Al-Qaeda suspects were brought to the 'point of death' during 'real torture' by CIA

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Independent

Al-Qaeda suspects were brought to the 'point of death' during 'real torture' by CIA
Ian Johnston
Sunday 07 September 2014

At least two al-Qaeda suspects were brought to the “point of death” during “real torture” by CIA officials following the 9/11 attacks, a security source has claimed.

The insider said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, allegedly the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, and at least one other person were not simply waterboarded, which is designed to simulate the sensation of drowning.

“They weren’t just pouring water over their heads or over a cloth,” the source told The Daily Telegraph.
“They were holding them under water until the point of death, with a doctor present to make sure they did not go too far. This was real torture.”

The US Senate is planning to publish a 3,600-page document – dubbed the Torture Report – spelling out what happened to al-Qaeda suspects in US custody. Another source said the report would “deeply shock” people in the US.



Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/alqaeda-suspects-were-brought-to-the-point-of-death-during-real-torture-by-cia-9717388.html

[Live and Learn]

1. What kind of doctors would participate in such a blatant violation of the Hippocratic oath? nt

[kairos12]

6. My guess is their twitter name is Mengele

[ReRe]

7. Those who are...

... on the staff of any of our military branches or who are on the CIA staff.

[rug]

13. Frist, Paul, Coburn and a few others.

http://doctorscaucus.gingrey.house.gov/whoweare/

[OLDMADAM]

35. How horrible.. Are we beheading yet?

Just a little reminder of what the same guys are actually doing to us..

[rhett o rick]

2. The doctors need to be prosecuted so that next time a doctor is directed to do

such barbarous things, they will say "F*** NO!"

We must take action.

[Billy Budd]

15. Bush and his Junta

Need a trial and then the rope....

[rhett o rick]

20. That is dreaming. There is a code where Pres Obama can't bring harm to those in the "club".

Last edited Mon Sep 8, 2014, 07:06 PM - Edit history (1)

He will be playing golf with them someday. But we can prosecute those psycho's that actually did the crimes. That "followed orders" and actually did the torturing. I want them in prison.

On edit psyco to psycho.

[candelista]

34. "psyco's" (sic)?

[rhett o rick]

37. Thanks.

[951-Riverside]

3. They were never interested in getting information...

Last edited Sun Sep 7, 2014, 08:24 PM - Edit history (1)

They were only interested in capturing and experimenting on brown people and getting these people to tell a fable that would further the advancement of the military industrial complex's agenda and when someone is forcing hypothermia on you, shocking you, drowning you, injecting you with who knows what, you'd confess to being the leader of north korea just to make the pain go away.

Just your typical Nazi stuff but on a smaller scale.

[ReRe]

8. Now THAT...

... is laying it out there. Bravo!

[RKP5637]

12. Different times, different people, names and geographical locations, but SOS. n/t

[arcane1]

4. Makes us proud, doesn't it? Gives a feeling of patriotic glee.

[Live and Learn]

5. I am willing to bet that it wasn't always just to the point of death either. nt

[ReRe]

10. That's right...

We know what they did was bad. We just don't know how many they killed while doing it.

[daleo]

9. This will be a great recruiting device for IS, AQ, etc

Which isn't to say the report should be suppressed. It just shows how abandoning civilized norms will eventually come back to haunt you.

[DRoseDARs]

11. Oh here we go again, people getting "sanctimonious" about torture... nt

[Uncle Joe]

14. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Judi Lynn.

[Mnemosyne]

16. Wish I was shocked. K&R nt

[daschess1987]

17. Of course it was torture! We all saw the pictures from Abu Ghraib.

I haven't felt like we were "exceptional" since.

[Ash_F]

18. Always knew this was happening and worse.

Got some sick individuals in the government. Lots of weird fetishes.

[Man from Pickens]

19. Isn't that against the law?

Cruel and unusual punishment? Punishment without trial, representation, or even a specific claim of a crime?

The worst part may be knowing that no one will be held accountable. No one.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

28. Yes, it is against the law

The applicable US law is 18 U.S.C. § 2340

As used in this chapter—

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C) the threat of imminent death; or

(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

18 U.S.C. § 2340A

(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or

(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

Note the last paragraph. That says that those who order the torture are just as liable as the actual torturers.

