“We Did Some Things Contrary To Our Values”
Obama said today:
We tortured some folks ….
We did some things that were contrary to our values.
What does this mean? What is the big picture?
Initially, we applaud Obama admitting to this unsavory chapter in U.S. history. The government has denied for years that the U.S. tortures, even though we in the alternative media exposed the torture 10 years ago.
And it wasn’t just “some folks” we tortured. The torture was widespread and systemic.
And it wasn’t just bad guys who were tortured:
- The commander of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Janis Karpinski, estimates that 90% of detainees in the prison were innocent
- The number two man at the State Department under Colin Powell, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, says that many of those being held at Guantanamo Bay were innocent, and that top Bush administration officials knew that they were innocent
- U.S. military files show that many Guantánamo prisoners were held on the flimsiest grounds such as wearing a Casio watch, being a prisoner in a Taliban jail, driving cabs in certain geographic regions, or being Al Jazeera reporters
- Manystate that those tortured were mainly innocent farmers, villagers, or those against whom neighbors held a grudge. Indeed, people received a nice cash reward from the U.S. government for turning people in as “suspected terrorists” (and see this movie)
Torture INTERFERES With Our Ability to Fight Terrorism, Obtain Intelligence Information and protect National Security
We’ve repeatedly noted that virtually all of the top interrogation experts – both conservatives and liberals (except for those trying to escape war crimes prosecution) – say that torture doesn’t work:
- Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1 says:
“Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.”
- The C.I.A.’s 1963 interrogation manual stated:
Intense pain is quite likely to produce false confessions, concocted as a means of escaping from distress. A time-consuming delay results, while investigation is conducted and the admissions are proven untrue. During this respite the interrogatee can pull himself together. He may even use the time to think up new, more complex ‘admissions’ that take still longer to disprove.
- According to the Washington Post, the CIA’s top spy – Michael Sulick, head of the CIA’s National Clandestine Service – said that the spy agency has seen no fall-off in intelligence since waterboarding was banned by the Obama administration. “I don’t think we’ve suffered at all from an intelligence standpoint.”
- The CIA’s own Inspector General wrote that waterboarding was not “efficacious” in producing information
- A 30-year veteran of CIA’s operations directorate who rose to the most senior managerial ranks (Milton Bearden) says (as quoted by senior CIA agent and Presidential briefer Ray McGovern):
It is irresponsible for any administration not to tell a credible story that would convince critics at home and abroad that this torture has served some useful purpose.
***
The old hands overwhelmingly believe that torture doesn’t work ….
- A former high-level CIA officer (Philip Giraldi) states:
Many governments that have routinely tortured to obtain information have abandoned the practice when they discovered that other approaches actually worked better for extracting information. Israel prohibited torturing Palestinian terrorist suspects in 1999. Even the German Gestapo stopped torturing French resistance captives when it determined that treating prisoners well actually produced more and better intelligence.
- Another former high-level CIA official (Bob Baer) says:
And torture — I just don’t think it really works … you don’t get the truth. What happens when you torture people is, they figure out what you want to hear and they tell you.
- Michael Scheuer, formerly a senior CIA official in the Counter-Terrorism Center, says:
“I personally think that any information gotten through extreme methods of torture would probably be pretty useless because it would be someone telling you what you wanted to hear.”
- A retired C.I.A. officer who oversaw the interrogation of a high-level detainee in 2002 (Glenn L. Carle) says:
[Coercive techniques] didn’t provide useful, meaningful, trustworthy information…Everyone was deeply concerned and most felt it was un-American and did not work.”
- A former top Air Force interrogator who led the team that tracked down Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has conducted hundreds of interrogations of high ranking Al Qaida members and supervising more than one thousand, and wrote a book called How to Break a Terrorist writes:
As the senior interrogator in Iraq for a task force charged with hunting down Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the former Al Qaida leader and mass murderer, I listened time and time again to captured foreign fighters cite the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo as their main reason for coming to Iraq to fight. Consider that 90 percent of the suicide bombers in Iraq are these foreign fighters and you can easily conclude that we have lost hundreds, if not thousands, of American lives because of our policy of torture and abuse. But that’s only the past.Somewhere in the world there are other young Muslims who have joined Al Qaida because we tortured and abused prisoners. These men will certainly carry out future attacks against Americans, either in Iraq, Afghanistan, or possibly even here. And that’s not to mention numerous other Muslims who support Al Qaida, either financially or in other ways, because they are outraged that the United States tortured and abused Muslim prisoners.
In addition, torture and abuse has made us less safe because detainees are less likely to cooperate during interrogations if they don’t trust us. I know from having conducted hundreds of interrogations of high ranking Al Qaida members and supervising more than one thousand, that when a captured Al Qaida member sees us live up to our stated principles they are more willing to negotiate and cooperate with us. When we torture or abuse them, it hardens their resolve and reaffirms why they picked up arms.
He also says:
[Torture is] extremely ineffective, and it’s counter-productive to what we’re trying to accomplish.When we torture somebody, it hardens their resolve … The information that you get is unreliable. … And even if you do get reliable information, you’re able to stop a terrorist attack, al Qaeda’s then going to use the fact that we torture people to recruit new members.
And he repeats:
I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.
And:
They don’t want to talk about the long term consequences that cost the lives of Americans…. The way the U.S. treated its prisoners “was al-Qaeda’s number-one recruiting tool and brought in thousands of foreign fighters who killed American soldiers.
