CIA Chief observed torture of Saudi detainee 'raped' by US interrogators

Disir

Platinum Member
Sep 30, 2011
28,003
9,611
910
Former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Gina Haspel, observed the torture of Saudi prisoner, Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri, according to new testimony at a hearing last month in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by psychologist, James E Mitchell, who helped develop the Agency's interrogation program.

Mitchell disclosed details about Haspel's long and secretive career, including her time as the Chief of Base at the CIA black site in Thailand in 2002, where Al-Nashiri was tortured. According to details of Mitchell's testimony in the New York Times, Haspel watched while an interrogator and a team-mate subjected Al-Nashiri to "enhanced interrogation" which included water-boarding at the black site.

Lengthy history of knowing torture produces false testimony and continues to do it anyway. Did not even intervene.
 
Former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Gina Haspel, observed the torture of Saudi prisoner, Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri, according to new testimony at a hearing last month in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by psychologist, James E Mitchell, who helped develop the Agency's interrogation program.

Mitchell disclosed details about Haspel's long and secretive career, including her time as the Chief of Base at the CIA black site in Thailand in 2002, where Al-Nashiri was tortured. According to details of Mitchell's testimony in the New York Times, Haspel watched while an interrogator and a team-mate subjected Al-Nashiri to "enhanced interrogation" which included water-boarding at the black site.

Lengthy history of knowing torture produces false testimony and continues to do it anyway. Did not even intervene.
That article has little relationship to its sensationalized headline about "rape." "Rape" was how the terrorist's defense attorney described the terrorist being prevented from attempting to starve himself. It's unfortunate that you signed off on that phony headline by using it as your own subject line.

Were the CIA officers over-zealous at times in trying to prevent the next terrorist sneak attack from being nuclear? No doubt they erred on the side of protecting the American people instead of the side of avoiding traumatizing a terrorist.

Haspel was confirmed by the people's elected representatives to be head of the CIA after she participated in that to whatever degree that she did.
 
That article has little relationship to its sensationalized headline about "rape." "Rape" was how the terrorist's defense attorney described the terrorist being prevented from attempting to starve himself. It's unfortunate that you signed off on that phony headline by using it as your own subject line.

Were the CIA officers over-zealous at times in trying to prevent the next terrorist sneak attack from being nuclear? No doubt they erred on the side of protecting the American people instead of the side of avoiding traumatizing a terrorist.

Haspel was confirmed by the people's elected representatives to be head of the CIA after she participated in that to whatever degree that she did.
Over-zealous? No. These people knew that torture leads to a false confession. They knew that what they were doing constituted torture because that individual was moved to a black site in order for it to occur. There is no amount of BS through this.
 

According to Ehud Rosen, MEMO generally supports Islamist positions within Palestinian politics. According to Andrew Gilligan, the Middle East Monitor promotes a strongly pro-Muslim Brotherhood and pro-Hamas viewpoint. Anshel Pfeffer described MEMO as a “conspiracy theory-peddling anti-Israel organisation”. Our review shows that the Middle East Monitor has a left wing bias in the use of loaded words and also in story choices that promote Islamic positions. We could not find any instances of the Middle East Monitor failing fact checks, but they do sometimes source to questionable media outlets and hence garner a Mixed factual rating.

Overall, we rate the Middle East Monitor Left Biased based on story selection that favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to the use of poor sources who are questionable at times. (4/7/2017) Updated (D. Van Zandt 9/19/2018)
 

According to Ehud Rosen, MEMO generally supports Islamist positions within Palestinian politics. According to Andrew Gilligan, the Middle East Monitor promotes a strongly pro-Muslim Brotherhood and pro-Hamas viewpoint. Anshel Pfeffer described MEMO as a “conspiracy theory-peddling anti-Israel organisation”. Our review shows that the Middle East Monitor has a left wing bias in the use of loaded words and also in story choices that promote Islamic positions. We could not find any instances of the Middle East Monitor failing fact checks, but they do sometimes source to questionable media outlets and hence garner a Mixed factual rating.

