First-person account of CIA torture survivor

I don't think anyone here argues against an investigation to separate terrorists from those wrongly grabbed.
It appears not enough was done to make such investigations or trials take place or if they did, certainly not enough was done to make sure everyone knew that such a process exists.
Turns out a lot of those being released from Gitmo are being re-arrested in Europe so it appears that also the protestors of the detainment were wrong in that these were not all captured for no reason whatsoever. Even those who are being released are in fact wanted by other countries other than the United States. But now it's too controversial to put them behind bars that they're being convicted and let loose.
 
It seems to me that democracy is in good hands while you guys are around. I am happy to stand back and watch from the side-lines. I am trying to follow carefully tho'.
 
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.
Your point would be quite valid except for one stumbling block, these persons would have needed to be able to get together to fabricate their stories. However the fact that they have been in almost total isolation for many years would preclude any possibility of this. If as you say you have been involved in investigative work you would also realize that collusion is very hard to get away with and can be easily pulled apart by a halfway trained investigator, and the more persons that are involved the easier it is to do.

But, in most cases;

(1) These persons had little or no prior contact with one another. This being the case to prevent them fabricating their stories for the interrogators which is the whole point of Gitmo.

(2) They have been expatriated to many different countries direct from Gitmo, giving them no chance to "cook up" a story.

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.
This was merely quoted to give an example of how our poor strategies and management of prisoners is aiding and abetting the cause of our enemies. However,.... more than one of those involved, stated that they had been told to "rough up" the prisoners to help break them in preparation for interrogation. So in fact it was designed to help extract information.

I am curious as to what an "independent" court is.
I would classify any court held in a country that has no vested interest in the accused other than from a legal point of view. e.g. The International Court in The Hague. The outcomes in this court have no connection to the selection of judges, except in the case that perhaps the Judge might be considered to have a vested interest in which case the case would not proceed with him/her.

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.
I would say that any court in the USA would be clearly seen as having a vested interest and would be excluded even if only to make sure that the judgment was totally transparent in the eyes of the world.
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 don't 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.
Yes, you may well be right, but on the other hand, look at the number of people who have been convicted and in some cases served long sentences who are now being freed as a result of DNA evidence. Innocent men have been executed in some cases, often because of evidence which has been "enhanced" by overzealous investigators who "knew" they were right. Unfortunately our courts have not been perfect and there will always be incorrect judgments. I find it hard to believe that any person accused of "Terrorism" would be given a fair trial in the USA. "The meat is too close to the bone" as we say here. That is not to say that the courts are corrupt, but I would say that it is far more likely that an investigator might overstep his good judgment in the presentation of his case in his eagerness to get a conviction.

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

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.
Quite correct, this will always be the case, however we can minimise the damage that occurs as a result of these persons, by always being seen to be trying to do the right thing and not attempting to cover it up when it is discovered.

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.
We will never win everybody over. It is a physical impossibility. The most unfortunate thing about any war is that there is no winner, just one side who comes out better than the other. The best I feel that we can do is to convince the majority of the world that we not only did the right thing for the right reasons, but we did it without lowering ourselves to level of our opponent.

I am only slightly aware of the ROE but I have read "The Kingdom" three or four times over the last 25 years. I believe that it should be required reading by anyone wishing to understand some of the problems in the Middle East in particular Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent the Oil States.
kingdom.jpg

 
I am only slightly aware of the ROE but I have read "The Kingdom" three or four times over the last 25 years. I believe that it should be required reading by anyone wishing to understand some of the problems in the Middle East in particular Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent the Oil States.
kingdom.jpg

I also have had this book in my bookshelves for the past 25 years, and have often quoted it regarding situations which have arisen. It forms the basis of my take on the Arab outlook. In that time, you are the first person to have referred me to it. I will try to find time to blow the dust off again in light of the latest developments.
 
Back
Top