U.S. Used This Torture Box to Interrogate Gadhafi’s Enemies

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
People lose focus of the fact that these are suspected or known insurgents / terrorists and that these events are taking place in 3rd World countries often under or having just been under a dictatorship.

Yes, our government agencies play in some really, really bad places with people who do really bad things. Just like every other Empirical power before us going back as far as civilizations have existed.

These people were not arrested in downtown LA for violating the local smoking ordnance. I don't condone torture but they would have gotten much worse if arrested as suspected insurgents by the regime of the moment. If the Taliban or Saddam had arrested them those skinny boxes would come complete w/ an electrical lead for each testicle and a tool box full of pliers and pointy sticks.

These guys know the score and accept it as part of doing what they do. They will not respond to a harsh conversation. They know they can go to a willing media, report the "facts" of their detainment and then laugh at the idiot Americans who react with horror and political consequences. That is exactly what they hope to achieve.

I'd prefer we not be there in the first place but I also don't want to see extreme Islam live and in person here. Hopefully I'm not naive enough to think my level of existence in America or the social mores / legal limits have any application in places like this. These guys play under big boy rules - both sides know exactly what they can expect if they are caught and none of them believe for a second it will be like going to the local jail in X-ville, America.




posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
SnF for the thread

Some revelations I got from the report

page 4-- many Libyan expatriates left Libya in 70s and 80s from Gadhafi's crackdown. They left Libya and ended up in places like Afghanistan. Some of these expatriates were Islamist. They opposed Gadhafi but were not terrorists.

After 9/11, they got arrested by the CIA because they were in Afghanistan, without papers, and potentially connected to Islamic groups. the CIA rounded them up, tortured some, and sent them back to Libya to face Gadhafi.

In some of those cases, Gadhaif himself provided the names of "terrorists" to the CIA, which rounded them up, tortured them, and shipped them back home to face Gadhafi. The report claims Gadhafi used the CIA to help him eradicate all the former opposition members to his rule from as far back as the 70s/80s. What it says is that none of these members posed a terrorist threat to the United States. In other words, the price the USA was willing to pay to keep Gadhafi compliant with USA's war on terror was to help him eradicate his old Libyan opposition forces to his rule.

Shame of it all is how no one can talk about this without USA partisan politics entering the thread. People should be exposing the truth not helping to bury it, so shame on some of you.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Almost as bad a torture as watching reruns of Seinfield. Imagine if they had used that in Iraq. We could have wiped out the enemy faster.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
That box reminds me of the crates I see people transporting their pets in. It really pains me, though, the things that people can justify doing to each other.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by PvtHudson
 


FYI Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo in January 2009, the same month he came into office. It was blocked by Republicans - who now blame him for "failing to close Gitmo".


Once again, spinning.


In a rare, bipartisan defeat for President Barack Obama, the Senate voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to keep the prison at Guantanamo Bay open for the foreseeable future and forbid the transfer of any detainees to facilities in the United States. Democrats lined up with Republicans in the 90-6 vote that came on the heels of a similar move a week ago in the House, underscoring widespread apprehension among Obama's congressional allies over voters' strong feelings about bringing detainees to the U.S. from the prison in Cuba.

Source

Who made up the Senate at that point in time?


The One Hundred Eleventh United States Congress was the meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government from January 3, 2009, until January 3, 2011. It began during the last two weeks of the George W. Bush administration, with the remainder spanning the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. It was composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The apportionment of seats in the House was based on the 2000 U.S. Census. In the November 4, 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers, giving President Obama a Democrat majority in the legislature for the first two years of his presidency. A new delegate seat was created for the Northern Mariana Islands.[5]

Source

Who made up the House at that point?

The One Hundred Eleventh United States Congress was the meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government from January 3, 2009, until January 3, 2011. It began during the last two weeks of the George W. Bush administration, with the remainder spanning the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. It was composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The apportionment of seats in the House was based on the 2000 U.S. Census. In the November 4, 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers, giving President Obama a Democrat majority in the legislature for the first two years of his presidency. A new delegate seat was created for the Northern Mariana Islands.[5]

Source

You are REALLY REALLY bad about this you know.
edit on 10-9-2012 by thesungod because: spelling



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by thesungod
 


Why Do The Republicans Keep Blocking The Closure of Guantanamo?


Today President Obama signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012. The bill contains a provision added by Republicans which prohibits the use of any Federal funds to transfer Guantanamo prisoners either to the United States or in some circumstances to foreign countries. On January 22, 2009, President Obama fulfilled one of his campaign promises when he signed an Executive Order directing the closure of the Guantanamo prison facility. Since then the Republicans have blocked every attempt to fund the process of closing it. At the same time, the conservatives have consistently claimed that the President failed, or some even call it lied, about his promise to close the base.