- The FBI interrogators who actually interviewed some of the 9/11 suspects say torture didn’t work
- Another FBI interrogator of 9/11 suspects said:
I was in the middle of this, and it’s not true that these [aggressive] techniques were effective
- A third former FBI interrogator — who interrogated Al Qaeda suspects — says categorically that torture does not help collect intelligence. On the other hand he says that torture actually turns people into terrorists
- A declassified FBI e-mail dated May 10, 2004, regarding interrogation at Guantanamo states “[we] explained to [the Department of Defense], FBI has been successful for many years obtaining confessions via non-confrontational interviewing techniques.” (see also this)
- The FBI warned military interrogators in 2003 that enhanced interrogation techniques are “of questionable effectiveness” and cited a “lack of evidence of [enhanced techniques’] success.
- “When long-time FBI director Mueller was asked whether any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through “enhanced techniques”, he responded “I don’t believe that has been the case.”
- The Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously found that torture doesn’t work, stating:
The administration’s policies concerning [torture] and the resulting controversies damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority.
- The military agency which actually provided advice on harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects warned the Pentagon in 2002 that those techniques would produce “unreliable information.”
- General Petraeus says that torture is unnecessary
- Retired 4-star General Barry McCaffrey – who Schwarzkopf called he hero of Desert Storm – agrees
- The number 2 terrorism expert for the State Department says torture doesn’t work, and just creates more terrorists.
- Former Navy Judge Advocate General Admiral John Hutson says:
Fundamentally, those kinds of techniques are ineffective. If the goal is to gain actionable intelligence, and it is, and if that’s important, and it is, then we have to use the techniques that are most effective. Torture is the technique of choice of the lazy, stupid and pseudo-tough.
He also says:
Another objection is that torture doesn’t work. All the literature and experts say that if we really want usable information, we should go exactly the opposite way and try to gain the trust and confidence of the prisoners.
- Army Colonel Stuart Herrington – a military intelligence specialist who interrogated generals under the command of Saddam Hussein and evaluated US detention operations at Guantánamo – notesthat the process of obtaining information is hampered, not helped, by practices such as “slapping someone in the face and stripping them naked”. Herrington and other former US military interrogators say:
We know from experience that it is very difficult to elicit information from a detainee who has been abused. The abuse often only strengthens their resolve and makes it that much harder for an interrogator to find a way to elicit useful information.
- Major General Thomas Romig, former Army JAG, said:
If you torture somebody, they’ll tell you anything. I don’t know anybody that is good at interrogation, has done it a lot, that will say that that’s an effective means of getting information. … So I don’t think it’s effective.
- Brigadier General David R. Irvine, retired Army Reserve strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner interrogation and military law for 18 years with the Sixth Army Intelligence School, says torture doesn’t work
- The first head of the Department of Homeland Security – Tom Ridge – says we were wrong to torture.
- The former British intelligence chairman says that waterboarding didn’t stop terror plots.
- A spokesman for the National Security Council (Tommy Vietor) says:
The bottom line is this: If we had some kind of smoking-gun intelligence from waterboarding in 2003, we would have taken out Osama bin Laden in 2003.
- The Marines weren’t keen on torture, either
- As Vanity Fair reports:
In researching this article, I spoke to numerous counterterrorist officials from agencies on both sides of the Atlantic. Their conclusion is unanimous: not only have coercive methods failed to generate significant and actionable intelligence, they have also caused the squandering of resources on a massive scale through false leads, chimerical plots, and unnecessary safety alerts…Here, they say, far from exposing a deadly plot, all torture did was lead to more torture of his supposed accomplices while also providing some misleading “information” that boosted the administration’s argument for invading Iraq.
- Neuroscientists have found that torture physically and chemically interferes with the prisoner’s ability to tell the truth
- An Army psychologist – Major Paul Burney, Army’s Behavior Science Consulting Team psychologist – said (page 78 & 83):
was stressed to me time and time again that psychological investigations have proven that harsh interrogations do not work. At best it will get you information that a prisoner thinks you want to hear to make the interrogation stop, but that information is strongly likely to be false.
***
Interrogation techniques that rely on physical or adverse consequences are likely to garner inaccurate information and create an increased level of resistance…There is no evidence that the level of fear or discomfort evoked by a given technique has any consistent correlation to the volume or quality of information obtained.
- An expert on resisting torture – Terrence Russell, JPRA’s manager for research and development and a SERE specialist – said (page 209):
History has shown us that physical pressures are not effective for compelling an individual to give information or to do something’ and are not effective for gaining accurate, actionable intelligence.
Indeed, it has been known for hundreds of years that torture doesn’t work:
- In the ancient Far East, torture was used as a way to intimidate the population into obedience (rather than a method for gaining information)
- As a former CIA analyst notes:
During the Inquisition there were many confessed witches, and many others were named by those tortured as other witches. Unsurprisingly, when these new claimed witches were tortured, they also confessed. Confirmation of some statement made under torture, when that confirmation is extracted by another case of torture, is invalid information and cannot be trusted.
- Top American World War 2 interrogators got more information using chess or Ping-Pong instead of torture than those who use torture are getting today
- The head of Britain’s wartime interrogation center in London said:
“Violence is taboo. Not only does it produce answers to please, but it lowers the standard of information.”
- The national security adviser to Vice President George H.W. Bush (Donald P. Gregg) wrote:
During wartime service with the CIA in Vietnam from 1970 to 1972, I was in charge of intelligence operations in the 10 provinces surrounding Saigon. One of my tasks was to prevent rocket attacks on Saigon’s port.Keeping Saigon safe required human intelligence, most often from captured prisoners. I had a running debate about how North Vietnamese prisoners should be treated with the South Vietnamese colonel who conducted interrogations. This colonel routinely tortured prisoners, producing a flood of information, much of it totally false. I argued for better treatment and pressed for key prisoners to be turned over to the CIA, where humane interrogation methods were the rule – and more accurate intelligence was the result.
