The key factor in this debate appears to be that people blindly opposed to this are totally willing to settle for talking points with no context of facts.





This is from a Justice Department Lawyer on the issue of legality, in 2002:




And of course this is just the most famous case. But lets remember, this entire issue is only actually confined to a handful of cases:




A torture report for the dustbin

did they blend up meals and shove them up the arses of their own troops 'without harm' as well? Did they break their hands and feet them force them to stand for hours 'without harm?' Did they threaten to rape their wives and children 'without harm' ? Did they violate them with broom handles 'without harm'?

[Gaidin]

"Shocking"....I do not think this word means what you think it means.

I am not sure whether the senate was right to publicise these findings but its obvious that this CIA program offered nothing more that glorifying terrorists and "proving" to the Arab world how evil US is

They didn't. They publicized the footnotes. Get with it.