Overall, we rate the Middle East Monitor Left Biased based on story selection that favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to the use of poor sources who are questionable at times. (4/7/2017) Updated (D. Van Zandt 9/19/2018)
Are you telling me that you need someone associated with the "right" to explain that torture conducted on an individual that was moved to a black site was wrong?
 
Muslim Brotherhood sponsored site. Can't be trusted on being true.............we know that they waterboarded back then. Sure that happened, but I don't think the rest can be trusted.

The very headline is misleading.........They called a dietary supplement a rape.
 
Torture is why they had black sites to begin with.
 
Are you telling me that you need someone associated with the "right" to explain that torture conducted on an individual that was moved to a black site was wrong?
I'm telling you the source is very questionable. I know they used water boarding to get info.....That is known.......The rest who knows......

iu


I'm against torture. But not against shooting that POS in the head.
 
Over-zealous? No. These people knew that torture leads to a false confession. They knew that what they were doing constituted torture because that individual was moved to a black site in order for it to occur. There is no amount of BS through this.


It is retarded to pretend that the "False confession" is limited to torture.

Any intelligence should not be used unless confirmed.
 
James E. Mitchell should be in prison, he had no particular knowledge about interrogation, other than being a psychologist and military fanboy who attended some Navy escape and evasion training.

There is a documentary about the torture of this prisoner who was NOT a key figure in Al Qaeda, you can watch it on HBO, and it includes commentary from the two interrogators, who were getting actionable information without torture, but instead were ordered to begin the torture, the "program" authored by the hack James Mitchell.

Gina Haspel was likely complicit, mainly out of ignorance, is my best guess.
 
paywall.............I've already stated that they water boarded. We know that.

But the headline was RAPED..........not honest at all..............The Muslim Brotherhood are not the most honest people in the world.......And this is a rag site for them.
 
I'm telling you the source is very questionable. I know they used water boarding to get info.....That is known.......The rest who knows......

iu


I'm against torture. But not against shooting that POS in the head.
I'd be down for that too but torture produces false confessions. Evidence. You either have it or you don't.
 
Over-zealous? No. These people knew that torture leads to a false confession.
What is your proof that torture always leads to false information?

What is your proof that the CIA knew about the proof?

Is it your sincere belief that the CIA officers tortured for their own amusement, knowing than any information they gained would be false and that it would damage the U.S. to to use that information as legitimate intelligence?
They knew that what they were doing constituted torture because that individual was moved to a black site in order for it to occur. There is no amount of BS through this.
Of course they knew what they were doing was illegal. What do you think that their motivation was for breaking the law in that way?
 
I am opposed to real torture because we should be better than that & the fact it does tend to make them confess to or make up things to stop the abuse.
However, calling water boarding actual torture is spurious. It might be unpleasant & scary for the individual going through it but it causes no real damage & is exponentially less harsh than what many of our enemies deem appropriate when they interrogate our people.
I trust the CIA not at all, I think they are a rogue agency that should be torn down but calling a vitamin suppository "rape" is sensationalism at best.
There's a fine line between legitimately working to protect the country from our enemies & becoming the very monsters we fight against.
I have a feeling it's the CIA & other fed elements that have heavily contributed to so many of the worlds population to hate America now.
Knowing now what I do about the CIA, it has done irreparable harm to my trust in our govt as well.
 
Former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Gina Haspel, observed the torture of Saudi prisoner, Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri, according to new testimony at a hearing last month in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by psychologist, James E Mitchell, who helped develop the Agency's interrogation program.

Mitchell disclosed details about Haspel's long and secretive career, including her time as the Chief of Base at the CIA black site in Thailand in 2002, where Al-Nashiri was tortured. According to details of Mitchell's testimony in the New York Times, Haspel watched while an interrogator and a team-mate subjected Al-Nashiri to "enhanced interrogation" which included water-boarding at the black site.

Lengthy history of knowing torture produces false testimony and continues to do it anyway. Did not even intervene.

That's awful!
We need to gently ask terrorists questions.
And give them plenty of comfy pillows.
 
It shouldn't.


So why pretend that the choice is "running with the info without question" and "not doing it at all"?


Oh, right, it's a logical fallacy because you know that your argument is weak.
 

Forum List

Back
Top