AP Mobile: Internal CIA Report :Interogators threatenned to kill suspects children.

[ZoEd]

whether they were approved or not is also irrelevant. I mean, the goddam Final Solution was approved by nazi high command. (not comparing the two directly, but I hope you get my point).

have you ever been waterboarded? how can you claim something isn't torturous if you have never experienced it?

what you're describing sounds more like an average day in a nazi political prisoner camp or soviet russia, not the United States. we should not tolerate these tactics because they are barbaric, irregardless of whether they are torture or not.

I'm sure people smarter than you and I approved what is and isn't acceptable. Hey, I don't make the rules. Of course it would feel like torture to me, so did two a days in football. I was berated, beat on by ****s twice my size and made to run until I puked, I hope you can get my point.

Again, like I posted earlier, tell me what tactics we should use. Hey, habib if you tell me where the IED is I'll give you a snickers. Seriously, what tactics should be used? Why not make up an approved list of interrogation tactics and send them to the Pentagon for approval.

[skinfan133]

I'm sure people smarter than you and I approved what is and isn't acceptable. Hey, I don't make the rules. Of course it would feel like torture to me, so did two a days in football. I was berated, beat on by ****s twice my size and made to run until I puked, I hope you can get my point.

first off, don't assume just because someone is in a position of power that they are smarter. second, why would that even matter? If Einstein said something like "lava isn't a liquid" he would still be wrong. Waterboarding is torture. I can say that with 100% certainty. two a days is not torture. Turst me, i get your point, I've been through and broken out of the VMI ratline, I think that qualifies more as toruture than football practice ever would

Again, like I posted earlier, tell me what tactics we should use. Hey, habib if you tell me where the IED is I'll give you a snickers. Seriously, what tactics should be used? Why not make up an approved list of interrogation tactics and send them to the Pentagon for approval.

There are a set fo tactics and guidelines: It's called the Army Field Manual, and it has diligently served the United States Army and agencies with distinction from WWII all the way until Kosovo. It's worked extraordinarily well too.

[ljs]

Stay classy.

first get over your self righteousness. Have you seen the movie? Do you even get the reference? obviously not. I'm female, I've been through SERE training, including a nice lil stint playing POW. I'm no war hero, but I have a bit of personal experience perspective. And while I didn't get my face bashed in such as in said movie, I will say that physical "stuff" happened. We aren't supposed to discuss details,I leave it at that. And its really not a fair comparison, but then to see how we treat terrorist, or suspected terrorist in war- they got it easy.

so if our guys wanna throw a few lies out there to scare those pieces of crap into givin us info- then so be it.

[Larry]

That's your assertion. I assert that, the person being detained was detained for a reason, probable cause if you will, and that because of whatever the reason was, they were being interrogated. Until you can prove to me that there wasn't any probable cause I'm going to assert that there was.

Again, prove to me we just walked around the streets of Baghdad arresting innocents for the sake of arresting them, just so we could interrogate them. Because that's what your assertion is asserting.

Again, prove to me that you're not just making :pooh: up because you're terrified of facing reality, by making just one post that doesn't demand that I prove something that I didn't say.

[Lil Kenzo]

So your point is that, for example, what the North Vietnamese did to our POWs, you're OK with that?

In fact, if al Qaeda tortures someone to death on camera, that's OK with you, 'cause "it's war"?

It is what it is. Do I like the fact that innocent people, including women and children, are tortured and killed everyday over dumb reasons i will never understand??? NO.

However, its just the way it is. I'm a realist, and I hate the fact that things like this happen. Its a shame that this topic is even being discussed. Its a shame that the government we are supposed to believe in, and in some cases die for, threaten to kill the innocent just for some intel. It is a shame that there are so many heartless dirtbags out there who do these unspeakable acts. But IT IS WHAT IT IS.

Things like this happen everyday and now, what, its different because its out for the public to know. What makes us so much better then the people in those 3rd world countries who be-head people, hang people, shoot people and torture people.

