FBI considers torturing suspects

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

DoctorGonzo

War Child
Joined
Aug 18, 2000
Messages
560
Location
Burbank, CA
As part of the United States' plan to win the award for "Biggest Hypocriate In The World", the FBI is considering resorting to torture as a method to extract information from uncoperative suspects.

This, along with the current drive to erode civil liberties in the name of National Security is just another part of "Operation: Enduring Freedom". Orwell would appreciate it, I'm sure.

The Times Article

FBI considers torture as suspects stay silent

FROM DAMIAN WHITWORTH IN WASHINGTON

AMERICAN investigators are considering resorting to harsher interrogation techniques, including torture, after facing a wall of silence from jailed suspected members of Osama bin Laden?s al-Qaeda network, according to a report yesterday.
More than 150 people who were picked up after September 11 remain in custody, with four men the focus of particularly intense scrutiny. But investigators have found the usual methods have failed to persuade any of them to talk.

Options being weighed include ?truth? drugs, pressure tactics and extraditing the suspects to countries whose security services are more used to employing a heavy-handed approach during interrogations.

?We?re into this thing for 35 days and nobody is talking. Frustration has begun to appear,? a senior FBI official told The Washington Post.

Under US law, evidence extracted using physical pressure or torture is inadmissible in court and interrogators could also face criminal charges for employing such methods. However, investigators suggested that the time might soon come when a truth serum, such as sodium pentothal, would be deemed an acceptable tool for interrogators.

The public pressure for results in the war on terrorism might also persuade the FBI to encourage the countries of suspects to seek their extradition, in the knowledge that they could be given a much rougher reception in jails back home.

One of the four key suspects is Zacarias Moussaoui, a French Moroccan, suspected of being a twentieth hijacker who failed to make it on board the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. Moussaoui was detained after he acted suspiciously at a Minnesota flying school, requesting lessons in how to steer a plane but not how to take off or land. Both Morocco and France are regarded as having harsher interrogation methods than the United States.

The investigators have been disappointed that the usual incentives to break suspects, such as promises of shorter sentences, money, jobs and new lives in the witness protection programme, have failed to break the silence.

?We are known for humanitarian treatment, so basically we are stuck. Usually there is some incentive, some angle to play, what you can do for them. But it could get to that spot where we could go to pressure . . . where we don?t have a choice, and we are probably getting there,? an FBI agent involved in the investigation told the paper.

The other key suspects being held in New York are Mohammed Jaweed Azmath and Ayub Ali Khan, Indians who were caught the day after the attacks travelling with false passports, craft knives such as those used in the hijackings and hair dye. Nabil Almarabh, a Boston taxi driver alleged to have links to al-Qaeda, is also being held. Some legal experts believe that the US Supreme Court, which has a conservative tilt, might be prepared to support curtailing the civil liberties of prisoners in terrorism cases.

However, a warning that torture should be avoided came from Robert Blitzer, a former head of the FBI?s counter-terrorism section. He said that the practice ?goes against every grain in my body. Chances are you are going to get the wrong person and risk damage or killing them.?

In all, about 800 people have been rounded up since the attacks, most of whom are expected to be found to be innocent. Investigators believe there could be hundreds of people linked to al-Qaeda living in the US, and the Bush Administration has issued a warning that more attacks are probably being planned.

Newsweek magazine reports today that Mohammed Atta, the suspected ringleader who died in the first plane to hit the World Trade Centre, had been looking into hitting an aircraft carrier. Investigators retracing his movements found that he visited the huge US Navy base at Norfolk, Virginia, in February and April this year.
 
I would be interested to know the opinions of people such as 80sU2isBest or StarsnStripes on that, other than "I don't believe everything I read".

To my part, extrading those people to countries making torture is an official approval with a golden seal of the US Government for torture, while saying "we keep our hands clean, it's not our fault".

I hope desire for revenge will not overcome not only wisdom, but human rights as well. Saying that "But they killed innocent people, so if we need to torture them we will do it" reminds me a well-knows phrase : Eye to eye will make the world blind. Are you blind ?


cheers

------------------
And we all shine on, like the sun, the moon and the stars.
- John Lennon
 
I've expressed my support for the war in many posts, but I don't think they should be tortured. They are accomplices to acts of war against the US, and should be treated no better and no worse than any other prisoners of war.
 
Okay, HJ; your desire for us to let an international court try the perpetrators needs to exclude France and Morocco from trying them since their interrogation methods are "harsher" than ours. Make sure you make a note of that.

~U2Alabama
 
Booooonnnnn, ?a r'commence, bordel.


Bama, terrorism is international, unless it's made by people from Country X against Country X. So, if France caught up international terrorists, then they should put them into international court. Simple as that.