The colonel finally relented and turned over a battered prisoner to me, saying, “This man knows a lot, but he will not talk to me.”
We treated the prisoner’s wounds, reunited him with his family, and allowed him to make his first visit to Saigon. Surprised by the city’s affluence, he said he would tell us anything we asked. The result was a flood of actionable intelligence that allowed us to disrupt planned operations, including rocket attacks against Saigon.
Admittedly, it would be hard to make a story from nearly 40 years ago into a definitive case study. But there is a useful reminder here. The key to successful interrogation is for the interrogator – even as he controls the situation – to recognize a prisoner’s humanity, to understand his culture, background and language. Torture makes this impossible.
There’s a sad twist here. Cheney forgets that the Bush administration followed this approach with some success. A high-value prisoner subjected to patient interrogation by an Arabic-speaking FBI agent yielded highly useful information, including the final word on Iraq’s weapons programs.
His name was Saddam Hussein.
- Top interrogators got information from a high-level Al Qaeda suspects through building rapport, even if they hated the person they were interrogating by treating them as human
Senator John McCain explains, based upon his own years of torture:
I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners sometimes produces good intelligence but often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear — true or false — if he believes it will relieve his suffering. Often, information provided to stop the torture is deliberately misleading.
According to the experts, torture is unnecessary even to prevent “ticking time bombs” from exploding (see this, this and this). Indeed, a top expert says that torture would fail in a real ‘ticking time-bomb’ situation. (And, no … it did NOT help get Bin Laden).
In fact, torture reduces our national security:
- The head of all U.S. intelligence said:
“The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world,” [Director of National Intelligence Dennis] Blair said in the statement. “The damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.”
- One of the top military interrogators said that torture by Americans of innocent Iraqis is the main reason that foreign fighters started fighting against Americans in Iraq in the first place (and see this).
- Former counter-terrorism czar Richard A. Clarke says that America’s indefinite detention without trial and abuse of prisoners is a leading Al Qaeda recruiting tool
- A former FBI interrogator — who interrogated Al Qaeda suspects — says categorically that torture actually turns people into terrorists
- A 30-year veteran of CIA’s operations directorate who rose to the most senior managerial ranks, says:
Torture creates more terrorists and fosters more acts of terror than it could possibly neutralize.
- A former US Air Force interrogator said that torture just creates more terrorists
- A former U.S. interrogator and counterintelligence agent, and Afghanistan veteran said, “Torture puts our troops in danger, torture makes our troops less safe, torture creates terrorists. It’s used so widely as a propaganda tool now in Afghanistan. All too often, detainees have pamphlets on them, depicting what happened at Guantanamo.”
- The Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously stated:
“The administration’s policies concerning [torture] and the resulting controversies … strengthened the hand of our enemies.”
- Two professors of political science have demonstrated that torture increases, rather than decreases, terrorism
- General Petraeus said that torture hurts our national security
- The reporter who broke Iran-Contra and other stories says that torture actually helped Al Qaeda, by giving false leads to the U.S. which diverted its military, intelligence and economic resources into wild goose chases
- Raw Story says that torture might have resulted in false terror alerts
- Hundreds of other experts have said the same things
U.S. Officials Launched a Systematic Program of Torture Using Specialized Techniques Which Produce False Confessions … to Justify the Iraq War
Not only did Bush, Cheney and other top government officials lie about us into the Iraq war by making a false linkage between Iraq and 9/11, but they carried out a systematic program of torture in order to intentionally create false evidence of that allegation.
Indeed, the entire purpose behind the U.S. torture program was to obtain false confessions.
And the torture techniques used were Communist techniques specifically designed to produce false confessions.
Senator Levin, in commenting on a Senate Armed Services Committee report on torture in 2009, dropped the following bombshell:
With last week’s release of the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinions, it is now widely known that Bush administration officials distorted Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape “SERE” training – a legitimate program used by the military to train our troops to resist abusive enemy interrogations – by authorizing abusive techniques from SERE for use in detainee interrogations. Those decisions conveyed the message that abusive treatment was appropriate for detainees in U.S. custody. They were also an affront to the values articulated by General Petraeus.
In SERE training, U.S. troops are briefly exposed, in a highly controlled setting, to abusive interrogation techniques used by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions. The techniques are based on tactics used by Chinese Communists against American soldiers during the Korean War for the purpose of eliciting false confessions for propaganda purposes. Techniques used in SERE training include stripping trainees of their clothing, placing them in stress positions, putting hoods over their heads, subjecting them to face and body slaps, depriving them of sleep, throwing them up against a wall, confining them in a small box, treating them like animals, subjecting them to loud music and flashing lights, and exposing them to extreme temperatures. Until recently, the Navy SERE school also used waterboarding. The purpose of the SERE program is to provide U.S. troops who might be captured a taste of the treatment they might face so that they might have a better chance of surviving captivity and resisting abusive and coercive interrogations.
