First-person account of CIA torture survivor

[senojekips]

Spike

There have been many first hand accounts of CIA/ US Gov torture, sure. But does that mean it is true? These people will do anything it takes to destroy the United States. They ignite bombs among civilians, of whom are not even US citizens in order to dissolve our fortitude in the war. I believe that they would not hesitate to produce many "first hand accounts" of US torture in order to divide our unity even further.

There is always a possibility that some of these reports are false, but the simple fact that they all agree almost to the tiniest detail gives the very strong impression that there is a good basis in truth in these stories. This, when coupled with such things as Abu Ghraib, and the Government's tacit admission that they are using torture destroys our credibility in the eyes of the world. The last thing we need is to give our enemy any credibility.

Immediately following 9/11 we had the high moral ground, but due to the stupidity of our policy makers and the NeoCons, we have steadily lost ground ever since, to the point where there is possibly a good case for some of our people to be charged with war crimes. This sends a poor message to the rest of the world and aids our enemy.

I do not mean to say that I discredit all claims right off the bat, but surely blindly lending support to a claim that has no basis, one that could not stand up in court, makes no sense. There are hundreds of first hand accounts of UFOs and Elvis being alive too...

I'm sure that the people making these allegations would have a very good case in any independent court in the world, there's just too much supporting evidence and every time we choose to ignore it, the case against us gets worse. Sticking our heads in the sand will not make it go away.

I guess that makes me both a skeptic and naive. Fine. I believe that there is still a difference between the good and the bad. I believe the good will do what it can do morally to win this war and that the bad will go to any end, use any means including propoganda to win.

A skeptic perhaps, but not necessarily "naive", this is a personal judgement and as a patriotic citizen, no doubt you would like to see your country in the best possible light. This is highly understandable and commendable in itself, but you hit the nail on the head with that one word in your paragraph above, "morally". Otherwise we could end up in the unfortunate circumstance of having won the fight, but lost the war in the eyes of the world.

Perhaps my naivete is tied to my age. But I hope that through the years I am never proved wrong.

As I said, if I read you right I feel that you are not perhaps so naive as patriotic, also naive persons are generally the last people to realise it.

My views on this matter are also probably a part of my generation's experiences. Many of us of the Vietnam generation have very vivid and none too pleasant memories of the way we were manipulated by our respective Governments, only to be thrown to the wolves at the end, when we finally slunk out of the country with our tail between our legs. We have been treated as pariahs ever since, all due to the political aspirations of our respective governments. But that's another story.

I just don't want to see another generation of patriotic young men thrown on the scrap heap of history.

 

[Del Boy]

.' These people will do anything it takes to destroy the United States.'


This is the key to Spartacus posted position. And it is a good place to start.

The enemy know the history, they know the comparative psychologies of our peoples, and they consider that they will destroy us because they are more ruthless, more crafty, more streetwise, more murderous and more patient than we. They are banking on our weakness and our susceptibility to being branded with bad reputation. They know they can sap our spirit and break our resolve . And it seems to be working.

We cannot fight this battle with one hand tied behind our back. It surely is expected that all the inmates tales told proclaim the same story - I wonder why?

I am of the persuasion that those lifted and held are guilty klllers or wannabee guilty killers, and why should they be released until they are considered no longer a threat. Tough problems reuire tough solutions. With this enemy, the slightest weakness will be worked upon, and used to divide and destroy moral. We have never faced an enemy like this before.
Always remember - we are the victims here. Those who are determined to destroy us are merciless, and would love to continue to hack off our heads on television. We have just had a case of a woman terrorist who published poems of instruction as to how to hack off heads, in detail and with full description of the experience. For this and other terrorist supportive crimes she received a suspended sentence. On the other hand our lovely enemies demonstrated to demand the beheading of an elderly lady teacher of ours who innocently allowed her class of youngsters in Sudan to name a teddy bear Mohammed. But of course - our enemies are ALWAYS the victim.

Maybe I am sensitive because this is all so close to home here, our government collects terrorists from all over the world to show the world how tolerant and liberal we are.

World leaders in taking crap - Britain today.

 

[major liability]

I don't think anyone has a problem with these methods if the captives are actually terrorists. The problem is when they get people who aren't terrorists and torture them even though they know nothing. That's pretty scary.

