CIA tortured suspects 'until the point of death': report

[poweratradio]

These naughty CIA guys should say they are sorry and that it will never happen again . LMAO

Edited September 9, 2014 by poweratradio

[harrry]

Once I thought there was me and the good side against the bad guys.

Now I am lonely.

Edited September 9, 2014 by harrry

[cooked]

The UK got through the Second World War without using torture, at least according to official orders from Churchill. It could be argued that the Nazis were worse than the Islamists.

Wrong. The British used torture/enhanced interrogation and Churchill knew about it.

How Torture Helped Win WWII

If anyone believes that SIS persuaded each of these 19 hard-bitten Nazi spies to fall in with Operation Fortitude by merely offering them tea, biscuits, and lectures in democracy, they’re being profoundly naïve. An SIS secret house located in Ham Common near Richmond on the outskirts of London was the location where the will of those agents was broken, using advanced interrogation techniques that reportedly started with sleep deprivation but went on to gross mental and physical abuse. The result? Many thousands of Allied servicemens’ lives were saved because the German 15th Army stayed well away from beaches such as Omaha, Utah, and Sword. And another 100,000 others were stationed in Norway for another attack that never came.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/05/13/how-torture-helped-win-wwii.html

Silly. The difference is that Mr. Bush authorised the use of 'enhanced interrogation techniques'. I was careful to write

' at least according to official orders from Churchill.'

This was at a time when the Gestapo and other organs of the Nazi party were cheerfully and routinely using torture to obtain information and kill people. Big difference.

I read your link long ago. There is a documentary on Youtube somewhere.

[Ulysses G.]

What is the difference between allowing it "officially" or "unofficially" to the guy getting tortured? Your hair-splitting is what is "silly." The allies used torture during WW 2 and they knew it at the top, but I did not say that it was not justified, only that it happened - which you have just admitted.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Baerboxer]

The UK got through the Second World War without using torture, at least according to official orders from Churchill. It could be argued that the Nazis were worse than the Islamists.

Wrong. The British used torture/enhanced interrogation and Churchill knew about it.

How Torture Helped Win WWII

If anyone believes that SIS persuaded each of these 19 hard-bitten Nazi spies to fall in with Operation Fortitude by merely offering them tea, biscuits, and lectures in democracy, they’re being profoundly naïve. An SIS secret house located in Ham Common near Richmond on the outskirts of London was the location where the will of those agents was broken, using advanced interrogation techniques that reportedly started with sleep deprivation but went on to gross mental and physical abuse. The result? Many thousands of Allied servicemens’ lives were saved because the German 15th Army stayed well away from beaches such as Omaha, Utah, and Sword. And another 100,000 others were stationed in Norway for another attack that never came.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/05/13/how-torture-helped-win-wwii.html

And the historian Andrew Roberts who writes books to make money from their sales knows all these "super secret" facts exactly how?

[Ulysses G.]

The UK got through the Second World War without using torture, at least according to official orders from Churchill. It could be argued that the Nazis were worse than the Islamists.

Wrong. The British used torture/enhanced interrogation and Churchill knew about it.

How Torture Helped Win WWII

If anyone believes that SIS persuaded each of these 19 hard-bitten Nazi spies to fall in with Operation Fortitude by merely offering them tea, biscuits, and lectures in democracy, theyre being profoundly naïve. An SIS secret house located in Ham Common near Richmond on the outskirts of London was the location where the will of those agents was broken, using advanced interrogation techniques that reportedly started with sleep deprivation but went on to gross mental and physical abuse. The result? Many thousands of Allied servicemens lives were saved because the German 15th Army stayed well away from beaches such as Omaha, Utah, and Sword. And another 100,000 others were stationed in Norway for another attack that never came.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/05/13/how-torture-helped-win-wwii.html

And the historian Andrew Roberts who writes books to make money from their sales knows all these "super secret" facts exactly how?

It is not exactly a secret that the allies used torture in WW 2. This is just one example. There are MANY more. We were not nearly as bad as Japan or the Nazis, but we still did it - usually to Axis prisoners. It is either naive or hypocritical to pretend that Bush started something new. It has been done in every war.

Don't open this link if you are sensitive.

http://historyimages.blogspot.com/2012/01/shocking-american-torture-of-german.html

Edited September 9, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[cooked]

Bush officially authorised and supported it. Churchill didn't want to know.

