CIA ‘Torture’ Practices Started Long Before 9/11 Attacks

Washington used to maintain a system of terror within it's dependencies in the Third World. Particularly in Central and South America, the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia.

 

Can someone explain how and why an investigation which was conducted by unknown and unidentified staffers who never interviewed anyone is at all credible?

 

The CIA's KUBARK manual included:

 

Oh-Oh I know! Pick me! Pick me!

Ahem! It's because the Dem Party leadership felt it needed some heavy duty political nastiness to lay on the Republican Party after all those Obama scandals and all of Obama's and Kerry's foreign policy failures and all of the revealed ObamaCare lies and especially after the Mid Term Elections Political Shellacking 2.0 and so that same leadership decided that as long as they get their lapdog Mainstream Media to ACT as if it had been a legitimately researched project with a legitimate set of findings then that fiction would serve its purpose even if over time the GOP methodically refuted the main assertions one by one -- what with most of the public mostly having a ten second attention span and all. So . . . how'd I do?

 

Electric shock torture was a CIA favorite for decades:

 

So you agree with me, "But BUSH!" Nice! Of course the fact that Obama found a loophole to carry on Extraordinary Renditions even though he was supposed to have shut that down is given a Dem Party loyalist . . . free pass. I guess jumper cables to the testicles simply mean special loving when a Dem President causes it to be done to a prisoner of war, eh?

 

For clarification, you provided proof that America had a vague manual on interrogation. You didn't prove America tortured people before the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

 

Certainly, 9/11 became a turning point. The disaster was impressive, but not as bad on the world map scale. Germany or Russia have lived through thousands time worse disasters and saw did China and Japan. American never experienced military occupation by foreign army. Even a small pinch, like 9/11, had tremendous consequences in a form of spending, beefing security and creating unnecessary huge agencies; tortures took place, because slackened supervision and certain zeal on the part of the commanders. All started from the head: Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

 

I was excited to see what you had to say until you started to accuse the left of a conspiracy to make the right look bad. Then I realized that if continued to read on I would be less intelligent for doing so.

 

You took a post that didn't have so much as a hint of partisanship, and immediately shoehorned in partisanship.

Why does everything have to be cut down party lines? Can't a person even criticize the use of damn torture without you dragging party affiliation into it?

 

Because you stated it wasn't partisan demonstrates you do not understand what this was. This was done by Unknow Dem Staffers who interviewed No one just review selected documents and claimed torture. And you think this wasn't partisan?

 

What is it that bothers the general public about the revelations of torture? Do they not understand its been going on since the dawn of time and is likely to be indispensable in gathering information? I read something today about how British soldiers aren't allowed to use torture anymore, and this definition extends to shouting loud at the interrogated person and slamming your hand down on a table in front of them. I don't know whether to believe this is actually true or not and the particular newspaper had something against the government but if this is true, we are in serious trouble.

I'm not going to be saying anything new here but, how are we supposed to protect ourselves against terrorist if we treat them as if they are unruly school children? Not being about to shout at a school kid would be questionable, but a terrorist suspect and someone you hope to glean information from is something else.

One indirect benefit I can see from this is that the more weak and liberal governments become, the more attacks we will face and the less we can do about it. I say this is an indirect benefit because it appears that only by facing extreme danger and real attacks will we be able to reverse this problem of growing inability to anything against out enemies. It's basically a case of become stronger or be defeated, and seemingly our countries will need to be humiliated and subjugated somewhat to overcome those who have no moral issue with attacking us.

 

. . . Of course it was partisan considering that the Dem Party leadership did not interview anyone who actually engaged in such information extraction techniques nor even interviewed the various C.I.A. directors who signed off on the practices. Mind you, it does not mean that the Dem Party's conclusions were wrong; just that this was intended to be a partisan political hack job from the very get-go. The BBC actually presented an article on that aspect of the 'investigation' today. Who knew that the BBC had it in them?