 

[senojekips]

^^^You are right on the money there ML^^^

Our respective Government's lack of moral fortitude is what will turn the general populace of our countries against those who are out there at the sharp end, the troops will suffer the consequences of all this. Deja Vu.

 

[Del Boy]

I also agree with Major. Absolutely. So our governments do their best on this score, try to hold those who would do us harm and try to establish precisely what the suspects actually are. Not all of these have 'Terrorist ' tattooed on their foreheads. Strange that NONE of them are ever guilty and none show any remorse .It still appears to me that USA had good reason to lift these suspects in the first place. I feel that we are too quick to kick the **** out of the good guys. How many lives has Gitmo saved so far, I wonder.

I appreciate that these matters are a question of degree, and rightly so, and I remain to be convinced that this line has been crossed under the circumstances chosen and imposed upon us by those who are determined to destroy us.

On these scores I for one am not prepared to condemn my country or its armed forces for their performance and behaviour.

 

[Missileer]

I'm not a "bayonet the wounded" fan but if torturing an enemy would save hundreds or even thousands of lives, hand me the pliers.

 

[A Can of Man]

It does. I don't care what the politically correct say but this method has produced quality intel for over a thousand years for various sides.
But if questioning and interrogation are now no longer options, there really should be no need to take any prisoners. These people are not protected under the Geneva Convention and it's not like they were adhering to it anyway.

 

[senojekips]

I'm not a "bayonet the wounded" fan but if torturing an enemy would save hundreds or even thousands of lives, hand me the pliers.

That's the whole problem, we have known for 100 years or more, that information extracted under duress is virtually useless, as the person being tortured will tell his interrogators anything he thinks they wish to hear, just to escape the torture.

Christ,... I'd admit to the Rape of Nanking if I even thought they were going to apply a source of EMF to my wobbly bits.

Torture is an ill thought knee jerk reaction, used mainly because it gives a feeling of power to it's perpetrators, it helps allay their personal feelings of inadequacy in the face of their inability to do anything else of any real use. With reasoning such as this one can see why they say, "Military Intelligence" is an oxymoron.

 

[Del Boy]

Senojekips, I agree with you regarding real torture, of course. There can be nothing worse between men. When I talk of 'degee', I refer to the necessity to restrain and hold suspects who have put themselves up for suspicion of terrorist related crimes against others, and the right to interrogate under pressure those who are believed to be with-holding information which might save lives of innocents etc. and /or incriminate themselves.
They should not be allowed to roam free carelessly.

(Off the record, I am pleased to note that we have been able to build the pressure on yourself to the degree where you have finally coughed up to the rape of Nanking. I always suspected it was you!)

 

[MontyB]

I don't think anyone has a problem with these methods if the captives are actually terrorists. The problem is when they get people who aren't terrorists and torture them even though they know nothing. That's pretty scary.

I agree completely however it is unfortunately a point that is continually being side stepped by cyclic arguments such as:

- We lock up captured terrorists.
- They are locked up therefore they are terrorists.
- They must be terrorists or they wouldn't be locked up.

Essentially its assuming guilt based on the position of being arrested.

That's the whole problem, we have known for 100 years or more, that information extracted under duress is virtually useless, as the person being tortured will tell his interrogators anything he thinks they wish to hear, just to escape the torture.

Christ,... I'd admit to the Rape of Nanking if I even thought they were going to apply a source of EMF to my wobbly bits.

Torture is an ill thought knee jerk reaction, used mainly because it gives a feeling of power to it's perpetrators, it helps allay their personal feelings of inadequacy in the face of their inability to do anything else of any real use. With reasoning such as this one can see why they say, "Military Intelligence" is an oxymoron.

Very accurate breakdown although I would suggest that it is more than just a feeling of power it is also a political tool to ensure people believe you are achieving success.
ie. Prisoner X says they are going to blow up building Y to avoid being half drowned or electrocuted, government agency justifies actions by saying they have prevented an attack on "a building" saving lives.

 

[Del Boy]

-

Alternatives:-

We do not lock up captured terrorists.

They are not locked up therefore they are not terrorists.

We never discover whether they are terrorists or not.

