CIA Torture Methods

I believe torture is a great method for terrorist suspects. But our horrible president Obama finds it wrong. Can't wait till we get attacked again to say "I told you so"

I read about one on wikileaks where they force a muslim detainee to drink or touch pigs blood

Half of those "torture methods" don't sound any worse than what any US serviceman goes through in basic training. Sleep deprivation? Check. Being forced to stand for extended periods of time? Check. Forced exposure to heat and cold? Check. I went through all of that and MORE when I was in Basic. It gets even worse when you move up into more advanced training. Yes, it's unpleasant, it sucks to go through, but it's hardly "torture". That's just what you do to break a person down and get them to cooperate. If those are torture methods, we have large bases in the United States specifically devoted to the systematic torture of American citizens. Great Lakes Naval Base, Ft. Benning, Lackland Air Base etc. Waterboarding sounds pretty rough, but what are you supposed to do to someone you need to get information from? Give them a comfy pillow and read them bedtime stories?

reply to post by PaddyInf

---

If all this is done to get someone to talk then what the hell happened to truth serum?

'Truth serum' is one of these great white elephants in TQ. Sodium Pentathol, scopolamine etc are routinely used by some agencies to gain information. However their results are pretty sketchy to say the least. The majority of them simply mimic the effects of consuming large amounts of alcohol and the information gained from their use give predictable results.

Simply put - would you believe a drunk?

It's frustrating to hear folks slam interrogation techniques, as though all captives are equal.

Those beligerents who were captured in a recognizable uniform, under international law are to be provided certain limitations on treatment. That includes interrogation techniques.

Those armed beligerents NOT IN UNIFORM have zero legal status, zero international protections, and legally don't exist under international law.

You can summarily execute on the spot, or you can use any interrogation techniques that while distasteful, may be very, very effective.

To use a chainsaw on them does NOT violate any international law, as the moment a non-uniformed combatant picks up a weapon, they immediately lose all rights to any expectation of life or condition of life from that moment on.

Every breath they take is at your convenience.

And I can tell you that they can be made to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Once started, it's damned near impossible to shut them up.

The official CIA torture methods on "approved" captives is one thing.

Methods on "non-approved" armed captives is another.

And since it's about saving the lives of Americans, British, etc., "independent interrogation contractors" can be brought in to address certain delicate situational complexities.

reply to post by dooper

---

Does that include the UN Convention Against Torture (of which the US became a signatory 18 Apr 1988 and ratified on 21 Oct 1994) which states;

"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict"

It also states that torture "cannot be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials."

Article 75 of Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva conventions protects those who are not recognised by the Geneva Conventions 1949 from murder and torture of all kinds, including both mental and physical. Article 75 is recognised by the US as being a fundamental part of customary international law.

US Army Rules of Engagement state that life can only be taken in specific circumstances, and summary execution of ANY personnel, be they considered combatants or not, is not permitted.

So, in short, you can't just take a chainsaw to him.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by PaddyInf]