Investigation into Alleged Torture by CIA Reignites Controversy
Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to investigate the alleged torture of terror suspects by the CIA goes against the advice of President Obama, who said he wants to "look forward, not backwards" on the controversial interrogation techniques approved during the Bush administration.The White House made it clear Holder is acting on his own. "The President thinks that the decision of who to investigate and to prosecute is in his (Holder's) hands," said deputy White House press secretary Bill Burton.
Holder was inclined to take the President's advice, but according to the New York Daily News, he changed his mind when he was "sickened" by some of the accusations outlined in a lengthy review by the CIA's inspector general.
Those charges include beatings, mock executions, and threats to kill the children of terror suspects.
The review details the interrogation of high-ranking Al Qaeda operative Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the architect of the 2000 USS Cole bombing. One agent said he could have the terrorist's mother brought in, implying she would be raped in front of him. Agents also cocked a gun next to Al Nashiri's head, and revved a power drill next to his ear. They also staged a fake execution to get him to talk. All of these tricks went further than the harsh tactics the Bush administration approved.
Holder said he will not seek charges against the lawyers who crafted the interrogation laws. Rather, potential prosecution will be limited to about 10 CIA agents who actually inflicted torture on detainees.
A review by the Associated Press details just how unprepared agents were for interrogation duty. The CIA had never been in the interrogation business, But all that changed after 9/11. Agents were given two weeks of interrogation training, then send out into the field. The AP writes:
Despite the lack of clarity, interrogators were required to sign documents saying they understood the rules and would comply with them. Yet they were given ample room to improvise and make decisions about how much humanity to show to terror detainees.
Many in the CIA feared they were doing something wrong. According to the inspector general's report, "One officer expressed concern that, one day, agency officers will wind up on some 'wanted list' to appear before the World Court for war crimes."
Another added, "Ten years from now we're going to be sorry we're doing this ... (but) it has to be done."
Despite former Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that the harsh techniques prevented the 9/11 attacks from becoming "a prelude to something worse," the inspector general's report casts doubt on whether the alleged torture has made our nation safer.
CIA officials credited the program with thwarting several terrorist attacks. But investigators said it's less certain that waterboarding or other coercive tactics directly contributed to that success.
Whatever the investigation yields, the CIA's future role as interrogators will be severely limited. On Monday President Obama announced a new unit to handle interrogations of terror suspects. The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group will be run out of the National Security Council in the White House. The group will be based at FBI headquarters, not the CIA.












Investigation into Alleged Torture by CIA Reignites Controversy
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More Administration Gafs
The radical Islamist detained at Gitmo should have been secretly rung-out for information and then been done away with years ago. This is why we have CIA operations personnel, for situations just like this one. The vast majority of American people don't have the mental or emotional capacity to deal with the dark-side of war. War is war and it isn't a social event. I have never heard a solider say Please pass the Grey-Poupon and a box of small grenades.
These Islamic radicals are not soldiers fighting for national determination under negotiated rules of warfare; they are willfully mindless Homo erectus hopped up on religious fervor and willing to die for their imaginary friend. Bringing these zealots and their over active imaginations to the USA is ludicrous. Trying our CIA agents for extracting information to protect 21st century American Interests is insane. Then again electing a Marxian Socialist as president and keeping both houses of Congress under the control of that dynamic duo of all things moronic, Reid and Pelosi wasn't very smart either. I think this is what we all know to be the dummying down of America and please consider that ignorance and stupidity never pay dividends.
Sad times to be an American or the least bit intelligent for that matter! The inmates have taken over the asylum and ignorance, stupidity and partisan politics are reining supreme.
- jodantec August 26, 2009 11:27AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You know what they say about military intellegence?
You begin by saying the public should have never been made aware of what took place at Gitmo. That is valid and so is your justification, however, the Genie is out of the bottle now and even the folks doing the interrogation knew that "once out" it couldn't be put back inside. This isn't the first time in our history that the unpleasantries of war have been made public. And as Nicholson's character in A Few Good Men pointed out, "we can't handle the truth"!
- bgarner
August 26, 2009 12:39PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
They are circumventing the law.
By not prosecuting those who gave the orders they are forgetting a prime factor present in the law , to conspire to commit a criminal act, even a misdemeanor, is in itself a felony.
Those who planned the criminal acts are as guilty as the one who did the crime .
- oneoldman
August 26, 2009 12:10PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Blessed be the ignorant
There are a few things you should know about the supposed torture .
Most of the inhanced interrogation technics used on the terrorist at Gitmo are routinely on used on American military personnel, as part of their servival training, to help them resist interrogation.