There is no difference we just try to cover it up and be "classy" about it. Welcome to reality.

[Tarpon75]

It is what it is. Do I like the fact that innocent people, including women and children, are tortured and killed everyday over dumb reasons i will never understand??? NO.

However, its just the way it is. I'm a realist, and I hate the fact that things like this happen. Its a shame that this topic is even being discussed. Its a shame that the government we are supposed to believe in, and in some cases die for, threaten to kill the innocent just for some intel. It is a shame that there are so many heartless dirtbags out there who do these unspeakable acts. But IT IS WHAT IT IS.

Things like this happen everyday and now, what, its different because its out for the public to know. What makes us so much better then the people in those 3rd world countries who be-head people, hang people, shoot people and torture people.

There is no difference we just try to cover it up and be "classy" about it. Welcome to reality.

No,it's not reality.So you are saying that threats made by American interrogators to glean intelligence is comprable to be-heading,hanging,or shooting people?

[Smoot Point Really]

Who said anything about "freedom fighters?

My question is: Is it OK to threaten physical violence against a helpless victim?

And your answer is "Only if it's us doing the threatening"?

And you're throwing the dreaded "moral relativism" label at me?

on iPhone... This will be short.

1) no, not okay to threaten a helpless victim. But that isn't what happened. Interrogator said: if another attack happens, your children will die. It can be taken in so many ways. Besides, threatening a terrorist that his family will die isn't threatening a helpless victim.

2) does the label fit? I thought it was the guy responding to your question who said it was ok for terrorists to threaten Americans. It didn't really surprise me you chose that line of reasoning tho.

3) your answer was spelled out. Threatening any American citizen is bad. Please re-read your question and quit changing the question to suit whatever infantile nuance you want to use in your arguments. This wasn't the question you asked.

[kubstix]

Meh, nothing wrong with this IMO as long as the Barrack Bin Laden + associates stay out of it. I'm sick and tired of people complaining and crying for sympathy to these pieces of garbage. Are you going to be happy when another terrorist attack hits US Soil? Do you think any of the terrorists from 9/11 gave a damn about the mothers and fathers who died? I have no remorse for anything that happens to these pieces of **** nor their families. It's the price you pay for being a scumbag.

[jkypoo]

It is sad that so many people find mistreatment of these "detainees" acceptable and generalize them as "scum." These "detainees" have not been tried or found guilty of a crime. Some of them have been American citizens. Some of them are most likely innocent. Yet, it is fine because why? They look or speak different? They have a different religion? Why? Because some intelligence analyst somewhere came up with a name? Based on what? A stamp in a passport? A few words, maybe? These conclusions being drawn the same agencies that knew for a fact that WMDs were going to be found in Iraq?

Intelligence is not infallible. Of course, neither is a trial, but at least with a trial the burden of proof can be heard and a defense can be established.

Granted there are probably some vile individuals being detained, but the trade off has never been worth it. As Franklin said, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." The slope is very, very slippery.

As for other people who say, "So what" or "they deserve it" or "who cares about them," because our soldiers and civilians are being killed and taken hostage in a war, as if mistreatment begets mistreatment, that is reprehensible. First, to excuse our degradation by comparing it to the desperate and despicable acts committed by some of who we are at war with is to place yourself on a very low level. If we do not believe ourselves to be better, then what are we really fighting for? Second, I repeat, they are not criminals, war criminals, prisoners of war, or any other such denotation; they are detainees. Their is a large, large difference.

[Thiebear]

It amaizes me anybody can keep a straight face and claim these folks "are" terrorists. Why don't we call them folks who subscribed to the wrong magazine, Folks who walked down the wrong street one night, folks who had the wrong friends... Those are the folks we had in abu Grab....

You forgot to say something about gays.

JMS: You believe KSM read the wrong magazine and we Didnt' get relavent information from him that Leon Ponetta says we did?

Larry: Your on the personal attack firing squad?

your skipping entire paragraphs and just posting Crazyhorse one liners because people aren't seeing a double standard you see...

