TORTURE!! Terrorist forced to listen to Eminem!!!

Calabrio

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
8,399
Reaction score
2
Location
Sarasota
ABC News
CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described
Sources Say Agency's Tactics Lead to Questionable Confessions, Sometimes to Death

By BRIAN ROSS and RICHARD ESPOSITO

Nov. 18, 2005 — - Harsh interrogation techniques authorized by top officials of the CIA have led to questionable confessions and the death of a detainee since the techniques were first authorized in mid-March 2002, ABC News has been told by former and current intelligence officers and supervisors.

They say they are revealing specific details of the techniques, and their impact on confessions, because the public needs to know the direction their agency has chosen. All gave their accounts on the condition that their names and identities not be revealed. Portions of their accounts are corrobrated by public statements of former CIA officers and by reports recently published that cite a classified CIA Inspector General's report.

Other portions of their accounts echo the accounts of escaped prisoners from one CIA prison in Afghanistan.

"They would not let you rest, day or night. Stand up, sit down, stand up, sit down. Don't sleep. Don't lie on the floor," one prisoner said through a translator. The detainees were also forced to listen to rap artist Eminem's "Slim Shady" album. The music was so foreign to them it made them frantic, sources said.

Contacted after the completion of the ABC News investigation, CIA officials would neither confirm nor deny the accounts. They simply declined to comment.

The CIA sources described a list of six "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" instituted in mid-March 2002 and used, they said, on a dozen top al Qaeda targets incarcerated in isolation at secret locations on military bases in regions from Asia to Eastern Europe. According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques:

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.

The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques "appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention," the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.

It is "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," said former CIA officer Bob Baer.

Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and a deputy director of the State Department's office of counterterrorism, recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "What real CIA field officers know firsthand is that it is better to build a relationship of trust … than to extract quick confessions through tactics such as those used by the Nazis and the Soviets."

One argument in favor of their use: time. In the early days of al Qaeda captures, it was hoped that speeding confessions would result in the development of important operational knowledge in a timely fashion.

However, ABC News was told that at least three CIA officers declined to be trained in the techniques before a cadre of 14 were selected to use them on a dozen top al Qaeda suspects in order to obtain critical information. In at least one instance, ABC News was told that the techniques led to questionable information aimed at pleasing the interrogators and that this information had a significant impact on U.S. actions in Iraq.

According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, after two weeks of enhanced interrogation, made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Sources say Al Libbi had been subjected to each of the progressively harsher techniques in turn and finally broke after being water boarded and then left to stand naked in his cold cell overnight where he was doused with cold water at regular intervals.

His statements became part of the basis for the Bush administration claims that Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons. Sources tell ABC that it was later established that al Libbi had no knowledge of such training or weapons and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment.

"This is the problem with using the waterboard. They get so desperate that they begin telling you what they think you want to hear," one source said.

However, sources said, al Libbi does not appear to have sought to intentionally misinform investigators, as at least one account has stated. The distinction in this murky world is nonetheless an important one. Al Libbi sought to please his investigators, not lead them down a false path, two sources with firsthand knowledge of the statements said.

When properly used, the techniques appear to be closely monitored and are signed off on in writing on a case-by-case, technique-by-technique basis, according to highly placed current and former intelligence officers involved in the program. In this way, they say, enhanced interrogations have been authorized for about a dozen high value al Qaeda targets -- Khalid Sheik Mohammed among them. According to the sources, all of these have confessed, none of them has died, and all of them remain incarcerated.

While some media accounts have described the locations where these detainees are located as a string of secret CIA prisons -- a gulag, as it were -- in fact, sources say, there are a very limited number of these locations in use at any time, and most often they consist of a secure building on an existing or former military base. In addition, they say, the prisoners usually are not scattered but travel together to these locations, so that information can be extracted from one and compared with others. Currently, it is believed that one or more former Soviet bloc air bases and military installations are the Eastern European location of the top suspects. Khalid Sheik Mohammed is among the suspects detained there, sources said.

The sources told ABC that the techniques, while progressively aggressive, are not deemed torture, and the debate among intelligence officers as to whether they are effective should not be underestimated. There are many who feel these techniques, properly supervised, are both valid and necessary, the sources said. While harsh, they say, they are not torture and are reserved only for the most important and most difficult prisoners.

According to the sources, when an interrogator wishes to use a particular technique on a prisoner, the policy at the CIA is that each step of the interrogation process must be signed off at the highest level -- by the deputy director for operations for the CIA. A cable must be sent and a reply received each time a progressively harsher technique is used. The described oversight appears tough but critics say it could be tougher. In reality, sources said, there are few known instances when an approval has not been granted. Still, even the toughest critics of the techniques say they are relatively well monitored and limited in use.