[Ulysses G.]

Which makes very little difference.

Churchill - who I very much admire - expressed sentiments such as "We do not torture" with regard to prison inmates, but he said no such thing about prisoners of war, enemy combatants or terrorists, who were in fact tortured by British interrogators during World War II.

Between 1940 and 1948, at the Combined Services Detailed Interrogation Centre known as the "London Cage" run by MI19, was responsible for interrogating enemy prisoners of war, Brtish soldiers tortured suspects on a regular basis. There is a pretty good chance that the Prime Minister was aware of what Britain's intelligence services were up to.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[timmyp]

Wow, what a total shocking surprise, the U.S. tortured detainees.

I'm sure there is alot worse going on than just waterboarding.

Whether you think it's deserved or not, whether you agree that it may be a necessary means to an end or not, I am in shock that politicians in the U.S. express shock at this.

This war and global domination business is a dirty game, and the U.S. is an excellent player at that game.

[spidermike007]

And from what I have heard, from many sources, this kind of torture does not work. It leads to misinformation, and BS. Rarely to the truth. The shame of all this, is that it was started under Tiny George II, and continued under Blundering Barry Obama. He vowed to stop it, and if anything it was increased on his watch. A conservative ideologue, in liberal sheeps clothing. He talks liberal, but his policies are very conservative. Not sure why the GOP does not love this man, as he is one of them. Anyway, torture is a waste of time, that leads to nothing. Maybe less heinous forms of torture. Make them listen to Barry Manilow or Billy Joel day and night. Or Thai pop music, Metallica, Michael Jackson, or Celine Dion, day and night. Make them watch Oasis or Cameo videos. That will make them reveal everything they know, which is probably very little, as most of the punks that are captured are low level, and know little. The CIA cannot help it. They are a burnt out group of men who have poor training, little understanding of quality spy work, and are generally inept. And the worst of all, they work for the US Govt. and are commanded by Blundering Barry and his squad of goons.

[hard124get]

The CIA tortured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, that killed and maimed thousands of innocent people. What a shame.

Has he been convicted ?

[FritsSikkink]

They really should plug these leaks.

No leaks needed if they just behaved like human beings.

No torture needed if they acted like Human Beings.

So it is fine to behave like a terrorist to people who might or might not be a terrorist.

[Wat dee]

The CIA tortured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, that killed and maimed thousands of innocent people. What a shame.

Good to know it was just one isolated incident.

[Friendly Stranger]

The CIA tortured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, that killed and maimed thousands of innocent people. What a shame.

When we reach the point where we are willing to accept the idea of humans (even criminal suspects) being abused, tortured and treated more brutally than we would ever permit dogs to be treated -- then we have sunk to the depths of our most vile and evil enemy.

You're entitled to your opinion and I respect that and at one time I would have agreed but this is all talk now. These F'N loons just want us dead. If it'll save lives then so be it.

A little off topic but funny enough when the allies do something our own citizens demonstrate against us but where were these souls when Syria was gassing their own people. Yeah, having Starbucks and tweeting nonsense. Just tired of us being soft.

If I hurt anyone's fluffy feelings, well. Just a rant...

[Asiantravel]

They really should plug these leaks.

No leaks needed if they just behaved like human beings.

No torture needed if they acted like Human Beings.

So it is fine to behave like a terrorist to people who might or might not be a terrorist.

Wait until the only act of “ terrorism “ is for the so called terrorist to expose the truth about criminal acts carried out by the torturers themselves elsewhere that they would prefer the world not to know about

[lust]

sweet, i hope the torturing continues until we rid the planet of this cancer.

[arjunadawn]

They really should plug these leaks.

yes...

although I would be interested in knowing if in these cases, the end really justified the means.

much much information could they extract from captives?

if no useful information can be extracted by torture, would the CIA still do it?

Torture is a slippery slope once a people make it part of their arsenal. But when the threat weighed against a people is existential, the rights of the individual should not prevail. I remain uncertain where we draw the line, or when we employ such a tactic. The tendency for man to sink quickly into depravity is significant and if not guarded we easily become similar to what we oppose, in this one regard. Still, I prefer to wrestle with ethics later and save my country today! "What would you want done to save your child?

