Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 84

Thread: Gruesome origins of 'torture' tactics overlooked

  1. #1
    Moderator Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    30,761

    Thumbs down Gruesome origins of 'torture' tactics overlooked

    Officials failed to probe the history, efficacy of brutal interrogation methods

    WASHINGTON - The program began with Central Intelligence Agency leaders in the grip of an alluring idea: They could get tough in terrorist interrogations without risking legal trouble by adopting a set of methods used on Americans during military training. How could that be torture?

    In a series of high-level meetings in 2002, without a single dissent from cabinet members or lawmakers, the United States for the first time officially embraced the brutal methods of interrogation it had always condemned.

    This extraordinary consensus was possible, an examination by The New York Times shows, largely because no one involved — not the top two C.I.A. officials who were pushing the program, not the senior aides to President George W. Bush , not the leaders of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees — investigated the gruesome origins of the techniques they were approving with little debate.

    According to several former top officials involved in the discussions seven years ago, they did not know that the military training program, called SERE, for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape, had been created decades earlier to give American pilots and soldiers a sample of the torture methods used by Communists in the Korean War, methods that had wrung false confessions from Americans.

    Even George J. Tenet , the C.I.A. director who insisted that the agency had thoroughly researched its proposal and pressed it on other officials, did not examine the history of the most shocking method, the near-drowning technique known as waterboarding .

    'Perfect storm of ignorance'
    The top officials he briefed did not learn that waterboarding had been prosecuted by the United States in war-crimes trials after World War II and was a well-documented favorite of despotic governments since the Spanish Inquisition; one waterboard used under Pol Pot was even on display at the genocide museum in Cambodia.

    They did not know that some veteran trainers from the SERE program itself had warned in internal memorandums that, morality aside, the methods were ineffective. Nor were most of the officials aware that the former military psychologist who played a central role in persuading C.I.A. officials to use the harsh methods had never conducted a real interrogation, or that the Justice Department lawyer most responsible for declaring the methods legal had idiosyncratic ideas that even the Bush Justice Department would later renounce.

    The process was "a perfect storm of ignorance and enthusiasm," a former C.I.A. official said.

    Finger-pointing
    Today, asked how it happened, Bush administration officials are finger-pointing. Some blame the C.I.A., while some former agency officials blame the Justice Department or the White House.

    Philip D. Zelikow , who worked on interrogation issues as counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2005 and 2006, said the flawed decision-making badly served Mr. Bush and the country.

    "Competent staff work could have quickly canvassed relevant history, insights from the best law enforcement and military interrogators, and lessons from the painful British and Israeli experience," Mr. Zelikow said. "Especially in a time of great stress, walking into this minefield, the president was entitled to get the most thoughtful and searching analysis our government could muster."

    After years of recriminations about torture and American values, Bush administration officials say it is easy to second-guess the decisions of 2002, when they feared that a new attack from Al Qaeda could come any moment.

    If they shunned interrogation methods some thought might work, and an undetected bomb or bioweapon cost thousands of lives, where would the moral compass point today? It is a question that still haunts some officials. Others say that if they had known the full history of the interrogation methods or been able to anticipate how the issue would explode, they would have advised against using them.

    Torture accusations
    This account is based on interviews with more than two dozen current and former senior officials of the C.I.A., White House, Justice Department and Congress. Nearly all, citing the possibility of future investigations, shared their recollections of the internal discussions of a classified program only on condition of anonymity.

    Leaked to the news media months after they were first used, the C.I.A.’s interrogation methods would darken the country’s reputation, blur the moral distinction between terrorists and the Americans who hunted them, bring broad condemnation from Western allies and become a ready-made defense for governments accused of torture. The response has only intensified since Justice Department legal memos released last week showed that two prisoners were waterboarded 266 times and that C.I.A. interrogators were ordered to waterboard one of the captives despite their belief that he had no more information to divulge.

    But according to many Bush administration officials, including former Vice President Dick Cheney and some intelligence officers who are critics of the coercive methods, the C.I.A. program would also produce an invaluable trove of information on Al Qaeda, including leads on the whereabouts of important operatives and on terror schemes discussed by Al Qaeda. Whether the same information could have been acquired using the traditional, noncoercive methods that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the military have long used is impossible to say, and former Bush administration officials say they did not have the luxury of time to develop a more patient approach, given that they had intelligence warnings of further attacks.

