There was an article in Guardian Today (16 Oct 2015) by Spencer Ackerman that said that the CIA now admits they used "enhanced techniques" on prisoners called "Water Dousing" that is different than "Waterboarding" -- so yes, they did it to more people than they originally admitted. The description in this article does make it sound a little different -- but maybe even more severe!
It amazes me that the CIA can be permitted to lie and withhold information from their supervisors in Congress. I think any of those activities were clearly considered against the law. The fact that the US practiced "Rendition" by taking prisoners to other countries actually made it worse. First of all the fact that the US was in charge, made it a US crime wherever it was done -- spare the "technical details" of what might have been legal in the other country. Secondly, we exposed those other countries to being accused of participating in the crime of torture. Finally, as US citizens the perpetrators had to know that what they were doing was illegal by US and international law. Yes, they had some lawyer in the administration write up some CYA document that had findings that it was not torture. But just because a lawyer writes a document doesn't "make it so."
As far as I know, no US citizen who participated in the torture or rendition has been prosecuted for a crime.
I realize they could argue it was a means to an end. They were forced to torture these prisoners in order to "save the world" or at least "save the US from imminent acts of terrorism. Maybe they did extract information that actually stopped a plan to inflict serious damage or injury upon a large number of people. But we have not heard anything about that. It appears more likely that the torture was done as a form of punishment to set an example to other terrorists that they might be tortured also if they attacked the US. If so, it is just another form of terrorism conducted by the US -- inflicting injury to a few to frighten many into conforming. That is not the American way!
The other things I can't understand include the length of time they spent torturing the prisoners --over periods of many years! What kind of information were they trying to extract? Confessions? If so why? In Majid Kahn's case did they want him to admit that as a gas station attendant for his father, that he was planning to blow up the US petroleum industry? Even more absurd, they wouldn't allow him to say how he was tortured, because it was a "state secret?" --
It amazes me that the CIA can be permitted to lie and withhold information from their supervisors in Congress. I think any of those activities were clearly considered against the law. The fact that the US practiced "Rendition" by taking prisoners to other countries actually made it worse. First of all the fact that the US was in charge, made it a US crime wherever it was done -- spare the "technical details" of what might have been legal in the other country. Secondly, we exposed those other countries to being accused of participating in the crime of torture. Finally, as US citizens the perpetrators had to know that what they were doing was illegal by US and international law. Yes, they had some lawyer in the administration write up some CYA document that had findings that it was not torture. But just because a lawyer writes a document doesn't "make it so."
As far as I know, no US citizen who participated in the torture or rendition has been prosecuted for a crime.
I realize they could argue it was a means to an end. They were forced to torture these prisoners in order to "save the world" or at least "save the US from imminent acts of terrorism. Maybe they did extract information that actually stopped a plan to inflict serious damage or injury upon a large number of people. But we have not heard anything about that. It appears more likely that the torture was done as a form of punishment to set an example to other terrorists that they might be tortured also if they attacked the US. If so, it is just another form of terrorism conducted by the US -- inflicting injury to a few to frighten many into conforming. That is not the American way!
The other things I can't understand include the length of time they spent torturing the prisoners --over periods of many years! What kind of information were they trying to extract? Confessions? If so why? In Majid Kahn's case did they want him to admit that as a gas station attendant for his father, that he was planning to blow up the US petroleum industry? Even more absurd, they wouldn't allow him to say how he was tortured, because it was a "state secret?" --
No comments:
Post a Comment