It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Torture planning began in 2001, Senate report reveals

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Torture planning began in 2001, Senate report reveals


www.salon.com

Bush officials have long argued that they turned to coercive interrogations in 2002 only after captured al-Qaida suspects wouldn't talk, but the report shows the administration set the wheels in motion soon after 9/11. The Bush White House began planning for torture in December 2001, set up a program to develop the interrogation techniques by the next month, and the military and the CIA began training interrogators in coercive practices in early 2002 ...
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
According to this report the Bush administration began planning torture way before, as the article puts it

they had any high-value al-Qaida suspects or any trouble eliciting information from detainees.


This of course should come as no surprise to almost anyone as it seems a lot of stuff happened to be "in place" soon after 9/11.

From what I have read to date the Obama administration has been reticent to expend any valuable political capital in encouraging the prosecution of those who designed and approved the torture techniques. He has a lot of stuff he wants to get done and he doesn't want to push the moderate republicans into a corner by going after the previous administration.

However in light of these new revelations I think he will find that harder to do.

I encourage everyone to read this fascinating article in full.

Full Senate report available here: pdf

www.salon.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Here's a related article where the evidence shows the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman discussing and dismissing concerns about the legality of "harsh" interrogating techniques back in 2002.

Bush's top general quashed torture dissent


The former Air Force general and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers, helped quash dissent from across the U.S. military as the Bush administration first set up a brutal interrogation regime for terrorism suspects, according to newly public documents and testimony from an ongoing Senate probe.

In late 2002, documents show, officials from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps all complained that harsh interrogation tactics under consideration for use at the prison in Guantánamo Bay might be against the law. Those military officials called for further legal scrutiny of the tactics. The chief of the Army's international law division, for example, said in a memo that some of the tactics, such as stress positions and sensory deprivation, "cross the line of 'humane treatment'" and "may violate the torture statute."

Myers, however, agreed to scuttle a plan for further legal review of the tactics, in response to pressure from a top Pentagon attorney helping to set up the interrogation program for then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:57 AM
link   
One last related article to the Senate committee report related to Donald Rumsfeld's role in this matter.

Rumsfeld: Architect of torture


When Donald Rumsfeld heard about plans to force detainees at Guantánamo Bay to stand for hours on end, in order to soften them up and make them talk to U.S. interrogators, he made a joke about it. "I stand for 8-10 hours a day," the then-defense secretary wrote on Dec. 2, 2002, at the bottom of a memo authorizing military officials to use extreme techniques against prisoners. "Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"

As a newly released Senate Armed Services Committee report makes clear, the effects of Rumsfeld's cavalier attitude toward what the report calls "detainee abuse" -- and what international law would probably call torture -- didn't just stop at the military prison on Cuba. The techniques Rumsfeld approved for use at Guantánamo oozed into prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq, undermining decades of U.S. policy about humane treatment of detainees and leading to some of the worst outrages of the Bush administration, including the Abu Ghraib abuses, which Salon has covered extensively.

"The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply a result of a few soldiers acting on their own," the Senate report says. "Interrogation techniques such as stripping detainees of their clothes, placing them in stress positions and using military working dogs to intimidate them appeared in Iraq only after they had been approved for use in Afghanistan and at [Guantánamo] ... Rumsfeld's authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officers conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody. What followed was an erosion in standards dictating that detainees be treated humanely."

The Bush administration, including Rumsfeld, all treated Abu Ghraib as the actions of a few rogue soldiers. Eleven enlisted personnel were convicted of crimes because of the way they treated Iraqis held there; the longest sentence, 10 years, went to former Cpl. Charles Graner. (One officer, Lt. Col. Steven Jordan, was convicted of disobeying an order not to discuss the case, but acquitted on more serious charges.) But the Senate investigation, completed last fall but only released this week, found the abuses there -- forcing prisoners into "stress positions," stripping them naked, menacing them with dogs -- were directly inspired by similar behavior top administration officials had already approved elsewhere.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


There you have it ...

Between the three cited articles and the report itself one can get a full overview, scope, and chain of events which began back in 2001.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
A little more info an how the process got started:


To set up the torture program, the Department of Defense and the CIA reverse engineered something called SERE training, which was conducted by the JPRA. Based on Cold War communist techniques used to force false confessions, in SERE school elite U.S. troops undergo stress positions, isolation, hooding, slapping, sleep deprivation and, until recently, waterboarding to simulate illegal tactics they might face if captured by an enemy who violated the Geneva Conventions.

In either December 2001 or January 2002, two psychologists affiliated with the SERE program, James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, developed the first written proposal for reverse engineering the training for use on al-Qaida suspects. Their paper made its way to the Joint Staff. (Salon first zeroed in on the pair in a June 2007 article.) The military also then began discussions at that time about using the ideas at Guantánamo.

In early March 2002, Jessen began two-week, "ad-hoc 'crash'" courses for training government interrogators slated for Guantánamo. The courses therefore began before the allegedly uncooperative Zubaydah was ever captured, and Zubaydah was the first allegedly high-level al-Qaida operative in U.S. custody after 9/11.

salon extra DIV



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Well of course Congress gave the Bush administration leeway in interrogation. Few years later they realize their mistake and decided to blame on someone instead of taking responsiblity. So its no surprise that the Democrats decided to preemptively do something like this.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Ok so what you are saying is that they had a plan in motion in the event they caught someone who would not cooperate.

