According to memos released by the Obama administration last week, the CIA under the Bush administration tortured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times in March 2003 alone.
News reports often describe Sheikh Mohammed as the "9/11 mastermind," based on his confession that he was the 9/11 mastermind--a confession he made, curiously enough, after being tortured 183 times. But under torture, he also "admitted" to having personally killed Daniel Pearl; he is never described in headlines as Daniel Pearl's assassin, perhaps because there is videotaped evidence that he was not. Under a credible system, this would call his 9/11 confession into question--but then under a credible system, he would never have been tortured in the first place.
That said, Sheikh Mohammed clearly played some role of importance in al-Qaeda, so...why not torture him 183 times per month if there's even a slight chance that it could generate some useful intelligence data? Putting aside the fact that torture has been shown to generate false leads and is illegal for some very good reasons, and putting aside the fact that Sheikh Mohammed's role in the 9/11 attacks has never been made clear...there are some practical problems with the fact that he was tortured so many times.
He was waterboarded eight to nine times per day, if they tortured him five days per week--or five to six times per day if they didn't take weekends off. After the first few dozen attempts, what were his torturers thinking? After the first hundred attempts, what were his torturers thinking? At what point did the torture become effective? How did the torturers manage to keep doing this, time and time again, when it was not? And--torture affecting the torturer, just as it does the victim--what did these routine acts of meaningless physical violence do to their minds, to their inhibitions?
And what has condoning this torture done to our country?
News reports often describe Sheikh Mohammed as the "9/11 mastermind," based on his confession that he was the 9/11 mastermind--a confession he made, curiously enough, after being tortured 183 times. But under torture, he also "admitted" to having personally killed Daniel Pearl; he is never described in headlines as Daniel Pearl's assassin, perhaps because there is videotaped evidence that he was not. Under a credible system, this would call his 9/11 confession into question--but then under a credible system, he would never have been tortured in the first place.
That said, Sheikh Mohammed clearly played some role of importance in al-Qaeda, so...why not torture him 183 times per month if there's even a slight chance that it could generate some useful intelligence data? Putting aside the fact that torture has been shown to generate false leads and is illegal for some very good reasons, and putting aside the fact that Sheikh Mohammed's role in the 9/11 attacks has never been made clear...there are some practical problems with the fact that he was tortured so many times.
He was waterboarded eight to nine times per day, if they tortured him five days per week--or five to six times per day if they didn't take weekends off. After the first few dozen attempts, what were his torturers thinking? After the first hundred attempts, what were his torturers thinking? At what point did the torture become effective? How did the torturers manage to keep doing this, time and time again, when it was not? And--torture affecting the torturer, just as it does the victim--what did these routine acts of meaningless physical violence do to their minds, to their inhibitions?
And what has condoning this torture done to our country?
Comments
Very interesting. That the About.com Guide to Civil Liberties is decrying the “torture” of an Al-Qaida terroist. Nevermind that he’s not a US citizen, on US soil, or even avows to believe in our views on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Civil meaning “based from a government” – our “civil liberties” come from the US Constitution. Not any other country’s. So really what business is it of yours to even comment on this?
Regardless, looking at your argument itself, you seem to pick and choose what facts you care to reveal. You seem to have forgotten that prior to waterboarding his only response to questions on future attacks was “You will soon see.” Amazingly, after the waterboarding, we got a few more facts. Enough to disrupt a Jemaah Islamiyah cell in L.A. that were preparing for another attack.
Maybe that’s what the CIA agents were thinking after the 100th time. Maybe they were thinking that this man had planned the 9/11 attacks, where four airliners were hijacked and innocent civilians, (men, women, and children) were killed by the thousands. Maybe they were thinking that those 3000 American civilians killed that day had the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and that their “civil liberties” were interrupted on Sept. 11th. And maybe they were thinking that if KSM knew anything about a future attack, they were going to do what was authorized by the DOJ to protect more Americans living in LA.
You see, call me a hawk, or call me an idiot, but I’m MUCH more interested in the “civil liberties” of Americans than any liberty being given to a terrorist with the blood of 3000 innocent civilians on his hands.
You seem to be neglecting the civil liberties of the torturers, Bob, and the basic human rights of the tortured. It is my understanding that no one should be forced to torture someone and yet because the CIA was over the whole operation, people were ordered (read forced) to torture people. That, in my opinion, is a violation of the civil liberties of an American citizen and that is why this is an appropriate section to place this post.
I’m still waiting to hear evidence of “torture.” The Justice Department memos reveal some very uncomfortable and persuasive ways of extracting information, but as no physical injury was ever inflicted I just can’t equate this with genuine torture.
Another thing: the Geneva conventions, which disallow the use of real torture only do so with respect to lawful enemy combatants–uniformed military personnel of a nation-state, not the unlawful enemy combatants of terrorist networks. I’m not condoning genuine torture, but I just want to point out that, as a “civil rights” blog, you ought to be able to indicate where these rights come from–because I can’t find them.
Interestingly, those same memos (and many that were withheld from public scritiny) give evidence that the techniques that were used extracted valuable and ACCURATE information. Mr. Head seems to think that the purpose of the interrogations was to get “confessions”–an admittedly invalid way of obtaining such. But it wasn’t. The purpose of the interrogations was to extract information about pending terrorist activity and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed both knew and told what he knew. I wonder how many lives were saved?
Mr. Head, think with your head not with your sympathetic heart.
Where will Sympathy for the Devil get you Tom?
I quick trip to hell I suspect.
So cue the violins for KSM. I can’t even believe there are people handwringing over the fact that KSM was made to feel as if he was drowning, after what he admits that he was involved in, and knew.
Muslim Fundamentalists who are hell-bent on the destruction of the West need to be “terminated with extreme prejudice”. Or they will keep on attempting to exterminate us in the same way. Read some history. They aren’t about to be talked to or reasoned with. They’re on a mission from their god.
Bottom line: torture does NOT produce desirable results.
We’re supposed to be “better” than (fill in the blank for this decade’s boogeyman) ____.
“Treat every man according to his just desserts and who shall ‘scape whipping?”
Where did it get us…simple answer- prevented the death of more americans. It saved husbands,fathers, mothers, wives,children, and loved ones not only from dying but from the years and lifetimes that families of 9/11 victims are now faceing.Poor al-qaida. Give them.their rights back.:America-picture your tomorrow without that person one person you love. Then ask if its what we gained