    Michael V. Hayden , who served as C.I.A. director for the last two years of the Bush administration, devoted part of his last press briefing in January to defending the C.I.A. program. "It worked," Mr. Hayden insisted.

    "I have said to all who will listen that the agency did none of this out of enthusiasm," he said. "It did it out of duty. It did it with the best legal advice it had."

    When Mr. Bush assigned the C.I.A. with the task of questioning high-level Qaeda captives in late 2001, the agency had almost no experience interrogating the kind of hostile prisoners it soon expected to hold.

    It had dozens of psychiatrists, psychologists, polygraphists and operations officers who had practiced the arts of eliciting information and assessing truthfulness. Their targets, however, were not usually terrorists, but foreigners offering to spy for the United States or C.I.A. employees suspected of misdeeds.

    Agency officials, led by Mr. Tenet, sought interrogation advice from other countries. And, fatefully, they contacted the military unit that runs the SERE training program, the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, which gives American pilots, special operations troops and others a sample of the brutal interrogation methods they might face as prisoners of war. Mr. Tenet declined to be interviewed.

    By late 2001, the agency had contracted with James E. Mitchell, a psychologist with the SERE program who had monitored many mock interrogations but had never conducted any real ones, according to colleagues. He was known for his belief that a psychological concept called "learned helplessness" was crucial to successful interrogation.

    Martin Seligman, a prominent professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania who had developed the concept, said in an interview that he was puzzled by Dr. Mitchell’s notion that learned helplessness was relevant to interrogation.

    "I think helplessness would make someone more dependent, less defiant and more compliant," Dr. Seligman said, "but I do not think it would lead reliably to more truth-telling."

    Still, forceful and brainy, Dr. Mitchell, who declined to comment for this article, became a persuasive player in high-level agency discussions about the best way to interrogate Qaeda prisoners. Eventually, along with another former SERE psychologist, Bruce Jessen, Dr. Mitchell helped persuade C.I.A. officials that Qaeda members were fundamentally different from the myriad personalities the agency routinely dealt with.

    "Jim believed that people of this ilk would confess for only one reason: sheer terror," said one C.I.A. official who had discussed the matter with Dr. Mitchell.

    Overwhelmed with reports of potential threats and anguished that the agency had failed to stop the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Tenet and his top aides did not probe deeply into the prescription Dr. Mitchell so confidently presented: using the SERE tactics on Qaeda prisoners.

    Sinister 'brainwashing'
    A little research on the origin of those methods would have given reason for doubt. Government studies in the 1950s found that Chinese Communist interrogators had produced false confessions from captured American pilots not with some kind of sinister "brainwashing" but with crude tactics: shackling the Americans to force them to stand for hours, keeping them in cold cells, disrupting their sleep and limiting access to food and hygiene.

    "The Communists do not look upon these assaults as ‘torture,’ " one 1956 study concluded. "But all of them produce great discomfort, and lead to serious disturbances of many bodily processes; there is no reason to differentiate them from any other form of torture."

    Worse, the study found that under such abusive treatment, a prisoner became "malleable and suggestible, and in some instances he may confabulate."

    In late 2001, about a half-dozen SERE trainers, according to a report released Tuesday night by the Senate Armed Services Committee, began raising stark warning about plans by both the military and the C.I.A. to use the SERE methods in interrogations.

    In December 2001, Lt. Col. Daniel J. Baumgartner of the Air Force, who oversaw SERE training, cautioned in one memo that physical pressure was "less reliable" than other interrogation methods, could backfire by increasing a prisoner’s resistance and would have an "intolerable public and political backlash when discovered." But his memo went to the Defense Department, not the C.I.A.

    One former senior intelligence official who played an important role in approving the interrogation methods said he had no idea of the origins and history of the SERE program when the C.I.A. started it in 2002.

    "The agency was counting on the Justice Department to fully explore all the factors contributing to a judgment about legality, including the surrounding history and context," the official said.