These technics do not cause physical damage, but do break the will to resist.
Just because a few people that think using anything more than harsh language is torture, is no reason for a witch hurt, that will do far more harm than good.
PS. during my Air Force SERE training I was waterboarded and while not pleasant, I would not consider it anywhere near torture.
- longshotM14
August 26, 2009 12:26PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thanks
During the 22 years I served in the military I found that there are things worse than physical pain. If, as you say, these techniques cause NO physical harm why did some detainees die during the process.
Might I suggest that during SERE training you KNEW your captors were Americans and you were safe from true lasting physical harm. You are comparing oranges and watermelons.
By allowing torture to be used you make the terrorist who is today being trained know that he will be tortured so he will die rather than surrender.
I seem to remember a young Lt. Calley, who followed orders and he got hung out to dry along with one of his NCO's. None who gave him his orders ever were punished. WHY? Yes what he did was wrong but looked at more closely was he any more to blame than those who issued his orders?
- oneoldman
August 26, 2009 12:39PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
response to longshotM14
How many do you think the inquisitors have to drown to convince the other "detainees" they're next? One,...more than one?
If you could tell me you were waterboarded while being "detained" by Al Quaeda, your exit line would be infinitely more credible: "PS. during my Air Force SERE training I was waterboarded and while not pleasant, I would not consider it anywhere near torture ."
Hopefully, you will not have an opportuity to find out.
- irish coonass
August 30, 2009 7:47AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A yes man is lying to you half the time.
Following orders has been used to justify lots of things for years.
This is more than a question of something being morally O.K. only because one likes the results.
Britain stopped using harsh interrogation techniques on the IRA when they realized that most intelligence gained this way was the suspect saying whatever the interrogator wanted to hear just to stop the torture.
Does anyone think that someone willing to strap explosives to themselves is worried about a harsh interrogation?
Some of the best info came from being one of the few people that ever treated a particular subject with respect.
We've heard these phrases for years.
You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Carrot and the stick.
- dotkhan
August 26, 2009 2:13PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Torture
There is a set of realities that seems to get ignored in this type of discussion.
The notion of torture , is it right or wrong? I personally believe it is wrong. Is the administration's sanction of torture right or wrong? Again, I believe it is wrong.
The ugly reality is that torture will occur. It will, however, occur with much greater frequency and much more zealously when sanctioned. To minimize torture, it seems that clear and strict prohibitions should exist and be observed. The remaining cases of torture should be dealt with in the individual cases. Pattern offenders should be severely punished.
In the current era, there was an assumption that anyone who is not fighting against us as member of a recognized military force is a terrorist. I think that may be an error. If one examines their cohesiveness and focus, we would probably recognize them as warriors. Their weapons and tactic are different than most industrialized countries. They are fighting with what they have for a cause in which they believe.
I may not believe in their cause and I may abhor the things that happen as a result of their weapons. I am not sure that we are right to treat them differently from other captured warriors.
The reality is they do not treat their captives in accordance with rules of the Geneva Convention. What should our policy be in this case. Two wrongs, still doesn't make a right. I believe we would benefit more from a demonstration of honor, than trying to emulate barbarians.
- truthseeker1
August 26, 2009 2:48PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
article is complete lie and propaganda
In reality there was nothing alleged or threatened by the torturers in Abu gharib etc. It was US policy to bring in mothers, fathers, wives, sisters and children of the person being tortured/interrogated.
Torturing and or raping mothers, fathers, wives, sisters and children in front of detainees made them confess to everything whether true or false in addition there were no torture marks on the detainees.
Torture has been US practice in Central and Latin America and of course Vietnam. Go look up school of the Americas in google or wikipedia.
Torture, rape, invasion, occupation has been the practice of older empires like British or russian empires. US is a great country with lots of resources and does not need any empire.
It is US leaders in Washington who drove the war in Vietnam and the war in Iraq. Vietnam was no threat to US and nor was Iraq. When caught with one lie the Chosen neocon leaders simply switched to another lie.
To investigate and charge low level grunts is wrong. According to US justices at Nuremburg the waging of aggressive war is the highest war crime . So the ones to be investigated should be Bush and Chaney.
AW
- antiwar
August 26, 2009 2:52PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Dirt
Old dirt under the rug is best to be vacuumed up and made to disappear with new house keeping policy put in place instead of being brought out for the rest of the globe to view and making a laughing stock of yourself as well as damaging your image to the rest of the world.
The media is so starved for the out of ordinary to gain ratings and recognition that they would sell the face of the country to make and stir agitation with their nose.
The respect and recognition to the US was returning on a global level and now I hate to think where this all leads?