Edit: For the record i'm pro life everything.. but i have no issues with a little pain and suffering.

LIE to em... Hold their pretty lil wife right there in a one way mirror.. save thousands of lives...

I let the HIG do what the HIG do's

[Kilmer17]

I watched every news program I could last night and this morning and reached this conclusion.

Good for Obama. This is exactly what he said he would do. Now, I dont agree with ANY of it, but this makes a clear distinction for Americans to see. This administration will not do any harsh interogations. No one should be shocked, or outraged by this development. Elections have consequences. And this is what we elected.

On the flip side, in 15 months, the masses will have a chance to speak their minds again. And we'll see if people actually agree with his politics, or if they just loved him as a celebrity.

[Larry]

on iPhone... This will be short.

1) no, not okay to threaten a helpless victim. But that isn't what happened. Interrogator said: if another attack happens, your children will die. It can be taken in so many ways. Besides, threatening a terrorist that his family will die isn't threatening a helpless victim.

Because the children should have armed themselves, before we threatened to kill them?

2) does the label fit? I thought it was the guy responding to your question who said it was ok for terrorists to threaten Americans. It didn't really surprise me you chose that line of reasoning tho.

3) your answer was spelled out. Threatening any American citizen is bad. Please re-read your question and quit changing the question to suit whatever infantile nuance you want to use in your arguments. This wasn't the question you asked.

But Americans threatening other civilians, you're OK with that?

[sacase]

first off, don't assume just because someone is in a position of power that they are smarter. second, why would that even matter? If Einstein said something like "lava isn't a liquid" he would still be wrong. Waterboarding is torture. I can say that with 100% certainty. two a days is not torture. Turst me, i get your point, I've been through and broken out of the VMI ratline, I think that qualifies more as toruture than football practice ever would

There are a set fo tactics and guidelines: It's called the Army Field Manual, and it has diligently served the United States Army and agencies with distinction from WWII all the way until Kosovo. It's worked extraordinarily well too.

I know your a young hooah hooah, but your still just a cadet, your not a soldier just yet. FM 34-52 was revised in 2006. The previous edition was 1992. Prior to that is it was 1987. The manual has been through many changes. Additionally, There are other FM's and AR's that are classified that you do not have access to. Check the Appindix of FM 34-52 and you will see a listing of some of them. Additionally, other agencies have not followed the Army FM. CIA has its own set of regulations. DoD adopted the latest interation of FM 34-52 when it was revised and released in 2006.

[JMS]

Everybody is looking to far into this....ITS WAR! End of discussion.

:doh: unfortunately for your point, the administration said it wasn't war. You see we have 70 years of precident governing the treatement of POW's of war. Bush tried to make the case that these guys weren't POW's and weren't Criminals, but were something else outside of our law.

The Supreme court said, nice try. If they aren't POW's then they are criminals their is no third catagory which excludes them from any protections.

If this was war, we would be throwing half the Bush administration in the clink. As it is quite a few might end up there.

[JMS]

JMS: You believe KSM read the wrong magazine and we Didnt' get relavent information from him that Leon Ponetta says we did?

I believe we have "detained" tens of thousands of people; most of whom have been or will be released because their is no evidence against them. I believe the commander of forces in Iraq, Afghanistan when they called the abuses systemic. I believe the folks who advocated the torture policy broke US law and did much more harm to our national security than they helped. I believe those people should be jailed for the crimes they committed. I'm less critical of the actual interogators than I am of the Bush Policy people.

Edit: For the record i'm pro life everything.. but i have no issues with a little pain and suffering.

LIE to em... Hold their pretty lil wife right there in a one way mirror.. save thousands of lives...

I let the HIG do what the HIG do's

During a 2 year period 2003-2005 43 homicides were committed against detanees and nobody has ever been charged or convicted of those crimes in a sentence going beyond 5 months. How does that jibe with your "pro life everything" policy?