Terrorists are free to go off and spread their havoc among the innocents, even tho' the circumstances of their arrest pointed to terrorist activities, which have been left uninvestigated.


I would rather we bothered to investigate and did not stick our heads in the sands and neglect our responsibilities.


--------------------
Give me liberty or give me death.

 

[MontyB]

-

Alternatives:-

We do not lock up captured terrorists.

They are not locked up therefore they are not terrorists.

We never discover whether they are terrorists or not.

Terrorists are free to go off and spread their havoc among the innocents, even tho' the circumstances of their arrest pointed to terrorist activities, which have been left uninvestigated.


I would rather we bothered to investigate and did not stick our heads in the sands and neglect our responsibilities.


--------------------
Give me liberty or give me death.

Or how about:
1) - Arrest "Suspects"
2) - Investigate.
3) - Release those who are not terrorists.
4) - Do what you like to those that are.

The parts that appear to be missing in this process are 2 and 3 as there appears a great desire to jump from 1 to 4 based on the cyclic thought patterns I mentioned above.
If parts 1-3 are open to scrutiny and above board I (and I suspect most people will feel the same) don't care what they do as part 4.

 

[Del Boy]

Yes - I agree, with a qualification of 4 being within reason.
And aren't 1-3 basically the aims of their detention as we have it ?

 

[MontyB]

Yes - I agree, with a qualification of 4 being within reason.
And aren't 1-3 basically the aims of their detention as we have it ?

I don't think 4 needs to be within reason, if they need to they should be allowed to make terrorists watch "The View" 24/7.

As for 1-3 it may be the aim but it is clearly failing and being kept far to "secret" to be convincing.
I believe they need to be more open to audit with steps 1-3, I have never been a huge fan of "we are holding them on unspecified charges" type arguments as it is both open to abuse and claims of abuse both of which are damaging.

 

[Spartacus]

Or how about:
1) - Arrest "Suspects"
2) - Investigate.
3) - Release those who are not terrorists.
4) - Do what you like to those that are.

The parts that appear to be missing in this process are 2 and 3 as there appears a great desire to jump from 1 to 4 based on the cyclic thought patterns I mentioned above.
If parts 1-3 are open to scrutiny and above board I (and I suspect most people will feel the same) don't care what they do as part 4.

The fact that 1 and 4 are the only processes you see does not mean they do not take place. As one who has worked with investigators, there are many different aspects to investigation, some highly visible and many more subtle and elusive to the untrained eye. Place that within a highly sensitive and classified environment and you come up with the feeling that steps 2 & 3 were ignored for the sake of expediency when in reality they were not revealed to those who did not need to know.

I believe that the US government would have no reason to simply grab people off the street and interrogate them for 19 months. They would in fact have better uses for their manpower and facilities.

I agree completely however it is unfortunately a point that is continually being side stepped by cyclic arguments such as:

- We lock up captured terrorists.
- They are locked up therefore they are terrorists.
- They must be terrorists or they wouldn't be locked up.

Essentially its assuming guilt based on the position of being arrested.

I agree that such a mindset is wrong and counterproductive to the justice system. Fortunately in America, judges and jurys are held to make an objective decision based solely on the facts within the parameters of the charge and its circumstances. That is a very verbose way of saying innocent until proven guilty.

In reality, it doesnt matter if you or I think these people are guilty or not, any more than whether we believe that Scott Pederson or O.J. Simpson are guilty or not. We didnt sit in court, nor did we tag along with the investigators during the course of the investigation. We do not know the facts.

There are many different agencies that monitor investigative techniques and such, and their efforts have stepped up particularly after Abu Ghraib. These people DO have access to this information and would be better suited to calling foul play.

There is always a possibility that some of these reports are false, but the simple fact that they all agree almost to the tiniest detail gives the very strong impression that there is a good basis in truth in these stories. This, when coupled with such things as Abu Ghraib, and the Government's tacit admission that they are using torture destroys our credibility in the eyes of the world. The last thing we need is to give our enemy any credibility.

We differ slightly here. When I see so many stories with almost 100% exact match, I do not lend them support based on strength in numbers. I do a 180 and offer the suggestion that in fact repeated allegations are merely carbon copied reports. It would take far more effort to conjure up a 1000 stories about how the CIA tortured Mr. X Y and Z rather than come up with one story and apply it to the same men. Not only that, even teenagers know that if they can get another person to back their story it becomes that much more believable.