    But it was the C.I.A. that was proposing the methods, and John Yoo , the Justice Department official who was the principal author of a secret August 2002 memorandum that authorized the interrogation program, was mostly interested in making a case that the president’s wartime powers allowed for the harsh tactics.

    A persuasive case
    After the March 28, 2002, capture in Pakistan of the Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah — the C.I.A.’s first big catch after Sept. 11 — Mr. Tenet told Ms. Rice, then the national security adviser, he wanted to discuss interrogation, several former officials said. At a series of small-group and individual briefings attended by Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Ms. Rice and Attorney General John Ashcroft , Mr. Tenet and his deputy, John McLaughlin, laid out their case.

    They made a persuasive duo, former officials who heard their pitch recalled. Mr. Tenet, an extroverted former Congressional staff member, was given to forceful language about the threat from Al Qaeda, which he said might well have had operations under way involving biological, radiological or even nuclear weapons. Mr. McLaughlin, a career intelligence analyst, was low-key and cerebral, and some White House officials said they found his support for the methods reassuring.

    In the briefings, Mr. Tenet said that after extensive research, the agency believed that only the methods he described — which he said had been used on thousands of American trainees — could extract the details of plots from hardened Qaeda fanatics.

    "It was described as a program that was safe and necessary, that would be closely monitored by medical personnel," a former senior official recalled. "And it was very much in the context of the threat streams that were just eye-popping at the time."

    Mr. Tenet’s descriptions of each proposed interrogation method was so clinical and specific that at one briefing Mr. Ashcroft objected, saying that cabinet officials should approve broad outlines of important policies, not the fine details, according to someone present. The attorney general later complained that he thought Mr. Tenet was looking for cover in case controversy erupted, the person said.

    Ms. Rice insisted that Mr. Ashcroft not just pass along the conclusions of his Office of Legal Counsel, where Mr. Yoo worked, but give his personal assurance that the methods were legal under domestic and international law. He did.

    The C.I.A. then gave individual briefings to the secretary of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld , and the secretary of state, Colin L. Powell . Neither objected, several former officials said.

    Mr. Cheney, whose top legal adviser, David S. Addington , was closely consulting with Mr. Yoo about legal justification, strongly endorsed the program. Mr. Bush also gave his approval, though what details were shared with him is not known.

    With that, the C.I.A. had the full support of the White House to begin its harshest interrogations. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have never publicly second-guessed their decision. Though some former officials expressed regret that such a momentous decision was made so quickly without vital information or robust debate, none were willing to be quoted by name.

    One more check
    There was one more check on intelligence programs, one designed in the 1970s to make sure independent observers kept an eye on spy agencies: Congress. The Senate and House Intelligence Committees had been created in the mid-1970s to prevent any repeat of the C.I.A. abuses unearthed by the Senate’s Church Committee.

    As was common with the most secret programs, the C.I.A. chose not to brief the entire committees about the interrogation methods but only the so-called Gang of Four — the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate and House committees. The rest of the committee members would be fully briefed only in 2006.

    The 2002 Gang of Four briefings left a hodgepodge of contradictory recollections that, to some Congressional staff members, reveal a dysfunctional oversight system. Without full staff support, few lawmakers are equipped to make difficult legal and policy judgments about secret programs, critics say.

    Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, who in 2002 was the ranking Democrat on the House committee, has said in public statements that she recalls being briefed on the methods, including waterboarding. She insists, however, that the lawmakers were told only that the C.I.A. believed the methods were legal — not that they were going to be used.

    By contrast, the ranking Republican on the House committee at the time, Porter J. Goss of Florida, who later served as C.I.A. director, recalls a clear message that the methods would be used.

    "We were briefed, and we certainly understood what C.I.A. was doing," Mr. Goss said in an interview. "Not only was there no objection, there was actually concern about whether the agency was doing enough."

    Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, who was committee chairman in 2002, said in an interview that he did not recall ever being briefed on the methods, though government officials with access to records say all four committee leaders received multiple briefings.

    Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican on the committee, declined to discuss the briefings.