You should go read my new topic. It would enlighten you on some of my ideas.

And if I'm wrong, instead of making myself note things, give me arguments that are worth it. Cos the last comment you made gave me the same impression as when I see an empty box.

cheers

------------------
And we all shine on, like the sun, the moon and the stars.
- John Lennon
 
I should be shocked, but I'm not. After all, Congressman Steve Buyer (R-IN) is advocating the limited use of "a tactical nuclear device" to smoke the Afghanis out of their caves. It's going to take a lot to shock me.
 
Originally posted by pub crawler:
I should be shocked, but I'm not. After all, Congressman Steve Buyer (R-IN) is advocating the limited use of "a tactical nuclear device" to smoke the Afghanis out of their caves. It's going to take a lot to shock me.


What exactly is a "tactical nuclear device"?

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 10-22-2001).]
 
tsk..tsk, speedracer. editing your original post to make it less offensive. whortense read it before you edited it. oooooh.

moo
mad.gif


------------------
~whortense wiffin
walla walla, washington
 
I may be just a simple boy from the Midwest, but I fail to understand the logic behind the government's actions, here. What I have gathereed from our fabulous media, is that this so-called "War on Terrorism" is supposed to make the world safe for democracy and freedom. The United States has taken it upon itself to govern the world. It believes it is its duty to insure that the world will be democratic. (Never mind the fact that the United Stated is not a democracy.) If we're so concerned with democracy, why don't we subscribe to it?

Making the world safe for freedom.... How, exactly, does limiting our freedom even more than it already is make us more free? I'm still not figuring this one one out. Where does this restriction on civil liberties end? At what point does the govenment say, "This is far enough. We're infringing on too many of these people's constitutional rights"? What's next? Mandatory residential searches? Why don't we just eliminate the justice system? It's such a pain in the ass as it is.

So, they want to torture people, now. I'm not too sure I'm prepared to believe this one. Unfortunately, it's not as far-fetched as I'd like to believe.
 
Originally posted by Whortense:
tsk..tsk, speedracer. editing your original post to make it less offensive. whortense read it before you edited it. oooooh.

moo
mad.gif



I posted it before I realized that Mr. Buyer might want to start firing short-range nuclear missiles into caves, but I was also wondering if he had something else in mind.

And why can't I edit my own posts? You edited one of my posts in another thread
smile.gif



[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 10-22-2001).]

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 10-22-2001).]

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 10-22-2001).]
 
A tactical nuclear device is essentially a missile with superior detonation power to that of our standard missiles and bombs, but without the widespread effects (radiation) that comes with the larger ICBMs.
 
Originally posted by Not George Lucas:
Making the world safe for freedom.... How, exactly, does limiting our freedom even more than it already is make us more free? I'm still not figuring this one one out. Where does this restriction on civil liberties end? At what point does the govenment say, "This is far enough. We're infringing on too many of these people's constitutional rights"? What's next? Mandatory residential searches? Why don't we just eliminate the justice system? It's such a pain in the ass as it is.


I'm curious to hear what civil liberties you've had taken away from you in the last six weeks.
 
Originally posted by Holy John:
I would be interested to know the opinions of people such as 80sU2isBest or StarsnStripes on that, other than "I don't believe everything I read".

Wholy J,
I didn't take time to read the entire article, as I've got the flu and I don't have the energy to go a few rounds with you tonight. You'll have to forgive me.

All I can say in response is... What about it? Throughout the history of warfare (and we are at war, like it or not), POWs and other detainees have met a similar fate. Ever hear of the Hanoi Hilton? I'm sure the bruises on downed coalition fighter pilots' faces during the gulf war were figments of CNN's imagination, right?

Torture is a reality of war. If the US resorts to this practice, and OBL is caught based on intelligence derived from it, then SO BE IT.

Cheers!

------------------
Sometimes the most powerful thing you can do for someone is to just tell them to fuck off. I am told to fuck off rather a lot by these three gentlemen.
 
What exactly is a "tactical nuclear device"?

A strategic nuclear device is a multi-megaton or high-kiloton city-busting weapon.

A tactical nuclear device is designed to be used on the battlefeild. Limited damage radius, but packing quite a punch. Nuclear shells can be fired from tanks, and there are even nuclear landmines. The smallest explosion they can make is about 4x that produced in the Oaklahoma City bombing. They still produce a good share of radiation but are excellent at destroying hardened targets such as a cave or bunker.

Using one would set a horrible precedent. The U.S would probably stick by its "Do as we say not as we do" stance, but other nations would see any use of any nuclear device as a moral greenlight to use them in conflicts they may fight in the future.

Now, onto something completely different...

I'm curious to hear what civil liberties you've had taken away from you in the last six weeks.