Two sources also told ABC that the techniques -- authorized for use by only a handful of trained CIA officers -- have been misapplied in at least one instance.

The sources said that in that case a young, untrained junior officer caused the death of one detainee at a mud fort dubbed the "salt pit" that is used as a prison. They say the death occurred when the prisoner was left to stand naked throughout the harsh Afghanistan night after being doused with cold water. He died, they say, of hypothermia.

According to the sources, a second CIA detainee died in Iraq and a third detainee died following harsh interrogation by Department of Defense personnel and contractors in Iraq. CIA sources said that in the DOD case, the interrogation was harsh, but did not involve the CIA.

The Kabul fort has also been the subject of confusion. Several intelligence sources involved in both the enhanced interrogation program and the program to ship detainees back to their own country for interrogation -- a process described as rendition, say that the number of detainees in each program has been added together to suggest as many as 100 detainees are moved around the world from one secret CIA facility to another. In the rendition program, foreign nationals captured in the conflict zones are shipped back to their own countries on occasion for interrogation and prosecution.

There have been several dozen instances of rendition. There have been a little over a dozen authorized enhanced interrogations. As a result, the enhanced interrogation program has been described as one encompassing 100 or more prisoners. Multiple CIA sources told ABC that it is not. The renditions have also been described as illegal. They are not, our sources said, although they acknowledge the procedures are in an ethical gray area and are at times used for the convenience of extracting information under harsher conditions that the U.S. would allow.

ABC was told that several dozen renditions of this kind have occurred. Jordan is one country recently cited as an "emerging" center for renditions, according to published reports. The ABC sources said that rendition of this sort are legal and should not be confused with illegal "snatches" of targets off the streets of a home country by officers of yet another country. The United States is currently charged with such an illegal rendition in Italy. Israel and at least one European nation have also been accused of such renditions.

Copyright © 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures
 
Lol.... If you think the CIA only use's these 'light' torture tactics, you're insane. Do you really think a hardened terrorist, a man willing to kill himself in order to kill others for an insane cause is going to break and spill his secrets because he is forced to listen to bad music? Or any of the other 'light' torture treatments talked about, sleeping with lights on, sitting in a warm room etc.
 
95DevilleNS said:
Lol.... If you think the CIA only use's these 'light' torture tactics, you're insane. Do you really think a hardened terrorist, a man willing to kill himself in order to kill others for an insane cause is going to break and spill his secrets because he is forced to listen to bad music? Or any of the other 'light' torture treatments talked about, sleeping with lights on, sitting in a warm room etc.


I don't know man....Eminem is pretty annoying.
 
95DevilleNS said:
Lol.... If you think the CIA only use's these 'light' torture tactics, you're insane. Do you really think a hardened terrorist, a man willing to kill himself in order to kill others for an insane cause is going to break and spill his secrets because he is forced to listen to bad music? Or any of the other 'light' torture treatments talked about, sleeping with lights on, sitting in a warm room etc.

Let's examine what you just said.

"You're insane" (definitely an extreme accusation) if you think the CIA uses only 'light' torture tactics - implies that you know of other tactics being used and have such concrete exclusive evidence backing that up as to be absolute in nature.

You have no such evidence.

Your statement also implies that the methods described would even be considered torture - which I'm not prepared to accept. Everything listed would definitely disorient - but not mar or maim - the subject. Causing someone in captivity to fear for his life while not actually in imminent danger isn't torture by any definition. It's only psychological persuasion.

Every definition of torture in the dictionary repeatedly uses the phrase "severe mental or psychological pain." Nothing described in that article fits that definition.

You presume to know the mind of a terrorist. You have no idea how isolation and repetitive disorientation over a period of time will affect even the most 'hardened' individual.
 
I don't know man...the kids that listen to Eminem and try to look/act/be like him really cause me "severe psychological pain"
 
fossten said:
Let's examine what you just said.

"You're insane" (definitely an extreme accusation) if you think the CIA uses only 'light' torture tactics - implies that you know of other tactics being used and have such concrete exclusive evidence backing that up as to be absolute in nature.

You have no such evidence.

Your statement also implies that the methods described would even be considered torture - which I'm not prepared to accept. Everything listed would definitely disorient - but not mar or maim - the subject. Causing someone in captivity to fear for his life while not actually in imminent danger isn't torture by any definition. It's only psychological persuasion.

Every definition of torture in the dictionary repeatedly uses the phrase "severe mental or psychological pain." Nothing described in that article fits that definition.

You presume to know the mind of a terrorist. You have no idea how isolation and repetitive disorientation over a period of time will affect even the most 'hardened' individual.


Believe what you want to, but 'causing someone to fear for his life' is extreme psychological/mental pain.
 