Senator Levin then documents that SERE techniques were deployed as part of an official policy on detainees, and that SERE instructors helped to implement the interrogation programs. He noted:
The senior Army SERE psychologist warned in 2002 against using SERE training techniques during interrogations in an email to personnel at Guantanamo Bay, because:
[T]he use of physical pressures brings with it a large number of potential negative side effects… When individuals are gradually exposed to increasing levels of discomfort, it is more common for them to resist harder… If individuals are put under enough discomfort, i.e. pain, they will eventually do whatever it takes to stop the pain. This will increase the amount of information they tell the interrogator, but it does not mean the information is accurate. In fact, it usually decreases the reliability of the information because the person will say whatever he believes will stop the pain… Bottom line: the likelihood that the use of physical pressures will increase the delivery of accurate information from a detainee is very low. The likelihood that the use of physical pressures will increase the level of resistance in a detainee is very high… (p. 53).
McClatchy filled in some of the details:
Former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue said that Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld demanded that the interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration…
For most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there.”
It was during this period that CIA interrogators waterboarded two alleged top al Qaida detainees repeatedly — Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in March 2003 — according to a newly released Justice Department document…
When people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s people to push harder,” he continued.”Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn’t any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam . . .
A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under “pressure” to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.
“While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq,” Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. “The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results.”
“I think it’s obvious that the administration was scrambling then to try to find a connection, a link (between al Qaida and Iraq),” [Senator] Levin said in a conference call with reporters. “They made out links where they didn’t exist.”
Levin recalled Cheney’s assertions that a senior Iraqi intelligence officer had met Mohammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers, in the Czech Republic capital of Prague just months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The FBI and CIA found that no such meeting occurred.
In other words, top Bush administration officials not only knowingly lied about a non-existent connection between Al Qaida and Iraq, but they pushed and insisted that interrogators use special torture methods aimed at extracting false confessions to attempt to create such a false linkage.
The Washington Post reported the same year:
Despite what you’ve seen on TV, torture is really only good at one thing: eliciting false confessions. Indeed, Bush-era torture techniques, we now know, were cold-bloodedly modeled after methods used by Chinese Communists to extract confessions from captured U.S. servicemen that they could then use for propaganda during the Korean War.
So as shocking as the latest revelation in a new Senate Armed Services Committee report may be, it actually makes sense — in a nauseating way. The White House started pushing the use of torture not when faced with a “ticking time bomb” scenario from terrorists, but when officials in 2002 were desperately casting about for ways to tie Iraq to the 9/11 attacks — in order to strengthen their public case for invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 at all.
***
Gordon Trowbridge writes for the Detroit News: “Senior Bush administration officials pushed for the use of abusive interrogations of terrorism detainees in part to seek evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq, according to newly declassified information discovered in a congressional probe.
Indeed, one of the two senior instructors from the Air Force team which taught U.S. servicemen how to resist torture by foreign governments when used to extract false confessions has blown the whistle on the true purpose behind the U.S. torture program.
As Truth Out reported:
Jessen’s notes were provided to Truthout by retired Air Force Capt. Michael Kearns, a “master” SERE instructor and decorated veteran who has previously held high-ranking positions within the Air Force Headquarters Staff and Department of Defense (DoD).
Kearns and his boss, Roger Aldrich, the head of the Air Force Intelligence’s Special Survial Training Program (SSTP), based out of Fairchild Air Force Base in Spokane, Washington, hired Jessen in May 1989. Kearns, who was head of operations at SSTP and trained thousands of service members, said Jessen was brought into the program due to an increase in the number of new SERE courses being taught and “the fact that it required psychological expertise on hand in a full-time basis.”
Jessen, then the chief of Psychology Service at the US Air Force Survival School, immediately started to work directly with Kearns on “a new course for special mission units (SMUs), which had as its goal individual resistance to terrorist exploitation.”
The course, known as SV-91, was developed for the Survival Evasion Resistance Escape (SERE) branch of the US Air Force Intelligence Agency, which acted as the Executive Agent Action Office for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Jessen’s notes formed the basis for one part of SV-91, “Psychological Aspects of Detention.”
***
Kearns was one of only two officers within DoD qualified to teach all three SERE-related courses within SSTP on a worldwide basis, according to a copy of a 1989 letter written Aldrich, who nominated him officer of the year.
***
The Jessen notes clearly state the totality of what was being reverse-engineered – not just ‘enhanced interrogation techniques,’ but an entire program of exploitation of prisoners using torture as a central pillar,” he said. “What I think is important to note, as an ex-SERE Resistance to Interrogation instructor, is the focus of Jessen’s instruction. It is exploitation, not specifically interrogation. And this is not a picayune issue, because if one were to ‘reverse-engineer’ a course on resistance to exploitation then what one would get is a plan to exploit prisoners, not interrogate them. The CIA/DoD torture program appears to have the same goals as the terrorist organizations or enemy governments for which SV-91 and other SERE courses were created to defend against: the full exploitation of the prisoner in his intelligence, propaganda, or other needs held by the detaining power, such as the recruitment of informers and double agents. Those aspects of the US detainee program have not generally been discussed as part of the torture story in the American press.”
***
Jessen wrote that cooperation is the “end goal” of the detainer, who wants the detainee “to see that [the detainer] has ‘total’ control of you because you are completely dependent on him, and thus you must comply with his wishes. Therefore, it is absolutely inevitable that you must cooperate with him in some way (propaganda, special favors, confession, etc.).”
***
Kearns said, based on what he has read in declassified government documents and news reports about the role SERE played in the Bush administration’s torture program, Jessen clearly “reverse-engineered” his lesson plan and used resistance methods to abuse “war on terror” detainees.
So we have the two main Air Force insiders concerning the genesis of the torture program confirming – with original notes – that the whole purpose of the torture program was to extract false confessions.