Legislation has been introduced to allow the U.S to hold terrorist suspects indefinately on secret evidence that their lawyers cannot have access to. A blatant constitutional violation.

Wiretapping is being expanded.

Mandatory "packet sniffing" hardware is being proposed. Many ISPs (including mine, if I'm not mistaken) have already signaled their willingness to allow FBI to install "Carnivore" - the machine that sees every bit of internet traffic going through a particular ISP and records what it wants.

and the list goes on....I just hope Americans are willing to present their national ID cards to the National Gaurd soliders that still fill our cities, can't argue with any representatives of the Office Of Homeland Security, after all.
rolleyes.gif
 
Torture is a reality of war. If the US resorts to this practice, and OBL is caught based on intelligence derived from it, then SO BE IT.

So, you are saying we should dispose of our respect for human dignity and the respect for human life that we hold so dea,r and claim to be defending just because it's inconvient?

Your reasoning is the same kind that is used to justify slamming planes into skyscrapers.

[This message has been edited by DoctorGonzo (edited 10-23-2001).]
 
Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
So, you are saying we should dispose of our respect for human dignity and the respect for human life that we hold so dea,r and claim to be defending just because it's inconvient?


DG,
According to HJ and others, we show very little of the above anyway. And AGAIN, we are at war. Suffering during conflict has many faces. Sorry if you don't like them all.


Your reasoning is the same kind that is used to justify slamming planes into skyscrapers.


There really is no comparison between killing 5000 or so innocent people, and torturing a few dozen uncooperative suspects.

I'm tired of US critics saying "America is no better than any other country", while at the same time trying to hold the US to comparitively higher moral standards. You can't have it both ways. Given who our enemy is, this is a fight that, unfortunately, requires the US to get down and wrestle around in the mud. I don't mind us getting a little dirty.


------------------
Sometimes the most powerful thing you can do for someone is to just tell them to fuck off. I am told to fuck off rather a lot by these three gentlemen.
 
Can't we go the drug route without torturing them?
And be open about it...if you are caught and the authorities have resonable suspicions...you will be drugged for information..
Of course that can be abuse as well...but wouldn't the suspects at least be left intact aftwards with no bruises..
 
Originally posted by StarsnStripes:

I'm tired of US critics saying "America is no better than any other country", while at the same time trying to hold the US to comparitively higher moral standards. You can't have it both ways.

Well, then, why don't we just throw away our civility and start torturing the terrorist suspects we're holding. Maybe we should pull their teeth out with pliers. Indeed, it's too much of a pain in the ass to maintain the high moral standards we've held thus far.

[Edited for my good friend speedracer]

[This message has been edited by pub crawler (edited 10-23-2001).]
 
Originally posted by StarsnStripes:
There really is no comparison between killing 5000 or so innocent people, and torturing a few dozen uncooperative suspects.



If you tollerate this your children will be next. ( manic street preachers )
 
I dont really care if evil people are tortured. But...I must say that all of our rights that we are being asked to give up these days is awfully spooky. It almost makes me think that the US government allowed the attacks to happen, or even was in cahoots with the terrorists as part of a larger plan.
Anyone have Oliver Stone's address???

------------------
{AIM HIGH}
 
Originally posted by WARCHILD:
I dont really care if evil people are tortured. But...I must say that all of our rights that we are being asked to give up these days is awfully spooky. It almost makes me think that the US government allowed the attacks to happen, or even was in cahoots with the terrorists as part of a larger plan.
Anyone have Oliver Stone's address???

What rights are you being asked to give up?
 
They want to read our email, install Carnivore, Echelon, etc. They want to tap phone lines, we cant send letters to service members anymore, restricting our access to airports, cant use public computers anymore without practically submitting to a background check, theyre acting like they practically want to have SS#'s tatooed on our foreheads. And it may only get worse.
We cant let terrorists *or* the government do things like that to us.