95DevilleNS said:
Believe what you want to, but 'causing someone to fear for his life' is extreme psychological/mental pain.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

You're hilarious!
 
Beats having your head hacked off for the camera while some lunatic chants BS behind you.
 
95DevilleNS said:
Believe what you want to, but 'causing someone to fear for his life' is extreme psychological/mental pain.
Maybe you could give them a footrub, make them some coffee, and turn their bed... I'm sure they'll be very cooperative after you do that.

Then after you give them a backrub, you can finish it by giving him a happy ending.
 
maybe we could use other investigative techniques...us the inventors of the spy novel and the P.I....maybe we could be more cunning and less brutish.

Maybe...just maybe we've got some of the wrong people, and when they say "I don't know anything" they don't actually know anything.

Maybe we shouldn't be holding prisoners for 3 years before 'finding' evidence against them that we can bring charges on.
 
raVeneyes said:
maybe we could use other investigative techniques...us the inventors of the spy novel and the P.I....maybe we could be more cunning and less brutish.

Maybe...just maybe we've got some of the wrong people, and when they say "I don't know anything" they don't actually know anything.

Maybe we shouldn't be holding prisoners for 3 years before 'finding' evidence against them that we can bring charges on.

Maybe maybe maybe...:blah:

Aw, let's be nice to the prisoners and show them that we mean them no harm...in fact, let's give them some cash and set them outside on the front steps of our own government buildings with some explosives and tell them that they can express themselves freely in this country.

You Fiberals don't remember what FDR did during WWII? If this was FDR, every Arab taxi driver and 7/11 manager in the country would be interned in Utah right now, the media would be muzzled, and our entire military would be over in Iraq and Syria right now, locking down the countryside. We didn't pull out of Japan and Germany until...NEVER.

The problem with you FIBERALS is that you always focus on the supposed cruelty of our own people and NEVER on the cruelty of the terrorists, who blow up thousands of our own innocent civilians and those of other countries, and videotape themselves hacking off the heads of innocents. Where's your outrage about that?
 
No I remember what FDR did and I despise it. Being a third generation japanese man, my grandmother and father would both most likely have been interred.

The problem with YOU is that you don't understand how being just as bad as the terrorists doesn't help us defeat terrorism, it only creates more terrorism.

I had a lot of outrage about the tapes of the captives being beheaded. I had a lot of outrage when they flew jets in to three of our buildings. I would rather however not create more people willing to do those sort of things.
 
raVeneyes said:
The problem with YOU is that you don't understand how being just as bad as the terrorists doesn't help us defeat terrorism, it only creates more terrorism.


And they will never see that Raven.............

I have read many times before and the article did point it out, if you torture a person enough they will admit to anything you ask of them. I'm sure we could get the righties/conservs in here to admit to being Osama's buttboy if we tortured them enough. So, the information obtained isn't very reliable. Gotta wonder, out of ten 'terrorist' they obtain, how many of those really have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or any extremist group.
 
raVeneyes said:
No I remember what FDR did and I despise it. Being a third generation japanese man, my grandmother and father would both most likely have been interred.

The problem with YOU is that you don't understand how being just as bad as the terrorists doesn't help us defeat terrorism, it only creates more terrorism.

I had a lot of outrage about the tapes of the captives being beheaded. I had a lot of outrage when they flew jets in to three of our buildings. I would rather however not create more people willing to do those sort of things.

1. It's people like you and Senator Dick Turban (Durbin) who equate our own soldiers with terrorists that's an OUTRAGE.

2. It's sad that you are so naive as to think that the terrorists would somehow not attack us if we just left them alone. What a joke. You have zero understanding of the terrorist mindset. You and your pacifist friends think that if we could just convince the terrorists that we mean them no harm, they would somehow be less angry and wouldn't attack us. Laughable. Meanwhile they would be bombing our cities and taking over like they have in Spain and France. Funny how the countries that do what you suggest end up like that, while in America we haven't had ONE single attack on our soil since 9/11.

3. You're not telling the truth. First of all, how can you remember something that FDR did over 60 years ago?

4. Your words indicate this to me:

You express more outrage at Bush and our soldiers than you do the terrorists who murdered over three thousand of our own civilians. You see America as a greater evil. You see America as a greater enemy. You should just go join the terrorists if you're going to keep drinking the left kool-aid.
 
Did everyone else see the spin, twist, and lie tactic there? Do I have to point out just how F-ed up the response by fossten was or is it obvious enough?
 
raVeneyes said:
The problem with YOU is that you don't understand how being just as bad as the terrorists doesn't help us defeat terrorism, it only creates more terrorism.

ever hear the term: fight fire with fire?

and oh yeah...were not going in there with dynamite strapped to our chests, and blowing ourselves up with complete disregard to all human life.
 
raVeneyes said:
Did everyone else see the spin, twist, and lie tactic there? Do I have to point out just how F-ed up the response by fossten was or is it obvious enough?