And false confessions were, in fact, extracted.
For example:
- A humanitarian aid worker said: torture only stopped when I pretended I was in Al Qaeda
- Under torture, Libyan Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi falsely claimed there was a link between Saddam Hussein, al-Qaida and WMD
- President Bush mentioned Abu Zubaydah as a success story, where torture saved lives. Zubaydah was suspected of being a high-ranking al-Qaida leader. Bush administration officials claimed Zubaydah told them that al-Qaida had links with Saddam Hussein. He also claimed there was a plot to attack Washington with a “dirty bomb”. Both claims are now recognized to be false, even by the CIA, which also admits he was never a member of al-Qaida.
- One of the Main Sources for the 9/11 Commission Report was Tortured Until He Agreed to Sign a Confession that He Was NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO READ
- The so-called 9/11 mastermind said: “During … my interrogation I gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear” (the self-confessed 9/11 “mastermind” falsely confessed to crimes he didn’t commit)
And the 9/11 Commission Report was largely based on a third-hand account of what tortured detainees said, with two of the three parties in the communication being government employees. And the government went to great lengths to obstruct justice and hide unflattering facts from the Commission.
Torture Has Been Recognized As Terrorism for Thousands of Years
Moreover, torture has been recognize for thousands of years as a form of terrorism. Indeed, America’s newly-leaked criteria for putting people on the terror watchlist says torture is terror (page 47-48):
***
Torture Is a War Crime … Which Can STILL Be Prosecuted
Many argue that the statute of limitations on Bush and Cheney’s crimes of torture have all run … so it is too late to prosecute them.
However, the United States War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal statute set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2441, makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national, whether military or civilian, to violate the Geneva Convention by engaging in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment.
The statute applies not only to those who carry out the acts, but also to those who ORDER IT, know about it, or fail to take steps to stop it. The statute applies to everyone, no matter how high and mighty.
18 U.S.C. § 2441 has no statute of limitations, which means that a war crimes complaint can be filed at any time.
The penalty may be life imprisonment or — if a single prisoner dies due to torture — death. Given that there are numerous, documented cases of prisoners being tortured to death by U.S. soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan, that means that the death penalty would be appropriate for anyone found guilty of carrying out, ordering, or sanctioning such conduct.
Here’s a brief round-up showing that prisoners were injured – and killed – due to U.S. torture:
Waterboarding IS Torture
Not Just Waterboarding
Children, Too
People Died While Being Tortured
The ACLU wrote in 2005:
The American Civil Liberties Union today made public an analysis of new and previously released autopsy and death reports of detainees held in U.S. facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom died while being interrogated. The documents show that detainees were hooded, gagged, strangled, beaten with blunt objects, subjected to sleep deprivation and to hot and cold environmental conditions.
“There is no question that U.S. interrogations have resulted in deaths,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “High-ranking officials who knew about the torture and sat on their hands and those who created and endorsed these policies must be held accountable.
***
The documents released today include 44 autopsies and death reports as well as a summary of autopsy reports of individuals apprehended in Iraq and Afghanistan. The documents show that detainees died during or after interrogations by Navy Seals, Military Intelligence and “OGA” (Other Governmental Agency) — a term, according to the ACLU, that is commonly used to refer to the CIA.
According to the documents, 21 of the 44 deaths were homicides. Eight of the homicides appear to have resulted from abusive techniques used on detainees, in some instances, by the CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence personnel. The autopsy reports list deaths by “strangulation,” “asphyxiation” and “blunt force injuries.” An overwhelming majority of the so-called “natural deaths” were attributed to “Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.”
While newspapers have recently reported deaths of detainees in CIA custody, today’s documents show that the problem is pervasive, involving Navy Seals and Military Intelligence too.
Spiegel reported in 2009:
At least two men died during imprisonment. One of them, a 22-year-old taxi driver named Dilawar, was suspended by his hands from the ceiling for four days, during which US military personnel repeatedly beat his legs. Dilawar died on Dec. 10, 2002. In the autopsy report, a military doctor wrote that the tissue on his legs had basically been “pulpified.” As it happens, his interrogators had already known — and later testified — that there was no evidence against Dilawar …
And see this. And it is now clear that the CIA covered up murders at Guantanamo.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 limited the applicability of the War Crimes Act, but still made the following unlawful: torture, cruel or inhumane treatment, murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily harm, rape, sexual assault or abuse.
The Nuremberg Tribunal which convicted and sentenced Nazis leaders to death conceived of wars of aggression – i.e. wars not launched in self-defense – defined the following as “crimes against peace”, or war crimes:
- (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
- (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i)
The Tribunal considered wars of aggression to be the ultimate war crime, which encompassed all other crimes:
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
Judgment of October 1, 1946, International Military Tribunal Judgment and Sentence, 22 IMTTRIALS, supra note 7, at 498, reprinted in 41 AM. J. INT’LL. 172, 186 (1947).
Given that Iraq had no connection with 9/11 and possessed no weapons of mass destruction, the Iraq war was a crime of aggression and – under the standards by which Nazi leaders were convicted by the Nuremberg Tribunal – the American leaders who lied us into that war are guilty of war crimes.
Benjamin Ferencz, a former chief prosecutor for the Nuremberg Trials, declared:
A prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity — that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.
The Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court – Luis Moreno-Ocampo – told the Sunday Telegraph in 2007:
That he would be willing to launch an inquiry and could envisage a scenario in which the Prime Minister and American President George W Bush could one day face charges at The Hague. Luis Moreno-Ocampo urged Arab countries, particularly Iraq, to sign up to the court to enable allegations against the West to be pursued.