------------------
{ AIM HIGH }
 
StarsNStripes.. I completely agree with you, And when it comes down to it.. I think the majority of this country does too.. i was just in a Dental School interview.. Something that is supposed to be professional, and Rigid in Conversation.. and the last thing my endodontist said to me.. as our conversation turned to the trade towers.. 'If They're going into Afghanistan, they just need to go all the way, take them all out..' and in reference to Bin Laden.. 'I want His Head on a Plate'.. Hah, i almost crapped in my pants.. but honestly it's true.. These guys play by different rules.. Rules that far exceed anything lawful or civil that we could ever do to catch them... They have no qualms about killing or torturing one.. much less a million americans .. And sadly, the only way to beat them is .. well to kill them.. and use any means necessary to get rid of them.. Even from what Bono was saying, as he went on for about ten minutes .. which is great cuz it's more of the one riff.. He never made any mention about how to specifically stop these terrorists.. as he spoke about how to have it not happen.. These guys Al queada(forgive my mispelling)... and others like saddam.. There's no way to achieve peace with them.. Well, there is one.. and that is to Get rid of them.. The last thing we need is for Osama and omar, and the rest of these guys to be taken hostage in our legal system, and have some sort of long drawn out trial.. geez, that'd be a nightmare.. But so, using torture .. if it will lead to an answer to stop the terrorism.. well, then, by all means... and the truth is.. none of us would ever know.. Shame on this liberal media for presenting every single fact that they can get their hands on.. Just because us americans are 'curious'.. Screw curiousity .. Just take care of it.. These specials on ABC talking about other locations for terrorists hit spots.. roadways, or other such things.. Quit giving them ideas... Because, how would any of you like to be the victim of Bin Laden's next attack.. Or, give him an AK, and I'll send anyone up.. armed with a dove to him to try and maneuver for peace... Good Luck..
 
Originally posted by Rono:
If you tollerate this your children will be next. ( manic street preachers )

I'm not sure where you're going with this, Rono


------------------
Sometimes the most powerful thing you can do for someone is to just tell them to fuck off. I am told to fuck off rather a lot by these three gentlemen.
 
Originally posted by WARCHILD:
They want to read our email, install Carnivore, Echelon, etc. They want to tap phone lines, we cant send letters to service members anymore, restricting our access to airports, cant use public computers anymore without practically submitting to a background check, theyre acting like they practically want to have SS#'s tatooed on our foreheads. And it may only get worse.
We cant let terrorists *or* the government do things like that to us.

I'm not real big on government getting into our computers, but hey, things like Echelon are already there. If they want something they can get it. Now. Making mention of it is simply being polite...or formal, trying to legalize it. But already if they want it they've got access to it.

I wasn't aware of sending letters to service members, but that's hardly infringing upon your rights. You think that will last forever? C'mon. A very reasonable precaution for the time being I would say.

Not sure what public computers you're trying to use, but I've had no trouble there. I doubt that's a federal thing as much as it is local/state in some areas.

Certainly it is something we need to watch out for, but you haven't had any civil liberties stepped on. The ACLU would have you believe everything (which furthers their agenda) is a civil liberty infringement. Hardly. But again, I agree that it isn't something that should get out of hand...having said that, it's also something that could sneak up on us.
 
One thing no one has mentioned yet is the article also states that they are expecting most of these suspects to be proved innocent. Of course my first thought if I had detained a few hundred suspected inncocents would be to torture them through the use of drugs and other means to extricate the info out of them. Did anyone else read this the same way?

One other point Im pondering is innocent until proven guilty. I know this is the American way, but even though these individuals aren't necessarily US citizens, is this waived in their case? Perhaps International Law isn't like America's innocent until proven guilty. What the hell point is there in getting info if you can't submit it in a court of law?

On the other side of the coin is the fact that certain suspects aren't saying a word. Deafening silence imo is an unknown quantity in a case like this. If these folks are so expectedly innocent, why the hell aren't they talking? Folks who have nothing to hide are either willing to fudge their story to paint themselves as wrongly accused, or focus so much blame the heat is put on someone else. If, of course they can prove total innocence. So basically what Im wondering at is these law agencies (FBI) have rounded up 800 or so people. They are claiming they will be not guilty. Lets face it, the FBI know more than they ever let on, they arrested them for a reason, the suspects are suspiciously quiet, but these agencies now back pedal on their question of guilt? None of this makes a great deal of sense. Consider all this then think of the section where it states that they do suspect more terrorist activity is planned.

Anyway, Im off the track re: this debate.

I'll go back to my pondering about the morality of torture in this advanced day and age.
 
For bringing the terrorists to international court, I say this: It is impossible. Afghanistan has no rule of law at all in their country so bringing terrorists to court would be impossible and the idea of having an actual police unit of any kind go in and take the terrorists is insane, the Taliban will just slaughter them, that is how the Taliban has worked in the past. The US military themselves predict a very hard time finding and capturing bin laden and they are the military so the idea a police unit could do it is ridiculous. Bin Laden is being surrounded now by an army of around 3,000 men. A police unit going in there to take him spells disaster. And bringing him to an international court will only put him up on a higher pedistol in the public view, killing him right away would make the public think less and less of him sooner.

~rougerum

[This message has been edited by rougerum (edited 10-24-2001).]
 
Some of the stuff you people have written makes me sick! Oh, waah, civil liberties for terrorists. This is fucking war!!! We did not ask for this war, but we're going to give it to them. As far as I'm concerned, let the torture begin
smile.gif


Now, for all of you people who just want to love each other, let me ask you, how do we defeat these terrorists?
 
Back
Top Bottom