There are so many more real problems of today to deal with instead of putting out information that antagonizes Eastern and Islamic nations and peoples to a point of another type of 911 but it would make for more news now wouldn't it CNN ?
It's time to grow up and move forward with a level of intelligence and use of common sense.
Rest assured that if there was to be another terrorist attack of equal or greater magnitude, through fear and desire for quick info and paranoia toward further violence and attack that the same picture would play out all over again.
Do your laundry in your closed door laundry room, and wait until more urgent of today matters are given first priority and spare time springs up. Between now and then, that laundry isn't going to going anywhere. I know that it would mean less for the media to stir and whip up during low event times, but tough! Lay a few folks off like everyone else.
- Me2
August 26, 2009 6:22PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Who is the real war criminal?
So they used psychological methods to interrogate a known terrorist. Now a new administration or at least part of it, wants to make a name for themselves it seems.
All debate aside, what about the FAMILIES of these CIA agents. Does anyone really think the terrorists will simply threaten to hurt their children ?
I have seen images of Taliban children being trained "hands on" on beheading individuals. Our brothers and sisters burned to death at temperatures of over 2000 degrees in the WTC. And I've seen where children, yes children, have been beheaded by these individuals. Then there is Beslan Russia , when Islamic militants butchered around 300 people. Half of them children all in the name of their " god ."
If you have not seen the depravity these people are capable of you cannot fathom it. If you knew the kinds of things they wanted to do to the western world, you would have trouble sleeping at night.
I have seen it. And I could care less whether you believe it or not.
Holder is going to get these people killed. His rhetoric about "justice" and doing the right thing is nothing more than a load of garbage to make a name for himself.
Unfortunately it will take another terrorist attack on our soil to get people to wake up from their pseudo-hippie ideology and feel good idealism.
If it were your children jumping out of buildings, being bayoneted in the back, or blow to pieces on a plane / bus I doubt we'd have such a holier than thou attitude.
Furthermore and finally. Do you think that if a terrorist knew of a plot that if carried out would result in the death of his children or loved ones he would simply have someone sit down and converse nicely with one of these people? Do you think Obama would have such reservations about revving a drill in a room if his children were in danger of VX gas poisoning or radiological attack?
Of course not. They would do anything and everything to these people to save their own children's lives.
Too bad they don't feel YOUR CHILDREN'S lives are worth the same.
Holder goes through with this and sells out the safety of the American people and those who go through so much to protect us then who really is the war criminal?
We send these people to tropical islands and provide for all their needs that you and I don't get for free. Al Qaeda DOES NOT see this as an act of compassion. No matter how righteous or holy you feel you are, they believe wholeheartedly that you and I are the devil incarnate. And if they could they would kill us all. NOTHING we do to be sweet to them will change their minds.
If you have to watch your children die, then maybe pouring water on someone's head won't seem quite so harsh will it?
There is no "if" but when. Sleep on that.
- Threat Management
August 27, 2009 12:08AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
torture
It's not that there are those willing to torture someone. What's relevant is these modern day Inquisitors want to be exempted from punishment for their crimes.
I might not like it, but if Congress adheres to the limitations on government mandated by the Constitution, they may legally make some third world country (or the whole of the Middle East; or all of Europe, for that matter) flat, black and glow in the dark.
Our nation's Founders loudly and often proclaimed that Rights are God-given and unalienable, and that:
1] Rights predate government. 2] Rights, akin to breathing, require neither affirmation nor acceptance to exist. They exist, and are often most evident, while being violated.
In order to guarantee these God-given rights are granted to all and are not limited by government decree, our laws are superceeded by the Bill of Rights; to the extent that even a serial killer will be set free because it can be established that the evidence against him was obtained through a violation of his God-given rights. This is not some priviledge which can be revoked at the whim of whichever half-wit happens to be preening his ego in the east wing of the White House that week.
Regardless of how loudly and how often the supporters of torture proclaim that "enhanced interrogation techniques" are not torture (not even the "foreign rendition" ones), it's the opportunity for abuse that is condemned as much as the abuse itself. Because even a fool knows that in a dark, damp cell in some backwoods village in Kurdistan or Turkey, no member of our judiciary will be present to guarantee violations of the rights of man will not occur. And, defending such violaltions makes cowards of us all.
It's exactly this sort of circumvention, negation, and/or invalidation of our "supreme law of the land" that gets us in trouble, everytime. Like it or not we're the good guys, remember? Our Constitution insists upon it.
And for those who think I'm some touchy-feely liberal, you might want to consider that flat black and glow in the dark comment also applies to their women, children and their little dog Toto.
- irish coonass
August 30, 2009 7:35AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.