Can you really fault them for planning ahead?

I don't.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
Ok so what you are saying is that they had a plan in motion in the event they caught someone who would not cooperate.


What the article is saying and the Senate report confirms is that they have been disingenuous about when the wheels for torture were set in motion.


Can you really fault them for planning ahead?


I suppose not, if you're going to torture then you might as well "plan" ahead.

[edit on 22 Apr 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
It isn't so much the planning ahead as it is who knew about it when.

Congressional leaders knew about this; they ok'd it and they were ok with it at the time. Pelosi and Reid knew about this. And, now they are up in arms about it, screaming for Bush Administration heads to roll.

What about their heads? The blame game is getting older and older every day......especially when everyone is to blame.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
I'm going to play devil's advocate. I've been thinking about the whole 'torture' issue a lot. If the suspects are combative and uncooperative, what are they supposed to do? Take them out for a cup of coffee? Buy them some flowers and ask again, nicely? I understand that you can't get blood out of a turnip, but when the CIA knows that a suspect has valuable intel, but the suspect refuses to spill the beans, what recourse is left? Also, when our people are captured by an enemy, do you believe said enemy obeys the rules when questioning him? Two wrongs don't make a right, but why should there be a double standard? Flame away...


TA



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAssociate
I'm going to play devil's advocate. I've been thinking about the whole 'torture' issue a lot. If the suspects are combative and uncooperative, what are they supposed to do? Take them out for a cup of coffee? Buy them some flowers and ask again, nicely? I understand that you can't get blood out of a turnip, but when the CIA knows that a suspect has valuable intel, but the suspect refuses to spill the beans, what recourse is left? Also, when our people are captured by an enemy, do you believe said enemy obeys the rules when questioning him? Two wrongs don't make a right, but why should there be a double standard? Flame away...


TA


Torture is done solely for personal enjoyment, a sort of sexual pleasure. All real persons of interest are never tortured, their names are also never mentioned and they are never seen in the media. If torture is the only interrogation technique you can think of then you have some reading to do.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
The stuff that went on with Rumsfeld, Cheney and George W. Bush continues to sicken me. The Democratic leadership were stonewalled, threatened and blackmailed and we are going to find out more about that in the coming year I'm sure.

There don't seem to be that many people on these message boards that even understand the Geneva Conventions or why we signed onto them. The USA has lost it's credibility and moral leadership in the world and I pray to God the current administration can help restore it.

There were a lot of sickos and perverts in both Bush administrations from the looks of it.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by DraconianKing
 





If torture is the only interrogation technique you can think of then you have some reading to do


Torture isn't the only interrogation technique i can think of, and it should only be used as a last resort. My point is, if it's the only option left, why not try? I don't doubt that there are sadists in the intelligence community who get a sick kick from torturing people, but to say that that is the only reason it's done is kind of a blanket statement, isn't it?


TA

[edit on 22-4-2009 by TheAssociate]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAssociate
reply to post by DraconianKing
 


My point is, if it's the only option left, why not try?


A. Because it's illegal under national and international law.

B. Because it is wrong.

C. Because it has been proven as an ineffective way to acquire legitimate information.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by TheAssociate
reply to post by DraconianKing
 


My point is, if it's the only option left, why not try?


A. Because it's illegal under national and international law.

B. Because it is wrong.

C. Because it has been proven as an ineffective way to acquire legitimate information.


A. You have to legally define an act as "torture" before it can be considered illegal under law.

B. That's your personal opinion, and one not shared by everyone in this country, thank God!

C. Where exactly was it proven that torture is an ineffective means of gaining information? Perhaps you missed the thread on how torture led to a tip that thwarted a planned attack on Los Angeles? (www.abovetopsecret.com...)

And of course you have proof to refute that claim other than a lame "yeah well, they're lying!", as it's an official claim by the government, so even the possibility that it's true negates your statement. So if "torture" yields useful information even part of the time, it's hardly ineffective.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


You know who used torture quite liberally?

The country you crossed out in your avatar.

Perhaps you shouldn't have crossed it out as your thinking is very much aligned with theirs.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


And they got results with their methods, didn't they?

I say again, how many people do you know or love are alive today because of a tip gained by questionable means? We may never know. But if the claim about Los Angeles is true, then there are a lot of people, liberal actors included, who may well owe their lives to Bush's administration.

I bet that line of thought just irks the crap out of those folks doesn't it?



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


And they got results with their methods, didn't they?


How so? What used to be the USSR is in a million pieces right now.


I say again, how many people do you know or love are alive today because of a tip gained by questionable means? We may never know.


And I say again, how many people do know are dead today because of the US utilizing torture? We may never know.


I bet that line of thought just irks the crap out of those folks doesn't it?


Which ones, the dead ones?

[edit on 23 Apr 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


And not for nothing, I am happy to discuss the pros and cons of torture with you at the appropriate thread. This thread is not about that, it is about the Bush administration's lying about when they started the process of incorporating torture in interrogations.

If you remember correctly when the Abu Ghraib scandal was exposed the administration blamed a few misguided and overzealous officers and soldiers. As it turns out they had already approved these methods.

So ask yourself this, if it isn't against international law, if it isn't wrong, why would they lie about it?



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 





B. Because it is wrong.


since it seems that laws are meaningless - I'm going to go with B

an oldie - but a goodie

everything else is just rationalization



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join