Does it matter that what we fight is barbaric? Yes, I think it should change our tactics.

[Ace of Pop]

Very Cruel. Id just Shoot the Bastards.

[Ulysses G.]

Torture is a slippery slope once a people make it part of their arsenal. But when the threat weighed against a people is existential, the rights of the individual should not prevail. I remain uncertain where we draw the line, or when we employ such a tactic.

Your thoughts are similar to mine. War is always ugly and - IMO - such tactics are sometimes just, but it depends on who they are used on and why. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was justified in my opinion, if anyone ever was.

[arjunadawn]

I heard an interview with a young US military fellow who was appointed to be the attorney for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (note: US appoints attorneys to represent bad guys. Muslim extremists just lop off heads on Youtube).

Anyhow, the US attorney quit his assignment saying that he felt he couldn't get a fair trial for the accused. I think this article is taken from the same fellow, if not from the actual interview on NPR.

As much as I want to see justice bad guys get punished in these cases, I don't get behind extreme torture. Moderate torture, ok. Next question: where do you draw the line?

Your points are valid but there is a subtle thing to consider when exploring this: you seek justice and want them punished. I do not. I want them eliminated. It is the duty of a people to rehabilitate others insofar as their is a expectation that this is possible. Thus, in capital murder cases or life sentences, there is no expectation of rehabilitation. Sedition, treason, insurgency, waging war against, and other declarations or actions place individuals outside the rehabilitative scope of what a society should do in response. It is unfair to society to suggest we have an endless ability to absorb assaults on our civilization and being. Yes, there is a point as most societies are founded on the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. This notion retains jihadis in the legal venue, which I oppose.

These are military actions against state players. Military deals with existential threats, not rehabilitation. The nature of warfare has changes from WWII days as surely as warfare has changed from infantry lines fixing bayonets. The modern, immediate, global threat to welfare is so significant and appalling previous templates for the conduct of interrogation really need to be discarded.

[Thorgal]

They really should plug these leaks.

yes...

although I would be interested in knowing if in these cases, the end really justified the means.

much much information could they extract from captives?

if no useful information can be extracted by torture, would the CIA still do it?

Torture is a slippery slope once a people make it part of their arsenal. But when the threat weighed against a people is existential, the rights of the individual should not prevail. I remain uncertain where we draw the line, or when we employ such a tactic. The tendency for man to sink quickly into depravity is significant and if not guarded we easily become similar to what we oppose, in this one regard. Still, I prefer to wrestle with ethics later and save my country today! "What would you want done to save your child?

Does it matter that what we fight is barbaric? Yes, I think it should change our tactics.

CIA will never apply these practices in the US.

Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and others reveals not strangely immunity for the executers.

And yes, they become again one day a part and danger for their own society once the job is finished.

To justify all this depends on what is your definition of terrorism...

Edited September 9, 2014 by Thorgal

[Wat dee]

Good. But are there not drugs that can be administered to encourage truthful answers to questioning? Or is this a myth? Seems the use of drugs would be far easier than physical torture. I have no sympathy for those people who are involved in the cowardly destruction of human life for a false religious purpose. They reap what they sow.

What you think about destruction of human life for a false economic purpose?

[arjunadawn]

The CIA tortured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, that killed and maimed thousands of innocent people. What a shame.

You're not supposed to feel sorry for him, but for a system that once aspired to humane practices that now appears to have degenerated to the point where torture is a normal and acceptable (at least to security authorities) procedure.

I don't agree at all that torture has degenerated to an acceptable practice- in the west, at least. Clearly in muslim lands representing nearly 1/7th of humanity torture is still permitted under the color of god. But you refer to west, I believe, as you suggested humanity. A tragic escalation of fear followed both new york and UK terrorist acts that had many well intentioned people desperate to stop further assaults on our civilization. Fear, uncertainty of the new landscape of jihad, and the human tendency to make another reveal their secrets, were all behind the use of torture as a tool following these declarations of war upon us.

Within short time there were protests, outrage, arguments on both sides, and a sorta quite settling on the notion that we (the only ones who have remaining humanity- the west) back off this torture business, at least the way we were doing it. How then does this constitute "normal and acceptable?" It does not. Those like me continue to advocate in a controlled manner, with reservations and caution. Others continue to oppose it totally and society has more or less concurred with those who disagree with me. Ok. I get it. But this does not constitute the black eye you sock at the West. Even though I think it is a terrible mistake to allow the Human Rights vehicle (the very tool that is enabling this nonsense) to roll back the West's ability to defend itself, the system worked. My peers in the western world collected their voice and opposed it!

[connda]

Move along....

[arjunadawn]

The CIA tortured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, that killed and maimed thousands of innocent people. What a shame.

You're not supposed to feel sorry for him, but for a system that once aspired to humane practices that now appears to have degenerated to the point where torture is a normal and acceptable (at least to security authorities) procedure.

Perhaps that's one of the problems today. We're too easy on those who harm others??? I'm no advocate of violence, but these guys had done some absolutely horrible things. Hard to believe anybody has compassion for them. Compassion should be directed towards the thousands who lost their lives due to them, and the 10's of thousands who lives were changed forever due to this.

I feel like I am in a mentally awkward position because I advocate torture as a means to protect a people but I do understand the opposing point. There was some study done in the US within past decades where normal people were in a room and other volunteers on the other side. Even though they believed that pressing "X" button would bring pain to the other people increasingly did this with incentives, even when the subjects were withering in fake pain. Likewise, a prison type study was done where people agreed to play jailers and jailed. In short order the actual study digressed into roles of terrible abuse; I think the study was stopped. My point being, regrettably, there does appear to be a human tendency to exercise authority, and harm others. Just looking at the jihadis in this contrast further suggests even dolts and morons are empowered to harm when granted titled authority- Allah.

Perceiving the threat as I do, I prefer to work out my ethics later and save more children, women, and innocent shopkeepers. Had this clown been dipped in acid and his feet slowly consumed till he spoke I might recoil; but not this. A notion of inviolable ethics should never be a suicide pact!

[arjunadawn]

Good. But are there not drugs that can be administered to encourage truthful answers to questioning? Or is this a myth? Seems the use of drugs would be far easier than physical torture. I have no sympathy for those people who are involved in the cowardly destruction of human life for a false religious purpose. They reap what they sow.

It is not a myth. Previously sodium thiopental was used but it has a very rapid onset and short duration. There are now newer classes. However, this barbiturate really only has value when combined with a solid interrogator- like someone culturally similar asking the questions, same language, tidbits of knowledge or levers to reduce their guard, etc. If you injected and simply asked questions you would probably get no where. You need a team. (I beleive this is still used with succinylcholine for rapid intubation in trauma).

[arjunadawn]

CIA will never apply these practices in the US.

Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and others reveals not strangely immunity for the executers.

And yes, they become again one day a part and danger for their own society once the job is finished.

To justify all this depends on what is your definition of terrorism...

Please repeat. CIA will never... is question?

The definition of terrorism is really related to legal considerations. I suspect there is a very different threshold for waging war. These people (Islamists) are conducting operations within the purview of war. They are directing these actions toward a nation state. They receive recompense in the form of martyrdom or paradise. Thus, they are waging war. With this approach the legal definition of "terrorism" only describes asymmetrical acts.

[cchina184]

the cia tortures people. naw, say it ain't so. nobody gives two hoots in hell anyway.

[KhnomKhnom]

They really should plug these leaks.

yes...

although I would be interested in knowing if in these cases, the end really justified the means.

much much information could they extract from captives?

if no useful information can be extracted by torture, would the CIA still do it?

The CIA's own research, published on the Web, shows that actual torture produces nothing. The victim will either clam up totally or spew any number of possible and or wild stories, their research says.

Interestingly, the real way to unlock lips is the THREAT of torture. So play tapes of people screaming in agony in the next call to loosen up folks. So says CIA itself.

[manarak]

They really should plug these leaks.

yes...

although I would be interested in knowing if in these cases, the end really justified the means.

much much information could they extract from captives?

if no useful information can be extracted by torture, would the CIA still do it?

The CIA's own research, published on the Web, shows that actual torture produces nothing. The victim will either clam up totally or spew any number of possible and or wild stories, their research says.

Interestingly, the real way to unlock lips is the THREAT of torture. So play tapes of people screaming in agony in the next call to loosen up folks. So says CIA itself.

link?