Another thing that is applicable is the Convention Against Torture, an international treaty to which the U.S. is a signatory.

The definition of torture as given in Article 1 of the Convention is

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

You should also note Article 16

Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

[AnalystInParadise]

21. Meh

KSM wanted to play by big boy rules......

This Iraq veteran and current soldier instructor is not bothered by this.

[CJCRANE]

27. Would you be bothered if these techniques

produced false positives?

Had the effect of destroying evidence or confusing useful information with junk information?

Hence making the analysts' jobs harder and putting us more at risk?

It's all fun and games to smack unpleasant criminal people around but is it effective at getting information and keeping us safer?

The experts say no.

The Nazis at Nuremberg were not interrogated like this for a very specific reason.

It doesn't work to get useful information.

[Lochloosa]

30. big boy rules? What about the Constitution you swore to uphold?

Meh.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

31. So you hold US law in contempt. You take Himmler, Torquemada and Lavrenti Beria as role models.

If your rights under the law were to be abrogated, would you not be bothered by it?

In Robert Bolt's play, A Man For All Seasons, Richard Rich has just run off to inform on Thomas More to his enemies. Lady Alice, More's wife, tells More: Arrest him!

More: Why, what has he done?

Margaret (More's daughter): He's bad!

More: There is no law against that.

Will Roper (Margaret's fiancé): There is! God's law!

More: Then God can arrest him.

Alice: While you talk, he's gone!

More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man's laws, not God's– and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

(On edit, I just found this bit on Youtube)

One reason I oppose torture is that if torture is acceptable, what is to stop them from torturing me? The Bushmen were moving in that direction, preferring that we have a police state:

• A state in which people can be accused of being "enemy combatants" and disappeared into night and fog

• A state in which torture is used on those suspected of terrorism (because, of course, people suspected of terrorism have no rights, including the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty)

• A state where the authorities can wiretap without warrants

If KSM gets his day in court, virtually all evidence against him would have to be thrown out because he was tortured. See Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936), for the legal precedent.

Another reason for opposing torture is that it is unreliable. The person being tortured will say just about anything to make it stop. If I have you strapped down to a table, give me a small electric generating set, a couple of wires with clamps on the end, and within an hour or so, I will get you to admit to buggering your sister (whether or not you have a sister), setting the Reichstag fire, and assassinating George Washington.

There is one situation where torture will work quite reliably: When the torturer wants the victim to say a specific thing. A good example of that was Henry VIII's desire to support his trumped-up charge of adultery by Ann Boleyn. Four or five men, including Ann's brother, were tortured to get them to say that they had sexual relations with Ann. It worked very well as a means of getting perjured testimony. That's using an immoral act in order to procure an immoral end. Moreover, I do not see any moral or legal system in which suborning perjury is acceptable.

Speaking of moral systems, I should mention that I am a Catholic. According to the Constitution On the Church from the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, section 25, a teaching from a properly constituted ecumenical council (such as Vatican II) is infallible. Another of Vatican II's documents, Gaudium et Spes, section 27, says that torture is intrinsece malum -- "intrinsically evil". As Pope John Paul II wrote in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor, section 80, torture is one of a group of acts which are immoral

always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object".

Now, this argument is applicable only to Catholics, but virtually all ethical systems find torture to be evil.

One last thing to consider about torture is what it does to the torturer and those who support torturing. Nietzsche, in Beyond Good and Evil, wrote "He who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself; and if you gaze too long into the abyss, the abyss will gaze into you".

[AnalystInParadise]

38. My opinion (and the opinion of the U.S. Army)

is that we have to become monsters to fight monsters. I teach young Intelligence Analysts that everyday. It is the course curriculum as outlined by the doctrine writers at USAICOE. If anything many in the IC feel that we have been too lenient on terrorists, rapists and child molesters found in most of these groups. I am still a progressive, just one that has freed himself from the delusion that we have to stay out of the mud to fight the monsters.

Edit: Grammatical mistake

[nilesobek]

40. That's an interesting point of view.

You seem committed to it and are very knowledgeable so I have a question, in all sincerity. Were the interrogators trained already to torture or was outside help brought in from Saudi Arabia or elsewhere to train them in torture?

