• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CIA 'threatened September 11 suspect's children'

Laila

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
10,101
Reaction score
2,990
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Obama Administration will launch criminal investigations into brutal Bush-era terror interrogations after a report tonight revealed that operatives threatened to kill the children of a key September 11 suspect, and told another his mother would be sexually assaulted in front of him.

The report, which also said detainees suffered mock executions and death threats, convinced Eric Holder, President Obama’s Attorney-General, to appoint veteran federal prosecutor John Durham to investigate CIA abuse of terror suspects.

According to the report, written five years ago by the CIA’s former inspector general John Helgerson, one CIA interrogator told Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the September 11 attacks: “We’re going to kill your children” if there was another terror strike on US soil.

Another interrogator allegedly tried to convince another detainee that his mother would be brought to the jail and sexually assaulted in front of him, a claim the CIA operative has denied.

Mr Holder’s decision was bolstered by a recommendation from his Justice Department’s ethics office to reopen nearly a dozen alleged abuse cases. “I fully realise my decision … will be controversial,” Mr Holder said tonight.

CIA 'threatened September 11 suspect's children' - Times Online

Oh, 9/11 suspect or not. I don't think threatening children is right if this is true.
 
Last edited:
I was going to refrain comment until we find out if this is even true, but I decided I would go ahead and say that my sympathy meter is still pegged at zero.

Now, if they would have actually killed his children, that would be different.
 
Can't say i am surprised.
 
Can't say i am surprised.

Of course you can.

But, look at my perspective: the 9/11 conspirators killed around 2,800 non-military personel, in an unprovoked attack. If CIA operators messed with guys head and didn't actually harm his family, then I don't have a problem with it. The Americans that died on 9/11 are really dead. This cat's kids aren't. There's no telling what this dude has done in the past, so if he gets his gord rattled with a few verbal threats, then tough **** for him.
 
Terrorists also threaten one's family as do mobsters.
What now diffrentiates between the CIA interrogators vs a gangster?
 
Terrorists also threaten one's family as do mobsters.
What now diffrentiates between the CIA interrogators vs a gangster?

We are supposed to be better, are we not?
What moral ground do we have if we resort to their tactics?
 
Terrorists also threaten one's family as do mobsters.
What now diffrentiates between the CIA interrogators vs a gangster?

I heard some marine somewhere raped some girl.

What now differentiates the Marine Corps from a roving band of rapists?
 
We are supposed to be better, are we not?
What moral ground do we have if we resort to their tactics?
It's not just a matter of morals alone; it's the problem of the quality of the intel you get.
Through such measures you will never know whether or not the intel you collect is any good. People will admit to anything under duress.
Our soliders admitted to being criminals against humanity when the N. Koreans and Viet Cong tortured them. Giving taped confessions and admissions of guilt.
Look at the solider that was captured by the Taliban - on camera admitting various criminal and murderous acts.
It's a stupid methodology that only serves to satisfy a very primitive form of instinct by some very narrow minded who do not seek for intel, but punishment.
 
I heard some marine somewhere raped some girl.

What now differentiates the Marine Corps from a roving band of rapists?
If it was simply a case of a few bad apples that's one issue.
The problem is with the policy of "gloves coming off" and what we now see more and more instances of are that torture was the general policy.
Then it's no longer an instance of one or two bad apples, but the policy itself is producing bad busshels.
When it's the policy, should we be surprised that there are so many accounts of going above and beyond? Where do you draw the line of psychologically intimidation of drowning to death vs drilled to death, vs threatening family with death? You can't and it's unrealistic to assume that there can be any such distinction made in the field when the mind of the practitioner thinks he can make any threat to obtain info. That's the underlying problem with "gloves come off".

As for your specific example. Some Marine vs roving band of rapists, the plurality itself should be sufficient to distinguish.
 