 

Soooooo . . . read the BBC instead:

Bugger, eh? Politically speaking things really reek when the BBC's North American Editor bluntly points out that this was just mostly about the Dem Party leadership scoring political points considering that the BBC very nearly always tilts Left on most issues. Enjoy.

 

So because the BBC's editor said that this was the case it's the truth? I'm glad you recognize that the BBC is mostly left thinking, but not every one that works there is a lefty. I would like to point at Fox news. Most of their people are right thinking pundits, with the exception of a few. I don't like either party they are despicable to say the least. I prefer a less popular belief of the American way the constitution and the bill of rights! How have either party helped secure those concepts? The only thing I have seen them do is create a divided country. Which goes against Americans best tool to fight tyranny, Unity! United we stand Divided we fall.

 

This is a very unpopular belief I have been looking into for a month or so. I think they may be on to something. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/bcolony.htm It may explain why the BBC is trying to discredit the report.

 

The article says the torture methods were "used" on prisoners, including political dissidents in Latin America. I have documentation on pretty much that entire bloody history. The CIA and U.S. military advisers waged large-scale clandestine terrorism. Much worse than torture.

 

The manual explicitly state that the threat of pain was more effective than the infliction of pain itself.

- - - Updated - - -

You're thinking of the Soviet Union and their genocidal proxies; such as, the Sandinistas.

 

It also says it depends on the situation and that:

With regards to the Sandinistas and your false characterization, hang on, let me get out the files.

 

Comrade Horhey I do appreciate the US and in particular the CIA was implicit in Central and South America assisting regimes torture its citizens. Oh heck sure we can mention Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Mexico, Panama, Columbia, Chile.

Of course.

But see Comrade Horhey I notice you are selective. Will you also discuss the torture the Soviets assisted with in Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela for example? Tell me do you think the KGB and its network of sister political police forces throughout the Warsaw pact nations did not engage in terror?

How about China? Remember them? Or North Korea, Vietnam, or wait Horhey you know, the Arab League of as Egypt, Sudan, Iraq, Jordan, Morrocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and my favourite, Syria.

Say now you think the Mukbarat ever engaged in torture?

How about not just SAVAK when the Shah of Iran was in power but the Muslim religious police since the Ayatollahs came to power? What the Taliban does not torture people? How about all those lovely African states like Congo, Cenral African Republic, Zimbabwe, Uganda with Big Daddy Idi Amin, Nigeria, Rwanda, Mali to name just a few.

Say now Horhey how does it work with what nation you choose to single out for torture and its just the US?

You ask me the entire world's nations have blood on their hands from torture, and some of us are what nations we hall under the bus.

I certainly do not approve of the US getting into bed with right wing facists like Pinochet in Chile or Sadaam Hussein, but come on-which nations are clean?

Hell I am Canadian we would love to say we are clean. We had no problems doing business with other countries torturing their citizens.

No one is clean on this planet.

 

A Soviet-proxy they were not:

Furthermore:

After the 1985 U.S. embargo isolated Nicaragua from the West but not the Eastern bloc:

In 1982:

Thus:

 

I apologize if I misread your information. I can believe that.

 

Yup, and the way I see it:

 

Flashback to when the torture program in Central America was reported:

 

"For the past 55 years it [the United States] has been running a terrorist training camp, whose victims massively outnumber the people killed by the attack on New York, the embassy bombings and the other atrocities laid, rightly or wrongly, at Al-Qaeda’s door. The camp is called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or WHISC. It is based in Fort Benning, Georgia, and it is funded by Mr Bush’s government.

Until January this year [2001], WHISC was called “the School of the Americas”, or SOA. Since 1946 SOA has trained over 60,000 Latin American soldiers and policemen. Among its graduates are many of the continent’s most notorious torturers, mass murderers, dictators and state terrorists. As hundreds of pages of documentation compiled by the pressure group SOA Watch shows, Latin America has been ripped apart by its alumni."

http://www.monbiot.com/2001/10/30/americas-terrorist-training-camp/

Suffice to say, American's won't be reading that over their morning cereals.