The shifting denial about torture. May 16, 2009 Sean Lewis
Torture is just one more nail into the coffin for the Republican Party. Cheney is just trying to protect himself and doing preemptive damage control. It is clear the torture policy was his decision. Cheney is hoping for another terror attack so he can be vindicated the same way the entire GOP party wants President Obama to fail so the GOP policies can be vindicated. The water down spin on torture is that water boarding is not torture. Dunking someones head is hardly torture, it is like getting baptised! The rough questioning was needed to get results! However a few things are being left out, 98 dead prisoners, the torture did not work, and torture is against the both US and International law. If all the CIA was doing was 'questioning' prisoners why was a doctor needed to be present? I have been questioned by the police, no doctor was present. In previous questioning by the FBI, no doctor was present, so what changed? What changed was there was now a chance that the prisoner might die from the harsh interrogation. In fact 98 prisoners who were being held for 'questioning died. http://opendebateforum2.blogspot.com/2009/04/98-prisoners-died-in-us-custody-report.html This article had 623 footnotes verifying the deaths. http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06221-etn-hrf-dic-rep-web.pdf I posted one of those footnotes at the end of this article. The Torture Apologists want you to believe that water boarding is not dangerous, problem is water boarding wasn't the only harsh treatment the prisoners received. A point the Torture Apologist conveniently do not bring up. Also if it wasn't torture explain the 98 dead prisoners? Next comes the issue of why the prisoners were being tortured and what were the results of the torture. We were told that the torture was to protect Americans from future attack, and that valuable information came as a result of the torture. This was after we were told that the US does not torture by the way. The truth is that the CIA was torturing prisoners. not to protect America or Americans, but to find a connection between Iraq and 9/11 or a connection between Iraq and Al qaeda. This was to give cover to the Bush Administration after no WMD's were found in Iraq. The torture how ever did not work, In fact it had the opposite effect. Prisoners who were cooperating and freely giving valuable Intel about Al qaeda without torture to the FBI, stopped cooperation when the CIA began torturing them about non existent connections between Iraq and 9/11 or Iraq and Al Qaeda. http://opendebateforum2.blogspot.com/2009/05/timeline-history-of-harsh-interrogation.html http://opendebateforum2.blogspot.com/2009/05/report-links-cia-to-military-harsh.html http://opendebateforum2.blogspot.com/2009/05/harsh-interrogation-techniques.html The legality of torture is, there is none. The Bush Administration knew this so in an effort to do a work around, the Bush Administration redefined the status of the prisoners to a classification the Bush Administration deemed outside of the Geneva Convention. Next came the justification of 'Harsh Interrogation' because of the 'ticking time bomb' scenario. The White House ordered White House attorneys to write briefs not only saying that harsh interrogation was not torture, but instances when harsh interrogation was prudent and advised. Two problems with this, the need for a doctor during 'questioning' and the 98 dead prisoners, also the questioning of the prisoners had nothing to do with an imminent threat that was time sensitive. It was about getting back fill Intel to justify the Iraq invasion. Currently the Torture Apologists are trying to say that key democratic leaders were also culpable in the torture. The belief is, if everyone is guilty then no one is guilty. The Torture Apologists are floating out the Pelosi knew so it;s her fault the torture occurred. The CIA said that the Leaders of the Democratic and Republican Parties were briefed about the torture already being used against prisoners. When asked for the dates of the briefings, the CIA gave four dates two in April of '02, two in September." When these dates were checked, it was discovered that three of these meetings never occurred. The fourth meeting was on the topic of prisoner interrogation. The CIA says they INFORMED the Leaders of the torture, even though it was already occurring without Congressional Approval or Knowledge for a month or more. The Congressional Leaders disagree with these facts and based on the erroneous dates already supplied, one has to wonder what else the CIA has wrong? http://opendebateforum2.blogspot.com/2009/05/floridas-graham-backs-pelosi-on-cia.html So the Torture Apologists have shifted reasons for Torture each time their reasons have been proven to be flawed or wrong. This is reminiscent of the reasons to invade Iraq. The Apologists have claimed there was no torture, that the torture wasn't limited, that the torture was needed to protect America and finally that the torture approved of by the Democratic leaders so it was OK. The one thing the Torture Apologists keep forgetting is this. Torture is illegal, both domestically and internationally and that America is better than this. 321 See DIC Table: Unknown 1 (died in November 2002 in Afghanistan “Salt Pit” prison of hypothermia after being chained to the floor and left without blankets; official cause of death not released); Naseer (allegedly tortured to death by Army Special Forces soldiers in Mar. 2003; official investigation findings not released); al-Sumaidae (unarmed 21-year-old student allegedly killed in cold blood in June 2005 by Marine during a search of his home; case referred to Navy criminal investigators 10 days after death); Dababa (June 2003 autopsy indicates body covered by bruises and at least 50 abrasions, with head and neck suffering the most significant abuses, resulting in hemorrhaging throughout his brain; official cause of death not announced); Kenami (death after detainee subjected to extreme exercise, cuffed, hooded and left in overcrowded cell; cause officially undetermined); al-Izmerly (chief of forensics at Baghdad Hospital found January 2004 death was due to “massive blow” to head; investigation pending); Unknown 15 (U.S. forces allege male shot during home raid while reaching for a pistol; family alleges he was a physically disabled old man and reportedly provides medical records indicating a spinal condition or degeneration; no criminal investigation or any other action appears to have been initiated); Nasef Ibrahim (military ruled death due to natural causes; son, with him at the time, filed lawsuit alleging death from abuse); Khan (military initially stated death due to heart attack, until press reports of snakebite; family alleges abuse; no medical or other investigation records released since death in September 2004); A. Najem (military ruled death from natural causes after hunger strike, but no medical records or interviews in support); Zaid (U.S.-conducted autopsy stated accidental death from heat stroke; army official stated possibility that Zaid was not given enough water or proper care). Human Rights First asked the Department of Defense on January 20 and 26, 2006 the status of the investigations and any prosecutions in the following cases for which, as of February 10, we had received no response: Naseer; al-Sumaidae; Dababa; Kenami [sought comment on medical expert finding that death caused by suffocation]; al-Izmerly; Ibrahim; Khan; Zaid. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