[AnalystInParadise]

41. Already trained

The capability has existed for quite a while, at least back to Eisenhower's time. The problem was Abu Ghraib, those lunatics got a little torture happy and forgot the rules: rare, intensely and discretely. I blame the issue that occurred after 9/11 when all the trainers from the Interrogator school here at Fort Huachuca got deployed to Afghanistan and there were less well trained Interrogation instructors back at the school house. The "scabs" did not have the same level of knowledge the deployed ones had, as a result dozens of interrogators were put into the force that did not understand the rare and discretely part. Just my opinion from what I saw......

[nilesobek]

43. Already trained in torture?

That should be put in recruiting videos they show on the Sunday NFL games. We've been training in torture since Eisenhower? I'm 51 years old and have read thousands of books about ww2 and warfare in general and haven't ever heard of this. Sure, isolated atrocities were committed during that war, but "moderate pressure," or torture seems to be a thing of the present, since 9/11.

It might be interesting for a journalist to do an expose on the progression of torture becoming official policy. Something that gets behind the media bubble and names names. I really want to know all the details, since my tax money is paying the salaries.

As you can probably tell, I don't agree with you on this but just respectively disagree, not freaking out. Growing up in America I was always told we were the good guys, we didn't lower ourselves to that. Bomb their cities, destroy the enemy's military, defeat them, vanquish them with America's mighty right and left arms. But torture? Do we really have to roll in the gutter?

[AnalystInParadise]

44. We are the good guys

what they do is far worse. And the American public does not want to know what is being done in their name, if they did, they would react as the IC ignores the oversight of Congress and strips their rights away. I work in the IC, but I am retired now and while I can abide the interrogation of non-Americans, the use of these practices and the electronic interrogation that goes on daily on American citizens is something that bothers my conscience. Many of us (not enough unfortunately) draw the line at things done to American citizens that we have done to non U.S. citizens. I sleep just fine when our targets are non-Americans, I have a moral dilemma when we start applying these methods to Americans

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-a-history-of-using-torture/4066

[Iamthetruth]

47. I really do get tired of the nazi comparisons

The nazi's were an invading force, KSM and his clan of murderers were the invading forces. KSM and friends wanted to kill Americans, they still do today as does iSIS. Sorry but I want my government to protect Americans against these murdering scum.

Do you really think you stop people like ISIS by playing by rules? Do they follow the rules?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

48. Well perhaps if you did not keep acting as the Nazis did

Then people would stop comparing you to Nazis. Ever think of that?

I know, you think I'm naïve, insisting that American officials should obey the law, and, even worse, act morally. Well, if we act as the worst of our enemies do, then what makes us any different from them?

[Iamthetruth]

51. You're insulting

Maybe you should read up on what the nazi's actually did you would not accuse the United States of such things. Sure we have made mistakes and miscalculations but maybe I missed the part in our history where we tried to wipe out an entire religion.

[AnalystInParadise]

53. Weird

I never used that word, I never called anyone beneath me. But if they are not citizens then no, they do not receive the same protections as American citizens. That exists across the spectrum of reality. American citizens can vote, non Americans cannot vote. Americans can get U.S. passports, in most cases non Americans can't. And Americans are exempt (mostly) from enhanced interrogation. In many cases non Americans aren't. Like I said these things happened during my time in service under three Presidents, two from our party, and Shrub. You act like this is happening in some moral vacuum, this has been and remains standard policy for the military. I don't hate anyone that crossed my path, but if they are enemy, then I needed to break them and get what they knew.

[nilesobek]

50. I'm totally cool with that.

Its good reading some of your posts i as they are informative and talking with someone who has been on the inside is a big plus. I believe you have a high intellect.

Ya know though, we got plenty of bad guys in America, what makes you draw that particular line? Nationalism?

[AnalystInParadise]

54. My oath to the Constitution

I am not a Nationalist, don't really have time for it. But I took an oath (back when I was enlisted) and three Presidents (Bill Clinton, Shurb and President Obama) have all allowed our procedures to continue. Granted we had some scrutiny after Abu Ghraib, Bradley Manning, and now Snowden, but that just means we had to go back to the old days where we did a lot more of our stuff with enhanced security measures to not reveal to the public what we are doing. Kind of like the School of the Americas did for so many years.

