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.