Terror suspect 'tortured by US'

The USS Cole attack killed 17 US servicemen in 2000
A Saudi man held in US custody for five years has told a military hearing he was tortured into confessing a role in the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000.
Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, 41, said he had faced years of torture after his arrest in 2002, a Pentagon transcript from the closed-door hearing said.

Mr Nashiri said he made up stories to satisfy his captors, the transcript said, but gave no details of torture.

He was among 14 "high-value" detainees moved to Guantanamo Bay in September.

One time they tortured me one way, and another time they tortured me in a different way

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri transcript


Key US terror suspects
The 14 men were previously held in secret CIA prisons but are now being detained in a maximum security wing in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The US has accused Mr Nashiri of being the leader of al-Qaeda's operations in the Gulf at the time of the attack in Yemen, which killed 17 US sailors and almost sunk the warship.

He was tried in absentia in a Yemeni court in September 2004 and sentenced to death.

Interrogators 'happy'

Mr Nashiri's testimony was given at a military tribunal held at Guantanamo to determine his status as an "enemy combatant" on 14 March, AFP news agency reports.

"From the time I was arrested five years ago, they have been torturing me," the transcript of his hearing read.

"It happened during interviews. One time they tortured me one way, and another time they tortured me in a different way.

According to his testimony he eventually "confessed" to playing a key role in the bombing of the USS Cole.

"I just said those things to make the people happy," the transcript read.

"They were very happy when I told them those things."

Among the apparent confessions contained in the transcript, Mr Nashiri told his interrogators that he met al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden several times and received significant amounts of money from him.


I am not saying that he did/didn't do it. What I would like to do is open a discussion on why torture is not reliable. Let's say this guy really was not a player in the Cole bombing, and that the torture made him confess.

Now I'm sure some of you will say, "who gives a fuck, he's an islamic extremist". However, if he didn't participate, then the "real" terrorists will walk away to plan for another day.

Another point I would like to make is this: If the intelligence was so bad that we could not divert 9/11 from happening, and so bad that the info was so wrong on wmd's in Iraq, then how do we trust the same intelligence that named enemy combatants and put them in GITMO?

Freedom, you make some compelling arugements about this subject. I have read studies that say information that is harvested using torture, is un relieable.

__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.

An American first and always a Conservative.

I sure hope we get an administration in, not Dem or Rep, that finds the people who did the torturing and sentences them to death. We don't need shit like that in our country.

__________________
http://tinyurl.com/25trx9

03/04/07 "Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson, US essayist & poet (1803 - 1882)

02/25/07 "There is no nonsense so errant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action." ~ Bertrand Russell, British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970)

I don't think "sentencing" people to death is the answer. I think that we need to look at written/unwritten policy and what kind of mentality that can lead to.

I would also like to address the intelligence used and how perhaps it may be faulty and what that could mean for our "war on terror".

You are certainly correct. But torturing people is so reprehensible. People who do this are just as bad as child molesters in my mind. My immediate gut reaction is to see them hang. The right solution is to fix the system so it does not produce sickos like them.

__________________
http://tinyurl.com/25trx9

03/04/07 "Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson, US essayist & poet (1803 - 1882)

02/25/07 "There is no nonsense so errant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action." ~ Bertrand Russell, British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970)

There is a progression to torture. The truth is that you may see them as sickos, but that normal everyday people can be seduced into participation, and then later find what they did as repugnant.

You want to point out that torture is not reliable, great, but I don't think you'll find a single person that will argue that torture is 100% reliable. Of course people will give false intel under duress, but this can be said for any form of interrogation.

Also, you suggest our intelligence is so bad it is not to be trusted regarding other situations outside of the ones you mentioned. What do we believe and what do we go by if we make this assumption? We can't simply point out a few instances of questionable/faulty intel and disregard the entirety. I know that's not what you are suggesting, but there is little room to do otherwise with your assertion.

__________________
He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man.
Dr. Samuel Johnson

As far as a progression of torture, I'm not so sure. Maybe a progression of media coverage and public interest, but not neccessarily the act itself. You'd need to show me the progression for me to believe it existed. Taking into account the secrecy of the topic, I'm not so sure we can trust that intel.

__________________
He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man.
Dr. Samuel Johnson

Here is the progession:

Motivation to torture
It was long thought that "good" people would not torture and only "bad" ones would, under normal circumstances. Research over the past 50 years suggests a disquieting alternative view, that under the right circumstances and with the appropriate encouragement and setting, most people can be encouraged to actively torture others. Stages of torture mentality include:

Reluctant or peripheral participation

Official encouragement: As the Stanford prison experiment and Milgram experiment show, many people will follow the direction of an authority figure (such as a superior officer) in an official setting (especially if presented as mandatory), even if they have personal uncertainty. The main motivations for this appear to be fear of loss of status or respect, and the desire to be seen as a "good citizen" or "good subordinate".

Peer encouragement: to accept torture as necessary, acceptable or deserved, or to comply from a wish to not reject peer group beliefs. This may potentially lead to torture gangs roaming the streets seeking dominant torture status.

Dehumanization: seeing victims as objects of curiosity and experimentation, where pain becomes just another test to see how it affects the victim.

Disinhibition: socio-cultural and situational pressures may cause torturers to undergo a lessening of moral inhibitions and as a result act in ways not normally countenanced by law, custom and conscience.

Organisationally, like many other procedures, once torture becomes established as part of internally acceptable norms under certain circumstances, its use often becomes institutionalised and self-perpetuating over time, as what was once used exceptionally for perceived necessity finds more reasons claimed to justify wider use.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The discussion I would like to see: The intelligence that got us into Iraq/failed on 9/11 is also (partly) the intel we used to name terrorists and organizations. Would it not be prudent to take a look at the intel of that time, and see if it is reliable where the people of GITMO or other enemy combatants are concerned. Have we fixed the problems and is our intel more reliable today?