When you violate the laws you throw away all the protections for helpless people. A few might be like KSM who we waterboarded 183 times over a six weeks period. During which time his interogators asked to stop the torture because it wasn't giving them any results. To which the CIA higher ups told them they had to keep doing it. CIA higher ups who flew in to watch the torture sessions.... That's who you are defending here.

[JMS]

It's your right to do so, I think differently than you.

Unfortunately what you are advocating does break American Law and 60 years of Precident. The Geneva Convention is not arbitrary on what constitutes torture. We tried, convicted and executed Japanese officers who waterboarded/tortured our troops in WWII. Bush's enhanced interogation techniques do constitute torture... As stated by by every living Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of staff not appointed by George W. Bush. Likewise the Chairmen and 70 other flag grade officers and high ranking pentagon officials all said these policies violated the Geneva convention, and doing so makes our troops less secure not more secure.

[GoSkins561]

I honestly don't see what the problem is. There are hundreds of thousand Muslim terrorists, we have a few in custody. If the terrorist refuses to speak and threatening the lives of thier children will get them to talk, what is the big deal?

JMS, could you tell me why you defended the release of the 12 y/o that was throwing grenades at our soldiers and in this case the feelings of a terrorist??

From what I can see you are in a very small minority when it comes to issues such as these. Maybe I am not reading you correctly.

[JMS]

JMS, no one in their right mind would support torture. However, not all interrogation methods are torture. What you consider torture may differ from someone else. I for one support water boarding and stress positions, if done to me I would probably think it was torture. It would also be torture for me to be put in a confined place, especially with a spider since I'm not too fond of them.

Water boarding is tortue. We tried, convicted, and executed Japanese officers for this crime after WWII. Bush's other "enhanced" interogation technics are likewise torture. The Geneva Convention which is US LAW, is quite clear on this subject as is sixty years of legal precident.

That being said, if it takes waterboarding, stress positions, spiders or smack upside the head to get information that saves the lives of US servicemen and women then go for it.

Or incarsoration of tens of thousand of innocent people, more than 100 of which died in US custody. 43 from homicide, you're ok with that too? No professional military officer not directly accountable to GW Bush thinks this is a good policy. Least not any of the five living Chairmen of the Jooint Cheifs who were not appointed by Bush.

Of course we got some wrong. We probably interrogated many who knew nothing but I doubt we knowingly rounded up innocents for the sake of doing so jus so we could torture them. Intent is everything.

Intent is nothing. Reality is everything. Incompetence is no excuse here. Any reasonable person could have understook what would occur if you created large detention facilities which housed a huge array of different types of prisoners and then addopted a wide rangeing policy of abusing them.

[JMS]

JMS, could you tell me why you defended the release of the 12 y/o that was throwing grenades at our soldiers and in this case the feelings of a terrorist??

First off we didn't release a 12 year old. We captured him when he was twelve. We released him when he was 18. Six years latter.

Second off the 12 year old wasn't a terrorists. He was fighting US troops on a battlefield, not setting off car bombs in crouded city markets.

So what are you advocating? executing POW's? Executing folks who actually fight against our soldiers? Or are you just advocating the killing of the children Pow's?

From what I can see you are in a very small minority when it comes to issues such as these. Maybe I am not reading you correctly.

Yep, just me and every living Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of staff who wasn't appointed by Bush... 5 of them....

[Kosher Ham]

Only the strong survive.

I have no problem with making threats to get information.

If the intent was to carry the threat into a real scenario...

[JMS]

Define torture. Waterboarding? Stress positions? Sleep deprivation? Please elaborate?

All the above mentioned tactics were approved if I'm not mistaken.

Yep they were approved by Alberto "torture boy" Gonzoless who outlined a legal defense in the same memo he approved torture, in the eventuality which he stated was not slime, the administration officials were prosecuted for these acts....

For the purposes of this Convention, 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.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

Now you can sat these are wishy washy and Republican President Ford shouldn't have signed them.... Problem with that is this treaty was signed by the president and ratified by the senate and is binding US law, as all international treaties ratified and signed are. You can't just hand wave and make them go away.