I won't just say I was doing my job either, because that is a cop out, but I did what the law (as interpreted by the DOD) allowed us to do. It was not done in anger or hate, it was done because it needed to be done and we could do it. People want to warp it and make it this grand moral debate, it really isn't. We were told what we could and could not do, we did it. End of story.

[sarisataka]

55. Law of war

The oath says to obey all lawful orders- not just US law.

Being in an MP unit we too dealt with captives and even did some field interrogation. We never felt we had to hide what we were doing. Most useful information was gained in simple conversation with a few simple deceptions.

We did have "specialists" come for some interrogations. When they said we had to leave for the interrogation our answer was GFY. The prisoners were our responsibility and while they did not need to be coddled, we were going to be sure they were treated humanely.

To say you are following law as interpreted... and told what you can and cannot do is the "following orders" cop out. You must decide for yourself what is too much. Our unit did that as a whole and came to a consensus. We supported each other in our choices, from CO on down. We left knowing that we had nothing to be ashamed of, felt we had to hide and that our charges were taken care of legally and morally.

We also gained useful intelligence at the same time.

[AnalystInParadise]

56. Tomato, tomahtoe

And we gained useful intelligence our way. And were re-certified every year to continue our enhanced methods, so I wasn't following orders, I was doing what I was told I could do. If we were just following orders we would not have gone through the re-cert process every year with INSCOM and the 902nd MI. But we did, and I felt pretty good about the day to to day work we did. If the person delivered to us was on the list they got the enhanced. The only reason we felt the need to hide anything is because the public is dumb most of the time and doesn't understand. But I now have a job back at the school house teaching the best way to do this is the enhanced way, not the soft way, so I guess at the end of the day everyone is a winner.

I wonder if we were ever at the same places in Iraq? If you ever want to catch up or talk about the old good and bad times, just PM me.

[AnalystInParadise]

42. Contrary to Hollywood movies

The U.S. and especially the European nations use these methods a lot more than most third world nations.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

45. So I am correct

You shit on the law and on morality for expediency's sake. And you teach others to be just as big a monster (your word) as you are. You clearly have fought too long against dragons.

You are a progressive in the same way that Reinhold Heydrich was a progressive.

[AnalystInParadise]

52. Yeah....no Heydrich

committed war crimes against innocents. I am pretty certain everyone that crossed my path was a bad guy or girl. By the time they got to me, there were three or four or even five corroborating sources stating what a bad guy or girl we had on our hands.

You can keep trying to make me angry, but it won't work. I did what three Presidents (2 Democrats and a Republican) empowered me to do and I sleep very well at night knowing I broke no laws as they were written at those moments.

[NealK]

22. K&R

[blkmusclmachine]

23. MUST. LOOK. FORWARD.

Really, how is this any different than what the Nazis would have done???

[Enthusiast]

24. +1

[Enthusiast]

25. Nazis torture.

[bobthedrummer]

32. CIA's Denial of Protecting Nazis is Blatant Lie Pt1 by Hank P. Albarelli, Jr (12-7-10)

http://www.voltairenet.org/article167692.html

[Enthusiast]

33. Thanks.

I've bookmarked that page.

[BeyondGeography]

26. A 3,600-page report detailing interrogation techniques and abuses

Nice to see our democracy is still capable of working.

[SamKnause]

29. "We tortured some folks."

"We need to look forward not backwards."

Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Kissinger they are all heroes.

I can imagine all the great things that will be said about them when they die.

It is sickening.

[derby378]

36. Now, now - don't get all "sanctimonious"

If we point out that American interrogators used a Gestapo torture technique (true story), it'll make the current POTUS have a sad.

[nilesobek]

39. And that's what scared patriots do.

They torture your folks, er, I mean they tortured "some," folks.

When it comes to jumpy, frightened patriots you might as well lay down them law books 'cause their no damn good.

[Deadbeat Republicans]

49. And yet the propaganda continues.

Is there any other way they can bring up 9/11 just before the November election?

[deathrind]

57. Sad that we let ourselves fall so far due to fear...

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."

- Friedrich Nietzsche