As a Japan Times Op/Ed noted in 2009:
In January 2003, a group of American law professors warned President George W. Bush that he and senior officials of his government could be prosecuted for war crimes if their military tactics violated international humanitarian law.
Eminent legal scholars such as former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clarke and Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law and a professor of law Lawrence Velvel have since stated that high-level Bush administration officials did commit war crimes in relation to the Iraq war.
Torture is – of course – a violation of the Geneva Conventions, which make it illegal to inflict mental or physical torture or inhuman treatment. It is clearly-established that waterboarding is torture. The torture was, in fact, systematic, and included widespread sexual humiliation, murder and other unambiguous forms of torture.
Velvel and many other legal experts say that the torture which was carried out after 9/11 is a war crime.
Colin Powell’s former chief of staff stated that Dick Cheney is guilty of war crimes for overseeing torture policies.
Matthew Alexander – a former top Air Force interrogator who led the team that tracked down Abu Musab al-Zarqawi – notes that government officials knew they are vulnerable for war crime prosecution:
They have, from the beginning, been trying to prevent an investigation into war crimes.
A Malaysian war crimes commission also found Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and five administration attorneys guilty of war crimes (although but the commission has no power to enforce its judgment).
Postscript: Torture is also apparently continuing under Obama. See this and this.
Torture works ... the problem is that it generates a lot of signal in some cases and a lot of noise in others, so the overall SNR is not so good and so the relative value of the intelligence gained is dubious at best.
The shadow gov needs jihadist, like a cop needs criminals. SNR has nothing to do with it, but nice try.
Here's the thing though Mr Washington.
Figuring it out will the US stop when it seems so hell bent on installing a global totalitarian control system to preserve the bankrupt economic system they control? Nope ... won't stop hence the droning of so many citizens and through continual use of such methods so more and more people will start despising the Americans. The mechanism is very similar to the EVER INCREASING RATHER BARBARIC ROMAN CIVILISATION OF CONQUEST.
Personally I thought Obama would possibly change this concept, reckon I was wrong! The pursuing of the same at an even faster pace and ALL TO PRESERVE IF ALL THAT WAS OWED WAS CALLED UPON TO BE PAID IN A BANKRUPT ECONOMIC SYSTEM.
So what asset would you turn all the trillions of dollars globally in for if it is not asset based?
Fresh air.
Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who made ending empire central.
Ron Paul is [sic] the only presidential candidate who made ending empire central.
Baloney. Ron Paul stopped being a true libertarian when he signed the Republican Party pledge to use their elected political office to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Gary Johnson was on the ballot in 48 states in 2012 as the Libertarian Party candidate for president.
In his stump speech, Johnson would always say that the two most important changes he'd make starting very first day in office would be bringing home our troops and ending the Fed.
As usual, an article all about covering up for the 'american' middle class.
It is intended to work on two levels:
- claiming that torture is an unusual way of doing, a one shot erring experience for 'americans'
-claiming that torture is against 'american' values
Once again, it is all about fabricating a fabled past. Torture is not unconventional for 'americans', 'americans' have been torturing since their inception. Examples in Haiti showed that they reached levels of torture that the Christians on the ground felt compelled to report (historically, Christians did not care about torture on pagans, their obsessions were to convert pagan people so they were saved)
As usual, 'americans' work in pair. Obama, the 'american' negro servant to the 'american' middle class, opened a door ("some folks") to be used: some folks, no, innocent people. Innocent people are a difficult concept that 'americans' enjoy because it blurs lines. From the former judicial question guilty/ non guilty that predominated in times before 'americanism', 'americans' have substituted the question guilty/innocent which is much, much harder to answer and serve the interests of the judging side. Since 'americans' are the judging side...
The phrasing itself is grotesque, "some folks", outrageous enough to serve as a bait. Which is completed in that 'american' propagandist article that goes lengthifully on that useless development, no, not some folks, but innocent people.
All this 'american' masquerade aims at one goal: hiding that torture is not against 'american' values. Torture has been part of 'american' values since the inception of 'americanism'
This is what 'americans' want to divert from. Once again, fabricating a fabled past, or how to introduce themselves as people who are usually right in their ways, but are straying from the path, are conscious of it and will try to get back on tracks.
Once again, it is about avoiding that 'americanism' is seen as it is.
Obama's scandalous take is not that "some folks", it is that claim that torture is against 'american' values. Torture is not. 'Americans' have been torturing for a long time now.
Once again, it is about avoiding that 'americanism' is seen as it is.
Nice to see someone else here using the term americanism, which i've posted about as being the national religion.
You might be interested in the writings of Harry E. Barnes, who did a very good job of explaining how national chauvinism is a necessary prerequisite to imperialism.
'Americanism' does not exist. 'Americans' on this site say that. Better to be prepared.
It's a shame you have to couch everything as being about 'Americans'.
We all suspect you are Chinese. The Chinese are not noted for their lack of torture, so, what you say tends to be dismissed as hypocrisy as you specifically apply your criticisms to 'Americans', ignoring the fact that such predations occur throughout history and across all ethnicities.
Which is a shame as occasionally you have something insightful to say, number 43 of the 'AnAnonymous' Chinabot collective.
'Americans' invented 'americanism', it was new.
Torture existed before 'americans' went out. But how many stated it was against their values? They took it as they were, they were torturers.
That constant duplicity, that permanent denial, that is an 'american' thing.