Pretending to shoot someone in the cell next door? Empty threats? What is torture? You're right, no one deserves to be tortured. We should be above that. However, I don't think any of these tactics are torture.

Again tortue is not an arbitrary term. It has a legal definition. You can't change the definition of words in order to alter a ratified law which has precident behind it.

[Thiebear]

I believe we have "detained" tens of thousands of people; most of whom have been or will be released because their is no evidence against them. I believe the commander of forces in Iraq, Afghanistan when they called the abuses systemic. I believe the folks who advocated the torture policy broke US law and did much more harm to our national security than they helped. I believe those people should be jailed for the crimes they committed. I'm less critical of the actual interogators than I am of the Bush Policy people.

During a 2 year period 2003-2005 43 homicides were committed against detanees and nobody has ever been charged or convicted of those crimes in a sentence going beyond 5 months. How does that jibe with your "pro life everything" policy?

When you violate the laws you throw away all the protections for helpless people. A few might be like KSM who we waterboarded 183 times over a six weeks period. During which time his interogators asked to stop the torture because it wasn't giving them any results. To which the CIA higher ups told them they had to keep doing it. CIA higher ups who flew in to watch the torture sessions.... That's who you are defending here.

I said we should bring all that out and see it as opposed to this behind the scenes: You know they killed hundreds....

And the 183 was the amount of water.. he was waterboarded 5-8 times?

"The water was poured 183 times -- there were 183 pours," the official explained, adding that "each pour was a matter of seconds."

From Aug 23 2009 - Aug 25th 2009 i heard the HIG has killed 4 detainees in Gitmo.

(man this is easy)

[GoSkins561]

First off we didn't release a 12 year old. We captured him when he was twelve. We released him when he was 18. Six years latter.

Second off the 12 year old wasn't a terrorists. He was fighting US troops on a battlefield, not setting off car bombs in crouded city markets.

So what are you advocating? executing POW's? Executing folks who actually fight against our soldiers? Or are you just advocating the killing of the children Pow's?

Yep, just me and every living Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of staff who wasn't appointed by Bush... 5 of them....

The 12 year old was not fighting under any flag, he was fighting with insurants aka terrorists therefor he is not a POW. Threatening the lives of children and executing terrorists are completely different. In the future I would advocate taking fewer prisoners because at this point we have people like you that put the feelings of these Muslim whack jobs in front of the lives of innocent Americans. Pretty soon we are going to be required to put swimming pools and spas in prisons so the poor terrorists are comfortable.

Your opinion comes across as very biased to me, but hey, thats what makes this country great.

[JMS]

Again, prove to me we just walked around the streets of Baghdad arresting innocents for the sake of arresting them, just so we could interrogate them. Because that's what your assertion is asserting.

That's exactly what we did. Violate curfew they picked you up and threw you in Abu Ghraib... You were on the wrong street at the wrong time when a bomb went off, we picked you up and threw you in Abu Ghraib.... Shoplifted or disturbed the peace, the enlisted guy patroling a market thought you looked suspecious... Picked you up and sent you to Abu Graib.

The Military used that prison as a dumping ground for anybody who was an outlier. 90% of them were folks with no evidence against them.

Abu Ghraib Statement comes from and interview I heard with former General now Col. Janis Kapinski who was in charge of Abu Ghaib.

AMY GOODMAN: And these prisoners, I.C.R.C., what, estimates 90% of them weren’t charged. These were—they come from raids of homes, thousands of people just swooped up and brought in, according to whose command? Ultimately, who was responsible for that?

COL. JANIS KARPINSKI: Well, that would be under General Sanchez, because his division commanders in each area of responsibility were assigned specific individuals that were from their area of responsibility. For example, Tikrit, and that would be the division commander in that area, and they would identify the individual, they’d identify the location, and then it would be up to that division commander to put together a plan to go out and capture that individual.

AMY GOODMAN: So, 90% of the people at Abu Ghraib, though, not charged, brought in, just being held indefinitely.

COL. JANIS KARPINSKI: And I think it’s important to separate the category of detainees that we’re talking about. 90% of the security detainees, these so-called terrorists, associates of terrorists or individuals who may have information about terrorism, they are tagged as security detainees, and they’re the ones who are being subjected to interrogation.

The other part of the population is the Iraqi criminal population, small—small crimes, non-violent crimes, looting, missing curfew. We had an effective release policy in place with my signature to release these prisoners after they had served an appropriate amount of time. And even in those cases, probably 75% or 80% of those individuals didn’t have a piece of evidence in their file that would hold them or convict them in a U.S. court, but the security detainees, there was no release process—effective release process in place for them.

http://i3.democracynow.org/2005/10/26/col_janis_karpinski_the_former_head

As for what we did in Afghanistan..... It's even worse.. I can understand a grunt passing the buck and ultimately it leading to a disaster because of miscommunication and stupid policies. Grunts trying to do their job and not concerned with concequences or the big picture operating in a SNAFU environment... That's Abu Ghraib.... Afghanistan is much harder to explain cause the mistakes were made at a much higher level.

In afghanistan we put a bounty on all foreigners. We offered the equivelent of ten years of a typical afghan wages in exchange of any foreigner who the local afghans could capture... So they went out and raided aid convoys, and stopped buses and removed all the foreigners and passed them along to us....

That's how we captured, held, and tortured British aid workers for years down in Gitmo...... ( we also neted Australian, German and Italians and held them for years until their governemnts finally convinced Bush to let them go too. No evidence against them, no charges ever brought against them in their home countries. )...

But the best evidence seems to show that many of the people rounded up and dumped without formal charges into Guantánamo had nothing to do with terror. They just happened to be unfortunate enough to get caught in one of Uncle Sam's depressingly indiscriminate sweeps. Which is what happened to Shafiq Rasul, who was released from Guantánamo about a year ago. His story is instructive, and has not been told widely enough.

Mr. Rasul was one of three young men, all friends, from the British town of Tipton who were among thousands of people seized in Afghanistan in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001. They had been there, he said, to distribute food and medical supplies to impoverished Afghans.

The three were interviewed soon after their release by Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been in the forefront of efforts to secure legal representation for Guantanamo detainees.

Under extreme duress at Guantanamo, including hundreds of hours of interrogation and long periods of isolation, the three men confessed to having been in a terrorist training camp in AfghanistanThey also said they were among a number of men who could be seen in a videotape of Osama bin Laden.. The tape had been made in August 2000.

For the better part of two years, Mr. Rasul and his friends, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed, had denied involvement in any terror activity whatsoever. But Mr. Rasul said they eventually succumbed to long months of physical and psychological abuse. Mr. Rasul had been held in isolation for several weeks (his second sustained period of isolation) when an interrogator showed him the video of bin Laden. He said she told him: "I've put detainees here in isolation for 12 months and eventually they've broken. You might as well admit it now."

"I could not bear another day of isolation, let alone the prospect of another year," said Mr. Rasul. He confessed.

The three men, all British citizens, were saved by British intelligence officials, who proved that they had been in England when the video was shot, and during the time they were supposed to have been in Al Qaeda training camps. All three were returned to England, where they were released from custody. [ about five years after being captured ].

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D04EFDA1E3BF934A35751C0A9639C8B63

[skinfan133]

It is sad that so many people find mistreatment of these "detainees" acceptable and generalize them as "scum." These "detainees" have not been tried or found guilty of a crime. Some of them have been American citizens. Some of them are most likely innocent. Yet, it is fine because why? They look or speak different? They have a different religion? Why? Because some intelligence analyst somewhere came up with a name? Based on what? A stamp in a passport? A few words, maybe? These conclusions being drawn the same agencies that knew for a fact that WMDs were going to be found in Iraq?

I am against torture from a practical and moral standpoint, but I think you're becoming a little too wishy-washy here.