On a side note, the events at Abu Ghraib were not engineered to extract any information, in fact they were designed solely to humiliate thier victims.

I'm sure that the people making these allegations would have a very good case in any independent court in the world, there's just too much supporting evidence and every time we choose to ignore it, the case against us gets worse. Sticking our heads in the sand will not make it go away

I am curious as to what an "independent" court is. Not tied to political ideals? Now, I have never been to a court outside the country so I dont know if they do things differently or how the word independent would come into play, but from my experience in the judicial system in America the courts are very free of exterior political pressures. Granted my experience is on a completely different echelon, but I would expect the standards to remain. One could argue that a judge could be a "yes man" in order to seek nominations, but then again it takes years to become a judge, and years more to get to the point where they could influence a case such as this. Each one of those years is spent defending the constitution and all that goes with it, good and bad. Judges dont make a decision off the constitution and their subjective opinion. Instead, they make a decision based off the interpretation of the law and the objective facts. I have seen several criminals of whom all parties involved could smell the guilt radiating off them, yet were found not guilty because the facts simply could not add up to beyond reasonable doubt.

I am glad you compared this to your generations experiences with Vietnam. It does add some food for thought.

I believe the good will do what it can do morally to win this war and that the bad will go to any end, use any means including propoganda to win.

I did not say that all good people fell on our side and all bad fell on theirs. I realize, as brought to light with PVT Green and Abu Ghraib, there are bad people on both sides. I believe there are far more good than bad on our side, but I do not decieve myself into believing everyone on our side will do what is right.

A skeptic perhaps, but not necessarily "naive", this is a personal judgement and as a patriotic citizen, no doubt you would like to see your country in the best possible light. This is highly understandable and commendable in itself, but you hit the nail on the head with that one word in your paragraph above, "morally". Otherwise we could end up in the unfortunate circumstance of having won the fight, but lost the war in the eyes of the world

Honestly, I do not believe we can win these wars in the eyes of the world. I think there will always be someone who is decieved by people like Al-Zhawari and his kind. There will always be people who spread anger and hatred and lies to seed more anger and hatred and lies. Not to mention their religious/legal system that can be used to demand repayment for shed blood, regardless of guilt or innocence. This does not mean that I support throwing in the towel and saying "f**k it, kill them all" not by any means. All we can do is what is right. End of story.

Leading that back into the topic, I dont feel the need to bend over backward to avoid losing the war in the eyes of the world nor do I feel the need to hastily make decisions about a series of reported interrogations. Surely there are others within our government who are sincere about doing what is right and who will not allow less than moral techniques be applied, and should they be, not withhold them. Marines have taken a stand when others betrayed the moral code, Soldiers have done it when other Soldiers broke the law. I see both bad and good, but I do see enough good to keep our government in check from the inside and not from our enemies.

Hollywood is a beast unto itself, but sometimes it does release movies that I think carry valuable lessons. Rules of Engagement and The Kingdom are two movies that tie well into this topic.

 

[MontyB]

The fact that 1 and 4 are the only processes you see does not mean they do not take place. As one who has worked with investigators, there are many different aspects to investigation, some highly visible and many more subtle and elusive to the untrained eye. Place that within a highly sensitive and classified environment and you come up with the feeling that steps 2 & 3 were ignored for the sake of expediency when in reality they were not revealed to those who did not need to know.

I believe that the US government would have no reason to simply grab people off the street and interrogate them for 19 months. They would in fact have better uses for their manpower and facilities.

I agree but it is the greatest problem you face as secrecy has created the perception that points 2 and 3 are being over looked and that is just as bad in terms of the morale of those not in the know especially when you add this to the few cases of innocent people being locked up.

I tend to believe that people begin to believe the worst in the absence of any other information hence my argument that this process needs to be more open.

Like it or not you are losing this war at home and in much the same way Vietnam was lost, the guys on the ground are doing their job but the political way in which it is being handled is losing the support of the people at home.

 

[WNxRogue]

It seems to me that the issue on this debate is not that we are torturing people, but that we are not giving them some sort of criminal investigation before we do.