In this bill, the Congress has once again included provisions that would bar the use of appropriated funds for transfers of Guantanamo detainees into the United States (section 8119 of Division A), as well as transfers to the custody or effective control of foreign countries unless specified conditions are met (section 8120 of Division A). These provisions are similar to others found in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. My Administration has repeatedly communicated my objections to these provisions, including my view that they could, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. In approving this bill, I reiterate the objections my Administration has raised regarding these provisions, my intent to interpret and apply them in a manner that avoids constitutional conflicts, and the promise that my Administration will continue to work towards their repeal.

The GOP response to the order was to stop all funding of the transfer of inmates.

Guantanamo Bay: Still Open, Despite Promises

Obama's 2009 order:


"The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order," read the statement he signed on Jan. 22, 2009.


The Republican response:


Obama has run into plenty of opposition in Congress. [Republican] Lawmakers passed a bill preventing federal money from being used to transfer Guantanamo prisoners to the United States.


Republicans, in particular, say that Guantanamo must stay open to keep terrorists there.


"Obviously Congress has taken a number of steps to prevent the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, but the President still believes it's in our national security interest and will keep trying," National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement.


Not every Democrat was on board with closing it. Nobody ever said they all were. That doesn't change the fact Obama wrote the order to close it and gave one year for that to be completed. Congress, primarily Republicans prevented that from happening.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
You know, for as advanced as the US is one would think they would be smart enough not to use torture. It is irrefutable that torture produces a confession. No matter how tough someone is, torture administered regularly will eventually break even the toughest will. But that is not a good thing, because just because someone breaks does not mean they are giving good intelligence.

I would bet that more often than not, when dealing with people who are supposedly radical fundamentalists, they are not going to tell what they know. Period. They will likely confess multiple times, as long as the torture continues, but they very well may keep pertinent and valuable information to themselves. Someone who is being tortured, and I know this from firsthand experience, will say anything to make it stop. This is how totalitarian regimes get confessions out of so many people who are claimed to be dissidents or enemies, when there in fact is no basis for such claims.

I can think of 3 major cases off the top of my head right now in which a high-ranking individual gave false confessions under duress, although these cases are spread out throughout history. We don't hear about all the little fish that are tortured until they give something up. But it is quite different if the people administering the torture want a confession, or if they want information. The latter can be much more dangerous, and I believe this is what was ultimately wanted at places like Guantanamo Bay.

This is because information can often be verified, and if it is found to be false information after the fact, the torture will only get worse, most likely. I suppose it depends on who is doing the torturing, and how and why they are doing it, because you can only torture someone so much without killing them. Now I've heard stories, some having to do with cartels, and others having to do with actual governments, of people being tortured incessantly until they are near death, and then basically being nursed back to health, only to have it happen all over again. Honestly, that is the ultimate way to break anyone. Because once you are being tortured that badly, you will welcome death, and you know that the most they can do is kill you. Of course you aren't thinking straight, but just about anyone will know that. If you die, the pain goes away.

So the thought of having it happen all over again, after your body has been traumatized so dramatically, and healed to a certain degree, is probably just as effective as the torture itself, after a while. The only people who will give up good intelligence when being tortured the way the US is torturing people are those who aren't fanatical, and not 100% committed to their cause or allies. I'm pretty much rambling on now, but I think I made the point I was trying to make, which is that torture usually is not effective.

You will usually get more bad intelligence than you do good intelligence, and when those administering the torture are always having to second guess the information they receive, things are going to end up grinding to a snail's pace. But if the same people have been in the prison, being tortured intermittently, for a long time, if the torture keeps going on, the better the information that will start to come out. This may seem contradictory to what I said earlier, and maybe you're right, but it all depends both on those administering the torture, and those experiencing it.

It needs to stop regardless. Even if it were a good means to gather intelligence, it is amoral. What is the point of being a superpower if you have no moral compass? People were not put on this Earth to hurt other people, plain and simple. It is not necessary, as there are other ways. And one of the worst parts is that most of the people who end up being tortured probably are not affiliated with those whom the torturers think they are. In the former Soviet Union, and other dictatorships (and the Soviets had a dictatorship under Stalin...It wasn't Communism), all someone had to do was turn over the name of someone they didn't like, and bam, they were going to have bad things happen to them. This happens in the Middle East and Asia Minor, where are troops are snatching people up for "interrogation" in Cuba.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


But saying Republicans blocked it is false. I'm not debating Obama trying to close it.


Democrats lined up with Republicans in the 90-6 vote that came on the heels of a similar move a week ago in the House, underscoring widespread apprehension among Obama's congressional allies over voters' strong feelings about bringing detainees to the U.S. from the prison in Cuba.

Source

90-6 is hardly the Repubs blocking it in the Senate. The Dems controlled both the House and the Senate, if they had wanted to close it, it shouldn't have been an issue.