    Lawyer not briefed
    Vicki Divoll, general counsel of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2002 and a former C.I.A. lawyer, would have been a logical choice to advise senators on the legal status of the interrogation methods. But because of the restricted briefings, Ms. Divoll learned about them only years later from news media accounts.

    Ms. Divoll, who now teaches government at the United States Naval Academy , said the interrogation issue revealed the perils of such restricted briefings.

    "The very programs that are among the most risky and controversial, and that therefore should get the greatest congressional oversight," she said, "in fact get the least."
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30338039//

  2. #2
    Moderator YeOldeStonecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
    Posts
    50,898
    This whole investigation by Obama won't go too far. People will point fingers elsewhere, say "I never knew", lie through their teeth, many will be blamed, in the end...Obama will have to show something to the public in an attempt to keep the egg off of his face, so a scapegoat or two will be stuck with the blame.
    MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
    Guinness for Strength!!!

  3. #3
    Moderator Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    30,761
    The Bush Administration was dirty Scat. It's irrelevant who the current President is. It could have been Jesus himself as President and it still wouldn't take away from the crap the Bush Administration pulled and allowed happen.

  4. #4
    Moderator YeOldeStonecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
    Posts
    50,898
    Quote Originally Posted by Roody View Post
    The Bush Administration was dirty Scat.
    Do you think for one minute that this hasn't happened countless times before GWs era?

    Do you think for one minute that this won't happen down the road again?

    Interrogation techniques "out in the field" happen, it's down to individuals...no matter what the laws try to state.
    MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
    Guinness for Strength!!!

  5. #5
    Moderator Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    30,761
    Quote Originally Posted by YeOldeStonecat View Post
    Do you think for one minute that this hasn't happened countless times before GWs era?
    I can't prove or disprove it did. Not that it's irrelevant to this article because this is detailing the Bush Administration.
    Do you think for one minute that this won't happen down the road again?
    Again that's all speculation. We do however know for a fact it happened under Bush's watch.
    Interrogation techniques "out in the field" happen, it's down to individuals...no matter what the laws try to state.
    ..and if they pull some of the crap that was pulled under Bush's watch they should get busted also. Political affiliation is irrelevant. We are supposed to be better then those people. Instead we made sure we are no better under Bush.

  6. #6
    Certified SG Addict Brent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Posts
    42,163
    I support our torture techniques, I thought they were well thought out. Sometimes it's what you gotta do to get answers.
    "Would you mind not standing on my chest, my hats on fire." - The Doctor

  7. #7
    Ohh Hell yeah.. Sava700's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    24,052
    You wanna see Torture?? Watch this

    [ link ]

  8. #8
    Moderator YeOldeStonecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
    Posts
    50,898
    Quote Originally Posted by Brent View Post
    I support our torture techniques Sometimes it's what you gotta do to get answers.
    Me too to a degree.
    All this stuff making a big deal out of light torture..it's not like we're severing genitals or cramming wooden toothpicks deep under their fingernails. Look at some historical torture methods used in recent years by other terrorists or even armies of other countries. Heck..go to some areas in Africa and see how the women of some villages are tortured.
    MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
    Guinness for Strength!!!

  9. #9
    Certified SG Addict Brent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Posts
    42,163
    Yep, the methods used were well thought out IMO, they don't kill
    "Would you mind not standing on my chest, my hats on fire." - The Doctor

  10. #10
    Senior Member tao_jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Boondocks
    Posts
    7,250
    Its a slippery slope. They have to publicly condemn the use of such tactics even if there is a wink and an elbow nudge involved.

    Brent I find it hard to believe that someone who expounds their christian values on other subjects would want to see someone else tortured.

    Stupidity is also a gift of God, but one mustn't misuse it. - JP II

  11. #11
    Certified SG Addict Brent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Posts
    42,163
    I don't want to see it, but I understand the need for it.
    "Would you mind not standing on my chest, my hats on fire." - The Doctor

  12. #12
    Second Most EVIL YARDofSTUF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    69,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Brent View Post
    I don't want to see it, but I understand the need for it.
    Ya cuz it works so well. Thats why we found Bin Laden so fast and why the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were so fast and successful, oh wait...