I look at it this way. A seriel killer that killed 33 people is captured. He gets tried by a jury of his peers, with due process. Is he better then a "suspected" terrorist? Why does he get tried in a matter of weeks, whereas a terrorist suspect takes 19 months before anyone even NOTICES that he isnt really a terrorist?

We lower the moral standerds of our own nation by not giving these people some process. If they are found guilty, then let them be tortured, executed, whatever. But we cant allow ourselves to say that for the betterment of our nation we wont attempt to ascertain their guilt. We CAN NOT allow a man to be tortured for 19 months without actually attempting to ascertain his guilt.



Edit - Completely unrelated, but I just noticed that Del Boy has 999 posts. Gratz on your first 1000 Del =D

 

[major liability]

It seems to me that the issue on this debate is not that we are torturing people, but that we are not giving them some sort of criminal investigation before we do.

I look at it this way. A seriel killer that killed 33 people is captured. He gets tried by a jury of his peers, with due process. Is he better then a "suspected" terrorist? Why does he get tried in a matter of weeks, whereas a terrorist suspect takes 19 months before anyone even NOTICES that he isnt really a terrorist?

We lower the moral standerds of our own nation by not giving these people some process. If they are found guilty, then let them be tortured, executed, whatever. But we cant allow ourselves to say that for the betterment of our nation we wont attempt to assertain their guilt. We cant allow a man to be tortured for 19 months without actually attempting to ascertain his guilt.

This is pretty much exactly what I meant.

 

[Spartacus]

It seems to me that the issue on this debate is not that we are torturing people, but that we are not giving them some sort of criminal investigation before we do.

I look at it this way. A seriel killer that killed 33 people is captured. He gets tried by a jury of his peers, with due process. Is he better then a "suspected" terrorist? Why does he get tried in a matter of weeks, whereas a terrorist suspect takes 19 months before anyone even NOTICES that he isnt really a terrorist?

We lower the moral standerds of our own nation by not giving these people some process. If they are found guilty, then let them be tortured, executed, whatever. But we cant allow ourselves to say that for the betterment of our nation we wont attempt to ascertain their guilt. We CAN NOT allow a man to be tortured for 19 months without actually attempting to ascertain his guilt.



Edit - Completely unrelated, but I just noticed that Del Boy has 999 posts. Gratz on your first 1000 Del =D

I agree... with the minor note that a serial killer would not be rushed through the courts in a matter of weeks. There is investigation prior to an arrest, evidence brought before a grand jury to ascertain if there is enough evidence to charge the individual, then the suspect is arrested and charged, then more investigation continues on both sides. The bigger the crime the more time allotted for investigation and the more lenient the judge will be in allowing extension deals. Then, during the post arrest investigation you have bail, arraignment, OMHD, motion to exclude, motion to include, motion to preserve and a million and a half other motions and legal manuevers that require separate hearings. On top of that a good lawyer can then turn around and claim foul play and violation of habeus corpus due process rights. I would say that for a case as important and of such great nation security as ascertaining terrorism/innocence 19 months would be quick, maybe not to the individual but to the system.

But we cant allow ourselves to say that for the betterment of our nation we wont attempt to ascertain their guilt. We CAN NOT allow a man to be tortured for 19 months without actually attempting to ascertain his guilt.

Are you saying that you believe the CIA picked this man up, threw him in a cell and tortured him without doing any investigative work to determine his guilt or innocence?

I believe the CIA has better things to do with its time and our money than pick up random people and blast them with white noise, simply because they felt like it.

I have a hard enough time believing that this man exists, let alone that his story is true. Furthermore, what was described in this extremely vague account sounds uncomfortable, not torture. On top of that, even if all factors above were true and it was indeed torture, I hardly think it is indicitave of how the Coalition, the United States, the Military, or the CIA conducts all of its interrogations.

I feel like we are quick to jump on the bandwagon to prevent any Abu Ghraib-like repeats. The only problem is that our enemies know that this topic is a fissure-point for our society and I have no doubt they seek to drive a wedge into this weak point. Just because Solon.net (which is actually the base site) puts this information out does not make it true.