George winners are never charged with war crimes. I am laughing at the commenters that do not think ZH bashes Obama. They indeed must be new. I served in the armed forces and droning does indeed bother me. We are turning war into video games. I dislike war as I have seen first hand what it does to a person. Both in Vietnam and then Iraq. Droning should be illegal in my mind. You no longer have eyes on the ground to make sure no innocents are killed. Now we have these young men and women flying drones killing what they think are the enemy causing innocents to be slaughtered.
This is how the politicians and not the military want war to be like. Many military leaders and many you stated here George are against this type of warfare. Most are no longer in the military. Why? They got relieved of duty because they disagreed with the administration. Drones are now flying all over the USA and Americans could care less. How stupid can we be to allow this? Regardless of what you think of people like me and others who served most of us agree the killing of innocent civilians is indeed a crime.
Amazing that most comments in this thread gang up on GW and Powell and Cheney, but Obama - who has NOT closed Guantanamo and has continued the torture and bombing of weddings, IOW, he is just as bad - gets a pass from most of you.
Obama should be impeached and tried for war crimes. He drones people a little more, and tortures them a little less than Bush/Cheney (they're droned; so there's nothing left to torture).
They should ALL BE TRIED FOR WAR CRIMES ...
You must be new to ZH. Obama doesn't get a pass here. Nowhere close. Just can't pile up on him every minute. Watch this space...
When I posted that comment the thread was all Bush. No mention of Obama.
That's because Barry has continued, without significant changes, Shrub's policies. Look past appearances and rhetoric, and you see one unbroken chain of outrages. They're puppets of the same masters.
You're right!
O'Bama is GW Bush on 'roids.
After all, it's just a G-D piece of paper!
He kinda got the shitshow rollin
tl;dr
America sucks...blahbittyblahblahblah....
AMERICA doesn't suck. The lawless anti-Americans who have taken it over in the last couple of administrations - Dems and GOP alike - have destroyed the rule of law.
If the rule of law is restored, America will once again become a great nation.
That's a mighty big "if." In the mean time, I'm with Lady Liberty with the double facepalm sentiment.
Sorry GW, the rule of law cannot be restored to an immoral people. First we pay the piper, then we see if there is something left worth saving... Or perhaps the better way to put that is that we shall see if there is something left.
I shouldn't post late at night, it seems to make me a tad moribund...
Since it's Friday night (here in the U.S.), here are some STUNNING historical photos for ZH readers:
Stunning Photos of the Statue of Liberty Being Built in Paris
good work George, thanks,
Oh yes, more crude Arab propaganda from "George".
Typical Muslim stupidity, thinking that we will be fooled by the fact that he calls himself "George Washington"
News Flash: the Taliban are mostly Pashtun. Not Arabs. At least get the race right.
"George" is the Arab, not the Taliban. Which should be obvious from reading my post.
Since you're such an obvious troll, I should ignore you.
But here's a history lesson ...
Not trolling, just calling things like they are.
It's just tedious to see a Muslim propagandist posting under the under and all-American name. Why not use you real name, if you' re not ashamaed of it?
Thanks again George.
Colin Powell began his rise to fame when he helped them cover up the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam. They knew he was one of them.
Yup; got that right. Some apes use vines and tree limbs to make it to the top.
Others take the easier route with paper and pen (it was back in the 60's).
John Walker Lindh "The American Taliban" says he was tortured for a month
prior to his transport to the US.
"The court scheduled an evidence suppression hearing, at which Lindh would have been able to testify about the details of the torture to which he claimed he was subjected. The government faced the problem that a key piece of evidence – Lindh's confession – might be excluded from evidence as having been forced under duress (i.e. torture)."
Why you be hatin on Merka?
Look, if they really wanted to torture Johnny boy, they would have raked him over the coals for his tax returns for his time with the Taliban.
Hat Tip, George, for art by Dave Dees.
NEVER see his work mainstream but all over the 'Net.
More of his best
Dees Illustration Artwork - David Dees IllustrationI think that Banzai, Anthony Freda and David Dees are THE geniuses of modern political art.
In a sane world, their works would be hanging in the New York Metropolitan Museum, the Louvre, and the rest of the world's leading museums.
In addition, can anyone believe how PROLIFIC Banzai and Freda are? People are amazed at how much I write, but that's just abc's. Banzai pumps out numerous masterpieces EVERY DAY.
By the way, which of the images in my post are from Dees? I'd like to credit him.
Dees is great.
Brilliant ...
FYI:
(Anthony Freda)
Oh my, Billy B and GW in a circle jerk, film at 11.
At least nobody in Obama’s administration is justifying the shelling of civilians or barbaric stuff like that.
Just ignoring it and letting their friends in Ukraine get on with it.
First: God bless you George.
Second: Anyone who read blessed Michael Scheuer's book Marching Toward Hell might remember that Michael notes that occassionaly even MSM leak out, however briefly, little tid bits of unedited and unadulterated data. Such was the case a couple years ago in the afternoon NPR show. They interviewed a military college instructor of war law. He said, in plain language, there is no specific US law that the president can be charged with violating regardless how many innocent civilians he kills in act of war.
So much for the alleged "US moral high ground," an oxymoronic phrase that reminds of "middle east peace process."
"There is no specific US law that the president can be charged with violating regardless how many innocent civilians he kills in act of war."
No, but there is the common law offence of murder, the unlawful causation of death with intent to harm or cause grave bodily harm, or manslaughter, the unlawful casuation of death through recklessness or negligence. The laws of war are a funny thing, because the laws of war are enforced by the winners, and in absence of winners, by those who have enough introspection to realise that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
The commander of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Janis Karpinski, estimates that 90% of detainees in the prison were innocent
Ummm, didja manage to vet that there GW?
