Torture x 183

Go read Marcywho has been reading the torture memos.

OK so we learn that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in a one month period. That information came via a CIA IG Report. As Marcy notes:

The CIA wants you to believe waterboarding is effective. Yet somehow,
it took them 183 applications of the waterboard in a one month period
to get what they claimed was cooperation out of KSM.

They certainly did work to make us believe waterboarding was effective. You may remember this story, reported on September 13, 2007 by Brian Ross, from former intelligence/CIA officer sources:

When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was strapped down to the water-board,
he felt humiliated — not by the treatment but by the fact that a
woman, a red-headed CIA supervisor, was allowed to witness the
spectacle, a former intelligence officer told ABC News.

The al Qaeda mastermind, known as KSM, stubbornly held out for about
two minutes — far longer than any of the other “high-value” terror
targets who were subjected to the technique, the harshest from a list
of six techniques approved for use by the CIA and Bush administration
lawyers, sources said.


“It was an extraordinary amount of time for him to hold out,” one
former CIA officer told “A red-headed female supervisor
was in the room when he was being water-boarded. It was humiliating to
him. So he held out.”

“Then he started talking, and he never stopped,” this former officer
said. KSM was never water-boarded again, and in hours and hours of
conversation with his interrogators, often over a cup of tea, he poured
out his soul and the murderous deeds he committed.

Just for 2 minutes and really it wasn’t the waterboarding that was so bad it was the humiliation of having a red-headed female present…that’s the lie they wanted us to believe rather than the awful ugly truth of it all.

9 thoughts on “Torture x 183

  1. an average of over 5 times a day. Combine the time of this combined with other forms of “enhanced interrogation”.
    No, the US doesn’t torture. No Siree.
    And when he couldn’t stop talking, what was the value of what he said?

  2. Y’know pansypoo, that’s a dangerous road to go down.
    But I keep asking myself “what DOES it take, to make sure the US never, ever, tortures again?” and I don’t much like the answer.
    Because, even if all of the people responsible for ordering, justifying, and carrying out torture were convicted and sent to prison for life, starting tomorrow, the next GOPster that weasels into the presidency could pardon ’em all and start the torture all over again.
    As we can see, it’s crazy hard just to get *any* accountability, let alone to really root out the torturers.

  3. The Obama administration needs a reminder about what the word “justice” means. Investigating and prosecuting those who torture is not partisan, it’s not rehashing the past, it’s not about anger or hatred. It’s about justice.
    Major Premise: Members of the Bush administration authorized the use of torture.
    Minor (in logic terms only) Premise: Torture is illegal. By any international measure (including the Geneva Convention), by American law (we are signatories to the Geneva Convention, and our constitutions prohibits cruel or unusual punishments, just to name two), by the preponderance of historical precedent (we pursued prosecution of war criminals after World War II on the basis that they tortured, including through the use of waterboarding).
    Conclusion: Those members of the Bush administration who authorized torture broke the law. They are, by definition, criminals.
    In the modern era, to be considered a part of the “civilized” world, you have to accept the rule of law. That’s been a strong part of our international diplomacy for decades. It’s one of the many arguments used to justify the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Part of the rule of law means that you prosecute without bias–that the law applies equally to every member of society. If we truly believe in the rule of law in this country, then it is our obligation to investigate the authorization of torture, and if the investigation warrants, prosecute it. At trial, if the jury believes that those who authorized it did so in good faith, they can find the defendants not guilty.
    But at least we will have acted in good faith with the rest of the world in pursuing the prosecution of international criminals.
    The President needs to know, and needs to show the world he knows, that his actions are not above the law–and that he will hold his predecessor to the same standard. A constitutional scholar should know that.

  4. Those at the top of the chain of command, and their smarmy lawyer enablers, need to be prosecuted for these crimes.
    Yet even tonight on the news, you cannot get the reporters to call “enhanced interrogation” torture. Instead, it’s “what some call torture”!!!
    After the big shots have their trials, then all the medium and small fry need to face the music. They can either admit that what they did was flat out WRONG and that they failed to uphold their oaths to the Constitution – or they can be cashiered from government service.
    And don’t even get me going on the contractors who were part and parcel of this abhorrent program!

  5. I’m betting that everything but “he was never waterboarded again” was accurate.
    Once he started telling them everything, how could they be sure he really had, except by waterboarding him again? And every time they did, he came up with new plots, so clearly he needed even more waterboarding. And then some of the stuff he made up didn’t check out, so obviously they had to waterboard him again. And besides, watching someone think they’re going to die is kinda fun, so when the brass were scheduled to visit they’d wterboard him some more, just to show off…

Comments are closed.