Let me say this. I do not condone torture under this definition:
"The act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty."
Dictionary.com

I do not condone that type of torture on a moral reason. I do not condone torture such as Abu Ghraib for grounds of yes moral, but more realistically for reasons concerning its efficacy. Interrogation is supposed to remove captives from their comfort zone and create a reason for them to share the sensitive information they hold. In my opinion sleep deprivation and continuous white noise sound like they place the subjects in an uncomfortable environment in which they seek to trade their information for comfort. If you call that torture, than I condone that. Would I condone it for 19 months? Well, I would go back to its efficacy. Why would a captive reveal something after 12 months that he wouldnt have revealed after 6? If you dont get something in the first 60 days, I highly doubt you will get anything and by then it is probably useless.

Common sense is huge here. Think if you were in the CIA, how would you run things? Would you really hold someone for 19 months? Could they have anything to offer you after 4? Things like that make this story sound engineered to me.

 

[WNxRogue]

Are you saying that you believe the CIA picked this man up, threw him in a cell and tortured him without doing any investigative work to determine his guilt or innocence?

If they did do investigative work, then obviously it was seriously flawed. Unless you are suggesting that he was in fact a terrorist who they chose to release anyway? If that is true then there is an even larger problem then torture, the CIA is allowing terrorists to go free.

I believe the CIA has better things to do with its time and our money than pick up random people and blast them with white noise, simply because they felt like it.

Perhaps. Though with an investigation before hand, perhaps they wouldnt have needed to blast him with white noise for 19 months. So in fact, a little investigation may be a money saver.

I have a hard enough time believing that this man exists, let alone that his story is true. Furthermore, what was described in this extremely vague account sounds uncomfortable, not torture. On top of that, even if all factors above were true and it was indeed torture, I hardly think it is indicitave of how the Coalition, the United States, the Military, or the CIA conducts all of its interrogations.

Even if this isnt "indicitive" of how the government conducts interrogations, it should still never have done its interrogations and prior investigations in this way in any case. This argument is like saying just because a man doesnt commit murder every day of his life, we should ignore the days he does. Also, im going to assume his "vague account" is due to the fact this is a current case, and id hardly expect them to release his entire recording before it begins.

I feel like we are quick to jump on the bandwagon to prevent any Abu Ghraib-like repeats. The only problem is that our enemies know that this topic is a fissure-point for our society and I have no doubt they seek to drive a wedge into this weak point. Just because Solon.net (which is actually the base site) puts this information out does not make it true.

This is a documented case however, and this testimony is real. And id very much doubt that every website reporting any such cases are going to be terrorist organizations plotting to try to drive a wedge between us and our government.

Let me say this. I do not condone torture under this definition:
"The act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty."
Dictionary.com

Under this definition, you condone no torture. Since "pain" is a very lose term which could include mental, physical or emotional pain.

I do not condone that type of torture on a moral reason. I do not condone torture such as Abu Ghraib for grounds of yes moral, but more realistically for reasons concerning its efficacy. Interrogation is supposed to remove captives from their comfort zone and create a reason for them to share the sensitive information they hold. In my opinion sleep deprivation and continuous white noise sound like they place the subjects in an uncomfortable environment in which they seek to trade their information for comfort. If you call that torture, than I condone that. Would I condone it for 19 months? Well, I would go back to its efficacy. Why would a captive reveal something after 12 months that he wouldnt have revealed after 6? If you dont get something in the first 60 days, I highly doubt you will get anything and by then it is probably useless.

I think the argument here kind of ties back to the above paragraph. Im not sure if you know this, but inprisonment for a long period of time can have a catastrophic effect on a person's psyche. The amount of emotional and mental strain it can put on a person goes well beyond physical pain.

Common sense is huge here. Think if you were in the CIA, how would you run things? Would you really hold someone for 19 months? Could they have anything to offer you after 4? Things like that make this story sound engineered to me.

There is no way to awnser this. How I would run the CIA is immaterial. The CIA is as much a bureaucracy as every other government agency. I find it more probable that this man litterally "slipped through the cracks" of the CIA. As for this story being "engineered" - It is a real case. His statement is real. He is going through psyciatric help. So obviously, if it is being engineered, we are dealing with a massive "plot" way too large considering the potential gain.