Once again both sides of evil came together. I agree wholly that the Repubs are spinning this, but don't say the Repubs blocked it.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
We train our own forces with far more severe methods than those pathetic boxes.We waterboard in SERE type training as well.
Of course none of this is like getting ones head sawed off with a dull knife,or say other asian nations ideas of interrogation which often fail because the querent kills the subject,but for the most part the west are the milquetoast of enemy torturer.

I always liked the Vietnam torture trip......
Ya see, they take two guys...vietcongs or whatever they can get....and they blindfold them first.....
Then they march em pout to the helipad while a huey is winding up for takeoff.....
When they get to the aircraft proximity they are asked to talk...if they refuse, into the chopper they go.....
Once airborne, they are told that they talk or get thrown out of the chopper.....
The interrogator then throws one guy out the door if they dont co operate....the other guy usually talks......and they never tell him the chopper was only hovering about five feet up......



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by PvtHudson
 


What a cop-out post from you. Deflection and disinfo. This is about the CIA and it's activities. The CIA, if you would have bothered to read the thread, 'rendered' these persons to Gaddafi for torture.

FYI Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo in January 2009, the same month he came into office. It was blocked by Republicans - who now blame him for "failing to close Gitmo".


I didn't think an executive order could be blocked by - Anyone. Whats the deal.. can it or cant it.. I'd love to know because there have been a lot of EO's signed lately, most I'm against.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Just fyi, CIA apologists:

Torture, regardless of spin and justification, is torture, period. It is wrong and penalized by US law with life in prison. Google the mma fighter "Joe Son" who, rightly so, got life in prison for TORTURE.

Hypocrisy abounds in this place.

No justice, no peace.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I wasn't apologizing I was laughing at the thought you consider this mild treatment so horrible and inhumane. That is a measure of what I know of warfare and this ridiculous debate.
I'd do worse to protect my squad or family.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I sure hope that thing had nails or spikes in it.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I am with you....torture against these barbarians to help save lives?? Who cares.....they are still worse in my book.


(I like the curious Bunny face better than the crying Bunny face)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


He signed it...he had control of Senate and House.....

HE NEVER CLOSED IT.


Executive orders bypass the Congress, so who blocked it praytell?



Obama signs order to close Guantanamo Bay facility January 22, 2009 President Obama signs the order requiring that the Guantanamo Bay facility be closed within a year. Promising to return America to the "moral high ground" in the war on terrorism, President Obama issued three executive orders Thursday to demonstrate a clean break from the Bush administration, including one requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year.


articles.cnn.com...
OLITICS
edit on 11-9-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Nite_wing
 


And spiders...there should always be spiders when torturing someone.




posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 




Executive orders bypass the Congress, so who blocked it praytell?


Congress blocked it, they can overturn EOs, just like the president can veto bills. See my earlier posts here and here.

Your giving the President to much power in your mind. Basics on EOs

Check and balances.

ETA: And yes spiders, lotsa spiders.
edit on 12-9-2012 by thesungod because: see eta



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


You are talking about torturing people who were not enemies of the US. They were dissidents opposed to Gaddafi who fled their country back in the 70's and 80's. Gaddafi used the desperation of the US to win it's "war on terror" to get the US to hand over these dissidents to it's regime for torture. Now how is that helping us root out AQ or, at that time, find/kill OBL? It didn't, the CIA only did that to placate Gaddafi.

That is the allegation: the US tortured Libyans on behalf of Gaddafi, and it had nothing to do with helping the US win a "war on terror".



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
I wasn't apologizing I was laughing at the thought you consider this mild treatment so horrible and inhumane. That is a measure of what I know of warfare and this ridiculous debate.
I'd do worse to protect my squad or family.

Im neither proud nor ashamed, but Id make Papa Doc look like Mr Rogers for certain reasons in certain circumstances. I wouldnt enjoy it, but I could do it. I have no doubt that the CIA is involved in unsavory things.. thats a no brainer. So where's the story here?



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by thesungod
 


I don't think you read your link very well. only 2 EO have ever been over turned and it took the Supreme court to do it, it can only be blocked by having contradicting legislation passed after.


To date, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1995 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll.

[8] Congress was able to overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it during the period of 1939 to 1983 until the Supreme Court ruled in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha that the "legislative veto" represented "the exercise of legislative power" without "bicameral passage followed by presentment to the President."

[9] The loss of the legislative veto has caused Congress to look for alternative measures to override executive orders such as refusing to approve funding necessary to carry out certain policy measures contained with the order or to legitimize policy mechanisms. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.[10]


en.wikipedia.org...

The passing of contradicting legislation to block EOs was ending in 1983 with another supreme court decision.

They can try to block funding for an order...

Since the dems were in control his first 2 years....it all falls on him (Obama). HE didn't close it and no one "blocked" him unless your are saying it was his own dem controlled congress.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join