  13. #13
    Second Most EVIL YARDofSTUF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    69,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Sava700 View Post
    You wanna see Torture?? Watch this

    [ link ]
    And from the one that complains about threadjacks the most...

  14. #14
    Senior Member tao_jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Boondocks
    Posts
    7,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Brent View Post
    I don't want to see it, but I understand the need for it.
    Doesn't matter if it happens in front of you or not the act still happens.

    Stupidity is also a gift of God, but one mustn't misuse it. - JP II

  15. #15
    TypicalWhitePerson JC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Single Wide
    Posts
    4,560
    Quote Originally Posted by YARDofSTUF View Post
    Ya cuz it works so well. Thats why we found Bin Laden so fast and why the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were so fast and successful, oh wait...

    Since when were interrogations going to stop the war in Iraq or Afghanistan?
    Speedguide.... If you don't love Obama you won't like it here.
    Straight out the Trailer!
    Re.....Spect "walk"!

    MacBook Pro 2.33Ghz, 3G of Ram, OS X

  16. #16
    Moderator Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    30,761
    Quote Originally Posted by JC View Post
    Since when were interrogations going to stop the war in Iraq or Afghanistan?
    Apparently President Bush thought it would that's for sure.

  17. #17
    Second Most EVIL YARDofSTUF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    69,988
    Quote Originally Posted by JC View Post
    Since when were interrogations going to stop the war in Iraq or Afghanistan?
    So all interrogations pertaining to terrorists from the middle east had nothing to do with Afghanistan and Iraq?

  18. #18
    Elite Member TonyT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,338
    Ever since the first wars on Earth there have been captured enemies who have been tortured. Totrure & interrogation are part & parcel to war, always have been.

    All this media attention and natter about torture serves no good at all, nor does it serve well to discuss it anywhere, it's all for naught.

    The issue is war. That's the problem. So long as cultures disagree and select war as a solution to problems we will all suffer to greater or lesser degree.

    A reason war is used as a solution is because the criminal minds of our leaders can't see any other solutions. To do so would mean facing responsibility for the crimes that create enemies in the first place. They have a "blind spot".

    Want to know who causes the wars? Ask yourself, "Who benefits from it?" Answer that & you will know who is instigating and causing the wars between nations in this world.

    You think 9-11 was an accident? You think WW1 was an accident? Every war America has ever engaged in was planned by others, those that benefit from war. The causes for war that we are fed via the media are bull****. The history books in our schools are filled w/ lies.

    Torture? Hah! That's a miniscule issue compared to what's really going on today. And no act of Congress will stop the spooks and military from using torture. They always used it and always will use it. No war was ever won without it.
    No one has any right to force data on you
    and command you to believe it or else.
    If it is not true for you, it isn't true.

    LRH

  19. #19
    NYC Newbie Slayer Prey521's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Humble, Tx
    Posts
    34,934
    So many people in a tizzy over the "gruesome" torture techniques, yet we'd probably short a few thousand American citizens without the intel obtained from them. You want torture? Get captured by the Vietcong, then you'll know what real GRUESOME torture is.

    The people that were submitted to the tactics were under constant medical supervision during the "torture". Oh boohoo, I thought I was going to drown but I didn't! WAAAAAH I was thrown against a fake wall while my neck and spine were supported so that I wouldn't get whiplash or any other long term effect. Give me a break! This world is full of whimps that are more worried about the well being of our enemies than our own citizens.

    This case will go nowhere because the light will be shed on many a Democrat that gave the OK for the techniques.
    Have your feelings been hurt by a random act of E-Thuggery? If so, call 1-800-Waaaaahmbulance, we're here 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, to take your call, you could be due a large monetary settlement, don't delay, call now.

    "Please be careful prior to entering the world wide web, the internet is serious business"


  20. #20
    Moderator Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    30,761
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrazen View Post
    This world is full of whimps that are more worried about the well being of our enemies than our own citizens.
    We are supposed to be above that kind of response. Unfortunately we have ensured that we aren't above it at all. We have stooped to their level and will continue to take part in an unending circle of violence. The bad guys do something to us. We condone our actions in response by suggesting that if we don't we will endanger our future so we stoop to their level and round and round we go.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •