Tuesday, May 12, 2009

A Terrorist Claims Torture Doesn't Work


Says he lied to stop torture

One of the most notorious confessed terrorists captured in the war on terrorism claims that torture tactics used during his interrogation didn't work.

If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's pronouncements to the International Red Cross are accurate, they become a repudiation of former Vice President Cheney's recent protestations that valuable information that saved lives was obtained through torture.

According to a leaked Red Cross report, Mohammed claims that he gave false information to his interrogators in order to get them to stop torturing him.

Again, if these assertions are true, it would suggest that, not only does torturing not produce information, but, even worse, it produces false information. So, not only is it not productive, it is actually counterproductive in the war on terrorism.

We talk about issues like this and more weekdays at 5 PM New York time on News Talk Online on Paltalk.com

10 comments:

Debbie said...

Yes, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is definitely someone to listen to when he's not being waterboarded. I'm sure that's when the truth comes out. lol

Debbie said...

Remember - the info he gave led officials to the sources of the upcoming, planned attacks. If the info had been false, the officials wouldn't have found what they were looking for now would they?

Anonymous said...

well, yes, they can say anything to get them to stop

Ariana Paz

Anonymous said...

All we have to do now is wait for Darth Cheney to claim that torture stopped a plot to attack New York with a giant Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man. Oh wait, didn't that already happen in the 80's?

Anonymous said...

"So, not only is it not productive, it is actually counterproductive in the war on terrorism."

Not true. It only depends on which side you're on.

Anonymous said...

NOT IN MY NAME EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kathy Knechtges

Anonymous said...

I always wondered how when they had this guy in custody he was confessing to everything from 9-11 to murdering Daniel Pearl. I'm not saying I think he is innocent, just that it seemed so convenient they'd gotten the one guy responsible for two of the big unanswered and unaccounted for acts at that time. I was surprised they didn't get him to take responsibilty for the USS Cole, Anthrax, and the first WTC attack in '93 too.

Anonymous said...

Of course I believe the terrorist/murderer. They always tell the truth. Hitler said he wasn't interested in harming anybody too. And a huge contingent of the world chose to believe him and voila! World War II.

Deborah Young

Anonymous said...

I have always been astonished by the statements made by those wishing to condone torture under the assumption that the information gained is somehow...... correct and useful. Do these people honestly believe that that hundreds of thousands of people put to death during centuries of inquisitions were guilty of the horrific crimes of which they were accused? These people confessed under torture, shortly before they were tortured into naming their spouses, parents and children as accomplices. I suppose this means the towns and villages which were completely wiped out during this madness only happened because everyone put to death was guilty and this was only discovered after so many were tortured? Or perhaps we can embrace reason along with our humanity and determine that torture is neither justified nor useful in any regard.

Anonymous said...

Deborah, there's a point being made in all of these torture discussions that is too important to be dismissed just because the creep in the photo looks like he's almost certainly guilty of monstrous acts (note to State Department: fight anti-American sentiment with makeovers, gift certificates to Sears men's dept?) I don't trust him either.

The point that has been posted, lost, posted again and lost on Dick Cheney, et al, is that torture's one time-tested, proven use is to elicit false confessions and false accusations. Torture weakens more than the victim's resistance; it weakens his mind, so that he is less able to discern truth from fantasy.

Have you danced the Macarena a with Satan and his minions in exchange for the death of your neighbor's cattle? No? Well you can bet your ass Dick Cheney knows someone who could make you say you did. Make you believe it, too.

Maybe she was involved. Maybe not. The only certainties are (a) your testimony is now legally inadmissible; (b) the fact of your torture can be used to inspire fresh hatred of your torturer, which may lead to more deaths; and (c) your torturer has lost any credible right to demand humane treatment of his own people when they fall into enemy hands.

Has anyone else here noticed the depressing similarity between pro-torture rhetoric and terrorist rhetoric? It's not just the end that justifies the means. It's the victims' Evil, which is clear to all.