The Shifting Denial about Torture

The shifting denial about torture.

May 16, 2009
Sean Lewis

Torture is just one more nail into the coffin
for the Republican Party.

Cheney is just trying to protect himself and
doing preemptive damage control. It is clear
the torture policy was his decision. Cheney
is hoping for another terror attack so he can
be vindicated the same way the entire GOP
party wants President Obama to fail so the
GOP policies can be vindicated.

The water down spin on torture is that water
boarding is not torture. Dunking someones
head is hardly torture, it is like getting baptised!
The rough questioning was needed to get results!

However a few things are being left out, 98
dead prisoners, the torture did not work, and
torture is against the both US and International
law.

If all the CIA was doing was 'questioning' prisoners
why was a doctor needed to be present?

I have been questioned by the police, no doctor was present.

In previous questioning by the FBI, no doctor was present,
so what changed?

What changed was there was now a chance that the prisoner
might die from the harsh interrogation. In fact 98 prisoners
who were being held for 'questioning died.
http://opendebateforum2.blogspot.com/2009/04/98-prisoners-died-in-us-custody-report.html

This article had 623 footnotes verifying the deaths.
http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06221-etn-hrf-dic-rep-web.pdf
I posted one of those footnotes at the end of this article.

The Torture Apologists want you to believe that water boarding
is not dangerous, problem is water boarding wasn't the only
harsh treatment the prisoners received. A point the Torture Apologist
conveniently do not bring up. Also if it wasn't torture
explain the 98 dead prisoners?

Next comes the issue of why the prisoners were being tortured
and what were the results of the torture.

We were told that the torture was to protect Americans from future
attack, and that valuable information came as a result of the torture.
This was after we were told that the US does not torture by the way.

The truth is that the CIA was torturing prisoners. not to protect
America or Americans, but to find a connection between Iraq and
9/11 or a connection between Iraq and Al qaeda. This was to
give cover to the Bush Administration after no WMD's were found
in Iraq.

The torture how ever did not work, In fact it had the opposite effect.
Prisoners who were cooperating and freely giving valuable Intel about
Al qaeda without torture to the FBI, stopped cooperation when the
CIA began torturing them about non existent connections between
Iraq and 9/11 or Iraq and Al Qaeda.

http://opendebateforum2.blogspot.com/2009/05/timeline-history-of-harsh-interrogation.html
http://opendebateforum2.blogspot.com/2009/05/report-links-cia-to-military-harsh.html
http://opendebateforum2.blogspot.com/2009/05/harsh-interrogation-techniques.html

The legality of torture is, there is none. The Bush Administration knew
this so in an effort to do a work around, the Bush Administration
redefined the status of the prisoners to a classification the Bush Administration
deemed outside of the Geneva Convention.

Next came the justification of 'Harsh Interrogation' because of the 'ticking
time bomb' scenario. The White House ordered White House attorneys to
write briefs not only saying that harsh interrogation was not torture, but
instances when harsh interrogation was prudent and advised.

Two problems with this, the need for a doctor during 'questioning' and the
98 dead prisoners, also the questioning of the prisoners had nothing to
do with an imminent threat that was time sensitive. It was about getting
back fill Intel to justify the Iraq invasion.

Currently the Torture Apologists are trying to say that key democratic leaders
were also culpable in the torture. The belief is, if everyone is guilty then
no one is guilty. The Torture Apologists are floating out the Pelosi knew
so it;s her fault the torture occurred.

The CIA said that the Leaders of the Democratic and Republican Parties were
briefed about the torture already being used against prisoners. When asked
for the dates of the briefings, the CIA gave four dates two in April of '02,
two in September." When these dates were checked, it was discovered that
three of these meetings never occurred. The fourth meeting was on the topic
of prisoner interrogation. The CIA says they INFORMED the Leaders of the
torture, even though it was already occurring without Congressional Approval
or Knowledge for a month or more. The Congressional Leaders disagree with
these facts and based on the erroneous dates already supplied, one has to
wonder what else the CIA has wrong?

http://opendebateforum2.blogspot.com/2009/05/floridas-graham-backs-pelosi-on-cia.html

So the Torture Apologists have shifted reasons for Torture each time their
reasons have been proven to be flawed or wrong. This is reminiscent of the reasons
to invade Iraq. The Apologists have claimed there was no torture, that the torture
wasn't limited, that the torture was needed to protect America and finally that the
torture approved of by the Democratic leaders so it was OK.

The one thing the Torture Apologists keep forgetting is this. Torture is illegal,
both domestically and internationally and that America is better than this.




321 See DIC Table: Unknown 1 (died in November 2002 in Afghanistan
“Salt Pit” prison of hypothermia after being chained to the floor and
left without blankets; official cause of death not released); Naseer
(allegedly tortured to death by Army Special Forces soldiers in Mar.
2003; official investigation findings not released); al-Sumaidae
(unarmed 21-year-old student allegedly killed in cold blood in June
2005 by
Marine during a search of his home; case referred to Navy criminal
investigators 10 days after death); Dababa (June 2003 autopsy
indicates body covered by bruises and at least 50 abrasions, with head
and neck suffering the most significant abuses, resulting in
hemorrhaging throughout his brain; official cause of death not
announced); Kenami (death after detainee subjected to extreme
exercise,
cuffed, hooded and left in overcrowded cell; cause officially
undetermined); al-Izmerly (chief of forensics at Baghdad Hospital
found
January 2004 death was due to “massive blow” to head; investigation
pending); Unknown 15 (U.S. forces allege male shot during home
raid while reaching for a pistol; family alleges he was a physically
disabled old man and reportedly provides medical records indicating a
spinal condition or degeneration; no criminal investigation or any
other action appears to have been initiated); Nasef Ibrahim (military
ruled
death due to natural causes; son, with him at the time, filed lawsuit
alleging death from abuse); Khan (military initially stated death due
to
heart attack, until press reports of snakebite; family alleges abuse;
no medical or other investigation records released since death in
September 2004); A. Najem (military ruled death from natural causes
after hunger strike, but no medical records or interviews in support);
Zaid (U.S.-conducted autopsy stated accidental death from heat stroke;
army official stated possibility that Zaid was not given enough
water or proper care). Human Rights First asked the Department of
Defense on January 20 and 26, 2006 the status of the investigations
and any prosecutions in the following cases for which, as of February
10, we had received no response: Naseer; al-Sumaidae; Dababa;
Kenami [sought comment on medical expert finding that death caused by
suffocation]; al-Izmerly; Ibrahim; Khan; Zaid.