What do 9/11 forum posters make of the Bush administration torture program?

[noise]

A good faith overreaction by panicked officials? A knee jerk authoritarian response by Bush administration officials who wanted to prove they were "tough on terror?" A bad faith effort to get false intelligence?

[Ohio Joe]

1. A war crime

and a national disgrace.

[noise]

2. Why do you think they did it?

Did they truly believe it was necessary?

[Ohio Joe]

6. No idea

I expect there were different reasons for the different people involved but I will not speculate on what was in their minds.

[BeFree]

3. Last two

""A knee jerk authoritarian response by Bush administration officials who wanted to prove they were "tough on terror?" A bad faith effort to get false intelligence?""

And I'd add that they might have been covering their asses when they found out someone was gonna use it in a blackmail scheme. YMMV.

[noise]

4. Why is the torture program up for questioning

but the world changing terrorist attack that is used at every turn to justify the torture program is not?

Strange huh?

[BeFree]

5. Yep

Now that you mention it, it is strange.
It's almost like: One conspiracy for me, no conspiracy for you!!

[OnTheOtherHand]

12. ?

How is the torture program more "up for questioning" than the terrorist attack?

[noise]

17. Maybe you are right

These days citizens against torture are considered al Qaeda sympathizers or fringe left wing or unAmerican.

[Ohio Joe]

7. Expand on that please

"And I'd add that they might have been covering their asses when they found out someone was gonna use it in a blackmail scheme. YMMV."

You think the people they tortured were planning on blackmailing them so that is why they were tortured?

[Neily]

8. Hypothetically...

If they (meaning our government) worked closely with Al Qaeda and orchestrated the attacks, then those Al Qaeda members who were involved and were still alive were a potential threat to the official story. If the government went out and killed them, outside of Afghanistan (which is the only place they could rightfully kill them at the time), they would have had a huge problem on their hands. However, if they tortured them and held them indefinitely, the credibility of these assets would be rendered useless. Once tortured, if they provide intelligence "leads" it is unreliable, just as it would be deemed unreliable if the tortured started accusing the government of working with them in the first place.

This of course is a possible explanation of torture only if you believe the government was somehow involved in 9/11.

[Ohio Joe]

9. ahhh

So.... WTF? Torture them to make them not credible when they were taken in a war zone where they could have been killed and said nothing ever again? How stupid an idea is that.

[Neily]

10. Facts only please

Many of them were not captured in Afghanistan or Iraq, but in operations in other countries. That was the point to my hypothetical post.

Edited to add: And many who were found in Afghanistan and Iraq were not captured as resistant militants (which would prevent them from legally offing them).

[Ohio Joe]

13. Facts only?

"Many of them were not captured in Afghanistan or Iraq, but in operations in other countries."

Got a link for that?

[Neily]

14. Here's a start...

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=885659

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Profile_of_517_Detainees_through_Analysis_of_Department_of_Defense_Data#A_Profile_of_517_Detainees_through_Analysis_of_Department_of_Defense_Data

Edited to add:


http://www.cageprisoners.com/page.php?id=10

"The vast majority of the detainees held in the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay were arrested in Afghanistan or Pakistan, between November 2001 and January 2002, after the US invasion of Afghanistan in the wake of the September 11th attacks. In addition to the fact that many of these were arrested far from the scene of any fighting, a significant number were also the victims of extra-judicial kidnappings and extraditions from countries distant from the Afghan-Pak region, such as Gambia, Bosnia, Malawi and Zambia. In nearly all cases, those abducted were transported first to US Bases in Afghanistan before being detained in the long term in Cuba."

[Ohio Joe]

15. ok, so your statement was incorrect

Your own quote:

"The vast majority of the detainees held in the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay were arrested in Afghanistan or Pakistan"

Now, back to the topic. How does torture make them not credible? I mean... as far as I know everyone finds them credible that they were tortured so... If they were to say "We were tortured to keep us quiet about 9/11" Why would we not listen to what they might have to say about 9/11? But, I am unaware of any of them saying such a thing. Have they?

[Neily]

19. Cherry picking...

See the rest of the statement about how they were generally not found in combat, rather far from the battlefield. This solidifies my comment about them not being able to kill them. Furthermore, it says many were found in other countries, as I first said.

If you want to cherry pick fine, but I am sure you realize that you didn't make your point. Needless to say, my hypothetical theory was just that, hypothetical.

I just find it odd that they have pulled guys out of a taxis with "no ties" to terrorists, have taken them to Guantanamo, tortured them and even admit to this day they have nothing concrete on them, yet keep them indefinitely.

It is either (as the person said below) to intimidate the populous or to cover up something. Nothing else makes logical sense to me. Then again, I haven't seen many rational executive or military decisions since these wars started.

[Neily]

20. As for credibility...

I am not sure the detainees even had the opportunity to talk about their torture. The torture issue first became public when people within the military came forward and an internal investigation was initiated. Furthermore, those military personnel who came forward were aware of or had access to the photos.

Once the photos became public, I don't think anyone would have doubted the credibility of the detainees if they had claimed torture.

As for the psychology I briefly touched upon in my first post above on this topic, let me break it down a bit further.

Torture is generally used for the following purposes:

1) To obtain information (although we know info obtained in these conditions is not reliable)
2) To intimidate the torture victim/intimidate potential "combatants"/intimidate the public at large
3) To break someone down for some other purpose (mind control, etc)

Which purpose do you really think the US has implemented torture for?

I'd argue 1 is obviously not the true reason since they were torturing those they knew had no information. And, I would argue 2 is likely not the reason since they were not forthcoming about it and still aren't (refuse to release photos to this day, etc). So, that leaves number 3... Just my two cents anyway.

[Neily]

11. List of Detainees?

Does anyone know if there a list of the "known" detainees available? Guantanamo or otherwise?

[eomer]

16. If one wanted to gin up an endless war...

the torture program, with its totally predictable blowback, would be a helpful element.

[defendandprotect]

18. Their attempt to alibi the "knee-jerk response under pressure" isn't selling, IMO --

However, people who study these things say that torture is really about

frightening the general public and warning them off. I do get that.

Of course, there is no value in torture.

And our military laws bar it -- so I really don't understand how even corrupt

lawyers could have gotten away with this.