Are you really surpized? It's simple, if you're against us, you must be a terrorist, only logical explanation in the Bush-ite mind.
 
MrWilson said:
ever hear the term: fight fire with fire?

and oh yeah...were not going in there with dynamite strapped to our chests, and blowing ourselves up with complete disregard to all human life.

No, we have the luxury of carpet bombing and entire area, regardless of who else we kill besides the intended targets. We have a thing called 'allowable civilian loss' (or something of that sort) to justify the attack. Regardless of what Rumsfeld said, the smart bombs don't always hit perfectly and the intel isn't always correct.
 
95DevilleNS said:
No, we have the luxury of carpet bombing and entire area, regardless of who else we kill besides the intended targets. We have a thing called 'allowable civilian loss' (or something of that sort) to justify the attack. Regardless of what Rumsfeld said, the smart bombs don't always hit perfectly and the intel isn't always correct.

And your point is...what exactly...?
 
fossten said:
And your point is...what exactly...?

1) RaVeneyes said: "The problem with YOU is that you don't understand how being just as bad as the terrorists doesn't help us defeat terrorism, it only creates more terrorism"

2) MrWilson said: ever hear the term: fight fire with fire?and oh yeah...were not going in there with dynamite strapped to our chests, and blowing ourselves up with complete disregard to all human life.

So, my point is..... When innocent people get killed and many do, that creates more hatred and breeds future terrorist.
 
95DevilleNS said:
1) RaVeneyes said: "The problem with YOU is that you don't understand how being just as bad as the terrorists doesn't help us defeat terrorism, it only creates more terrorism"

2) MrWilson said: ever hear the term: fight fire with fire?and oh yeah...were not going in there with dynamite strapped to our chests, and blowing ourselves up with complete disregard to all human life.

So, my point is..... When innocent people get killed and many do, that creates more hatred and breeds future terrorist.

There you go again, more concerned with the innocents that get killed BY us instead of caring about the innocent Americans that were killed by TERRORISTS.

If what you say is true, why aren't you hating terrorists right now? Hmmm?

You people are so pacifistic and naive that it'll take two or three more 9/11's before you finally get it. That's the trouble with liberals: They simply can't call anything evil - unless it's American in origin.
 
fossten said:
There you go again, more concerned with the innocents that get killed BY us instead of caring about the innocent Americans that were killed by TERRORISTS.

Actually, I am equally concerned over ANY innocent people that get killed, where you live or where you're from has no bearing on your innocence. 9/11 doesn't give us a free to kill anyone license, at least not to me, but by your comment you must think otherwise.

fossten said:
If what you say is true, why aren't you hating terrorists right now? Hmmm?.

Did I ever say I like terroist? I've said many times, ALL extremist are a threat. That or I must be a terrorist as you have implied in the past.

fossten said:
You people are so pacifistic and naive that it'll take two or three more 9/11's before you finally get it. That's the trouble with liberals: They simply can't call anything evil - unless it's American in origin.

Wow.. That was so intensely insiteful. Pacifist must hate America right?
 
95DevilleNS said:
Actually, I am equally concerned over ANY innocent people that get killed, doesn't matter where they live. 9/11 doesn't give us a free to kill anyone license, at least not to me, but you're comment you must think otherwise.?

9/11 DOES give us the right to defend ourselves in any way we see fit, even up to and including pre-emptive strikes on threatening countries.

I guess if somebody started beating up your wife in front of you, you'd say, "Well, that doesn't give me license to hurt him. Instead, I need to understand why he's having such a bad day. I need to try to compromise with him, show him that I mean him no harm. Maybe then he'll stop beating up my wife."


95DevilleNS said:
Did I ever say I like terroist? I've said many times, ALL extremist are a threat.
?

I dunno, you and Raveneyes spend so much time defending them and trying to protect their rights; if the shoe fits, wear it.

Personally, I don't think terrorists deserve even Geneva convention consideration. They are brutal maniacs who think that you and I deserve to die because we are Americans. They have murdered thousands of innocent people, and not in a "collateral" way, as you put it, but in a direct, intentional way. For that, they deserve to die.


95DevilleNS said:
Wow.. That was so intensely insiteful. Pacifist must hate America right?

Let me ask you something:

If a terrorist leader was captured and it was found that he had some information that a terrorist atomic bomb was going to be detonated in your neighborhood while your wife/kids/parents were home asleep one night, what lengths would you go to to get that information out of him?

You're either going to answer this straight up or try to wiggle out of it. My guess is you wiggle.
 

Members online

Back
Top