First, that's Salon.com
Second, after reading the story, you're little link should say, "Janis Karpinski a General with an ax to grind estimates". And I think it's worthy to note
"Karpinski never steps up and takes responsibility, in any way, for what happened at Abu Ghraib" Yea, General ax to grind thinks everyone everyone BUT her is responsible and that is NOT how the military works.
and then reading the story
1. It automatically conflates 35 people that had "no value" to an interrogator as innocent and erroneously detained. Got it? "No intel" = "innocent" to that nutter. Ummm, ok. So when we detained hundreds of thousands of Nazi's as POWs, and they couldn't give us intel, then we commited war crimes on a grand scale, no?
And here's how it determined that thousands more were innocent.
"So in two months’ time, the population at Abu Ghraib was 10 times more than what we had been holding when it was just a regular detention operation. That means that a huge percentage of people who were in the prison had no reason to be there. "
badda bing badda bang, innocent.
Sorry, I couldn't read further past a bull shit link that you didn't care about beyond trying to make a point.
I'm not going to vote you up, nor down, because there are pros and cons to your post. You're actually paying attention, following the links, reading them and thinking for yourself. This, I always assume of GW's posts, is what he hopes people will do. I see what you're saying in this particular case, but it doesn't negate the overall idea presented which is basically that a lot of people in Abu Ghraib shouldn't be there. That the 90% number is probably artificially inflated by one person with questionable analytical skills doesn't make it any less worthy of inclusion in a list of articles talking about the issue, IMHO.
At the end of the day, what should have happened here was pretty much the factual details you posted, presented in a way more like "Hey GW, thanks for tirelessly assembling and tying together all this information for us. One of your links, however, is of dubious value to your argument, and here's why I think so after reading it" or something to that effect.
tl;dr: why can't we all just get along? :P
PS: Why not look at it this way: As a result of reading that salon article, you now know the source of that not-really-credible 90% figure that someone in the future is likely to regurgitate. You can say "yeah, I read the bullshit article that number came from, and lemme tell you why it's wrong". Don't you feel more educated as a result? Isn't that why we're all here?
Thanks for playing, but:
of those being held at Guantanamo Bay were innocent, and that top Bush administration officials knew that they were innocent. Moreover, he said:
(see this and this). Indeed, Wilkerson signed a declaration under penalty of perjury stating that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld covered up the fact that hundreds of innocent men were sent to Guantanamo
because they feared that releasing them would harm the push for the war in Iraq and the broader war on terror.
This has been confirmed by the recent release of U.S. military files. As the Guardian reported:
The US military dossiers, obtained by the New York Times and the
Guardian, reveal how … many prisoners were flown to the Guantánamo cages and held captive for years on the flimsiest grounds, or on the basis of lurid confessions extracted by maltreatment.
The files depict a system often focused less on containing dangerous terrorists or enemy fighters, than on extracting intelligence. Among inmates who proved harmless were an 89-year-old Afghan villager, suffering from senile dementia, and a 14-year-old boy who had been an innocent kidnap victim.
Anyone who was affiliated with Pakistan’s national intelligence
service, or that had been held as a prisoner in a Taliban jail, or that wore a certain type of watch, was considered a terrorist:
US authorities listed the main Pakistani intelligence service, the
Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), as a terrorist
organisation alongside groups such as al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah and
Iranian intelligence.
Interrogators were told to regard links to any of these as an indication of terrorist or insurgent activity.
***
A number of British nationals and residents were held for years even though US authorities knew they were not Taliban or al-Qaida members. One Briton … was rendered to Guantánamo simply because he had been held in a Taliban prison and was thought to have knowledge of their interrogation techniques.
***
Another 17-page file, titled “GTMO matrix of threat indicators for
enemy combatants”, advises interrogators to look out for signs of
terrorist activity ranging from links to a number of mosques around the world, including two in London, to ownership of a particular model of Casio watch.
“The Casio was known to be given to the students at al-Qaida bombmaking training courses in Afghanistan,” it states.
Others were held because they led religious services or drove cabs in certain geographic regions, or because they were Al Jazeera reporters:
One man was transferred to the facility “because he was a mullah, who led prayers at Manu mosque in Kandahar province, Afghanistan … which placed him in a position to have special knowledge of the Taliban”.
***
Another prisoner was shipped to the base “because of his general
knowledge of activities in the areas of Khowst and Kabul based as a
result of his frequent travels through the region as a taxi driver”.
The files also reveal that an al-Jazeera journalist was held at
Guantánamo for six years, partly in order to be interrogated about the Arabic news network.
His dossier states that one of the reasons was “to provide
information on … the al-Jazeera news network’s training programme,
telecommunications equipment, and newsgathering operations in Chechnya, Kosovo and Afghanistan, including the network’s acquisition of a video of UBL [Osama bin Laden] and a subsequent interview with UBL”.
In addition:
Oh look, you've managed to backtrack. You magically went from 90% to "Many"
And once again, the 'philosophy' that no one gave a shit whether they were innocent or not, yeaaaaa, that still doesn't make em innocent.
Every one of em could have been innocent, and I'm sure some of them were, but your link did not make a credible case... Like you said, thanks for playing but I'm gonna have to regard your shit as ... well, shit.
Not backtracking, just evidence they're not centrally directed. Two different sources honestly presented instead of a PR 'message'.