CIA Used Waterboarding on more people than originally admitted

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?" -- 

Prosecute Torturers and Their Bosses - NYTimes.com

I have been critical of the United States use of rendition and "enhanced interrogation techniques" ever since it was first leaked to the press a year or so after 9/11. For many years, I supported Amnesty International and read their newsletters describing torture done in other countries.  I had always thought that the US was much more ethical, "Christian," and moral than those "other" countries who condoned the practice.   I was ashamed of our country for resorting to torture, and was appalled that the US legal system would allow it.  It appeared that the Republican Party clearly supported (and still supports) the torture, which is in line with their strong support of the gun lobby, and the death penalty.  I was surprised that Peggy Noonan of Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial titled "a flawed report"  but it's premise was that torture was wrong.

The New York Times editorial board wrote on December 21st  that they believe that all involved in the torture done to detainees under the Bush administration should be prosecuted, including Dick Cheney.  See this article:

Prosecute Torturers and Their Bosses - NYTimes.com  The article also has links to support their case.

Clearly what CIA and it's contractors did was illegal under US and international law.  Clearly they knew it was illegal, and they even made great efforts to destroy evidence (destruction of video tapes).  Apparently they even tortured citizens of other allied countries without their knowledge, and ended up torturing people who were, in fact innocent.  I believe something should be done to prevent this type of action from happening again in the future.  Individual prosecution of the perpetrators and "their bosses" doesn't sound like something we want to have publicly presented, however some sort of discipline should be issued.  While a member of the Air Force, we were taught many times that we were to refuse any order that we thought was illegal, and that the law would protect us.  I doubt if military members were involved in torture, but if they were, they could be prosecuted.  The civilians, and civilian contractors involved, however, could possibly plead "ignorance of the law" etc.



I can understand and I believe the US public can also understand some situations where torture might be necessary.  The TV series "24" presented situations in almost every season, where torture was necessary, and possibly justifiable, to prevent an immediate imminent disaster, such as a nuclear weapon detonation in the center of a city within hours.  Of course, the TV-scripted results of those sessions often saved tens of thousands of lives and made the ends justify the means.  However, the situations that the CIA was in after 9/11 was way beyond that.  What could they possibly expect to get out of individuals undergoing torture months or years after the individuals were captured?  The only thing I can think of is information that could lead to the arrest of other co-conspirators.  However, any rational individual, or well operated organization, would recognize that the individual was captured and would have covered their tracks very quickly by changing names, addresses, passwords, strategies, tactics, and changing locations for storage of materials, weapons or the locations of targets.  Any information obtained would have been close to useless.   I believe it was primarily done to achieve some sort of "revenge" for 9/11 more than really to obtain critical information for protecting the nation.

REPORT: CIA MISLED ON INTERROGATIONS | UTSanDiego.com

When I first heard about the CIA use of torture and rendition, I thought it had to be illegal.  It is clearly against international law, Geneva Convention, US Law (why else go to other countries to do it?), and normal laws of humanity.  I've also questioned the benefits gained through the torture programs.  Yes, I understand situations such as those depicted on the TV series 24 where information had to be extracted to prevent an IMMEDIATE nuclear explosion in the center of a city.  However doing it months or years after capture would seem to be doing nothing but attempting to extract revenge, or act as a form of "terrorism" ourselves.  It would, for example, be saying:   "If you participate in an attack on the US you will be tortured."

During the Vietnam war era, the Vietnamese treated US soldiers terribly and did perform acts of torture on POWs.  The US at that time claimed that it was against the Geneva Convention etc.  What worried me about this recent torture by the US was that now we have legitimized torture, so now other countries can torture American POWs without fear of violating international law.  I was also very skeptical that the US would be able to obtain any actionable intelligence from these acts of torture.

This latest article below describes the report that is possibly going to be released by the Government concerning the torture. REPORT: CIA MISLED ON INTERROGATIONS | UTSanDiego.com:  It bothers me that the US did this.  It confirms my suspicion that the CIA didn't obtain much useful from years of a very active and expensive torture program. Not only was the program expensive, it also ruined the US record of fairness, justice and compliance with international law.   It also really bothers me that the CIA would lie to their Congressional and Senatorial oversight committees.

I've always thought that torture was against the Geneva Convention for warfare.  Most agree that terrorism is a form of war, and that the terrorist "foot soldiers" are,  in fact soldiers.  Those individuals are risking, or giving up their lives for a cause. There is a very fine line between a suicide bomber blowing himself on a bus, and a US drone firing a missile that blows up a bus.   Through my whole military career, I was taught and I believed that the act of torturing a prisoner would be an illegal act.  If ordered to do so by my superior, I would have to refuse to carry out that order, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) would support me.  A soldier is supposed to refuse to carry out an order believed to be illegal.  If any of the people involved in the torturing were active military, they could be court-martialed for their participation.  If any of the participants were veterans or retirees, they could lose their benefits if convicted.  I believe that is why the "dirty deeds" were done by civilians or civilian contractors in other countries.

The Senate is supposed to vote on a proposal to declassify a 400 page summary of the 6200 page report. (See this link)  I hate to see our 'dirty laundry" get hung out on an international stage.  However, since the fact of the torture is no longer a secret, so the cat is out of the bag.  I think it would be advisable to declassify at least the recommendations from this report, and initiate a meaningful dialogue about what the United States should do now and in the future concerning these activities.

The CIA made a serious error when they blocked the Senate oversight committee from seeing the documents, and then made the situation even worse by tapping into the computers used by the committee members.  David Ignatius, from the Washington Post wrote a good editorial on April 3rd that describes how the "war" between CIA and Senate happened.  The CIA and NSA have recently been thumbing their nose at congressional oversight.  The whole process of supervision requires complete openness to reviews.  It is clear that NSA knew what facts about their wiretap surveillance program they were hiding from congress.  It was also clear that CIA did not want their report concerning torture released to the committee.  Had both agencies been completely open with the Senate and House select intelligence committees, there wouldn't have been any problems.