Last edited:
If it was simply a case of a few bad apples that's one issue.
The problem is with the policy of "gloves coming off" and what we now see more and more instances of are that torture was the general policy.
Then it's no longer an instance of one or two bad apples, but the policy itself is producing bad busshels.
When it's the policy, should we be surprised that there are so many accounts of going above and beyond? Where do you draw the line of psychologically intimidation of drowning to death vs drilled to death, vs threatening family with death? You can't and it's unrealistic to assume that there can be any such distinction made in the field when the mind of the practitioner thinks he can make any threat to obtain info. That's the underlying problem with "gloves come off".

As for your specific example. Some Marine vs roving band of rapists, the plurality itself should be sufficient to distinguish.

If you're convinced it's "bushels" of people and a much higher percentage than in the military, why don't you share with us the number of interrogators that you think broke the law, and then compare that with the overall number of interrogators.
 
If you're convinced it's "bushels" of people and a much higher percentage than in the military, why don't you share with us the number of interrogators that you think broke the law, and then compare that with the overall number of interrogators.
Given the heavy redaction of all the reports as well asso much still being classified I can not give you any number.
What I can give you is only but a rationale as to how it's problematic to dehumanize a prisoner treating them as subhuman and legitimizing the torture of - politics asside I'm sure that as a legal scholar yourself it shouldn't be that difficult to understand that concept.
 
Who cares?

KSM, the guy that planned 9/11, killed 3,000+ Fellow Americans.. was threatened if another attack hit the USA, his kids would die.

So freaking what?

I believe this is part of what is being discussed in another thread, and that these actions where illegal even by the Bush interpretation of the law. If that is the case, then yes, those involved should be prosecuted. We all should care when those who work for us break the law.
 
Who cares?

KSM, the guy that planned 9/11, killed 3,000+ Fellow Americans.. was threatened if another attack hit the USA, his kids would die.

So freaking what?

For someone who champions the constitutions and the rule of law, you sure are inconsistent in applying such things. If the end justifies your means, apparently none of it matters.
 
Unfortunately, The perpetrators of torture will not be held accountable. Sad that our country no longer has any sense of justice:

Eric Holder announces investigation based on Abu Ghraib model - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

From your source:

Attorney General Eric Holder today confirmed what has been suspected for many weeks: he has ordered what he calls "a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations." Holder's decision does not amount to the appointment of a Special Prosecutor, since a preliminary review is used, as he emphasized, "to gather information to determine whether there is sufficient predication to warrant a full investigation of a matter." More important, the scope of the "review" is limited at the outset to those who failed to "act in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance" -- meaning only those interrogators and other officials who exceeded the torture limits which John Yoo and Jay Bybee approved. Those who, with good faith, tortured within the limits of the OLC memos will "be protected from legal jeopardy" (the full Holder statement is here).

I think that is the right course. It would not serve the country to go after those acting in good faith doing what they were told was legal, nor would it serve the country to do something as politically divisive as go after those who made the decisions to go ahead.
 
From your source:



I think that is the right course. It would not serve the country to go after those acting in good faith doing what they were told was legal, nor would it serve the country to do something as politically divisive as go after those who made the decisions to go ahead.

I am just hoping they don't limit it too much. It's a mighty large loophole for people to slip through. I know they will do the best they can, but I'm not sure the net is being thrown wide enough.
 
I am just hoping they don't limit it too much. It's a mighty large loophole for people to slip through. I know they will do the best they can, but I'm not sure the net is being thrown wide enough.

I have always felt that our legal system is based on the idea that it is better to let some one guilty get off than to convict some one innocent. Same thing here...better to do too little, than too much.
 
For someone who champions the constitutions and the rule of law, you sure are inconsistent in applying such things. If the end justifies your means, apparently none of it matters.

8 years, no attacks.

Let's see how Obama's actions work out.
 
If it was simply a case of a few bad apples that's one issue.
The problem is with the policy of "gloves coming off"

If the gloves were off his fingernails would have been ripped out one by one, his eyes would have been burned with hot needles, his toes would have been broken with a hammer, etc etc. Saying "we're going to hurt your children if you don't tell us what we want to know" with absolutely no intention of backing up the threat is not even close to "the gloves coming off". :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom