FBI Considers Torture As Suspects Stay Silent

The Times (UK) ^ | 10-22-2001 | Damian Whitworth

[blam]

MONDAY OCTOBER 22 2001

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.

[Texas Gal]

shall we complain if enemies take Americans into custody and torture them for information? [if we have also tortured]
We don't complain, we KILL them.
Ever know of any enemy that hasn't? Hey the nazi's used machine guns as well, should we not use those?
Point is they are both common in WAR.
And the Nazis put naked Jews into "showers" and killed them en masse with poisonous gas. The Japanese who held our soldiers captive in WWII starved them and tortured them in various ways. Are you saying we should resort to whatever horrible thing our enemies resort to? We cannot demand humane treatment for captured Americans and give inhumane treatment to captured foreigners. If we torture, we relinquish whatever moral authority we have, and whatever advantage that moral authority gives to our nation in the eyes of the world.
"It is indeed probable that more harm and misery have been caused by men determined to use coercions to stamp out a moral evil than by men intent on doing evil.--F.A. Hayek

[Texaggie79]

Are you saying we should resort to whatever horrible thing our enemies resort to?

No but there are certain things that are done in war that ARE called for. Killing jews had nothing to do with warfare, any type of torture and mistreatment of enemy prisoners for punishment or revenge is wrong.

[Amore]

"NO MEN OF HONOR OR HIGH MORAL PRINCIPLE WOULD COUNTENANCE TORTURE. PERIOD"

Nonsense. And putting it in all caps doesn't make that statement any less nonsensical. But then, I'm only a woman, so perhaps you think my views don't count.

[VRWC_Member428]

Rightwing Conspiratoral: "NO MEN OF HONOR OR HIGH MORAL PRINCIPLE WOULD COUNTENANCE TORTURE. PERIOD"

Amore: Nonsense.

Well then, name somebody in history of high moral calliber that would condone torture. Mother Teresa? George Washington? Jesus Christ?

---

Separate thought:

It's become clear to me that it is the threat of future terrorist actions that makes people want to engage in torture. It's emotionally driven. And what is that emotion? Fear. What are some synonyms for fear? Anxiety...firight...dread...horror... TERROR?

Yes, terror. Terrorists work through fear. If they had the capability to kill a huge number of us, they would have used that method first, while our guard was still down. But they don't have such a method. Therefore, their primary weapon is instilling terror in the minds of their enemy. Unfortunately, there are people being overcome with fear. As a result, we have people calling for compromises to rights and principles. Not just torture, but things like national ID cards, and the banning of high calliber weapons (secifically, 50BMG) The terrorists know that they cannot directly destroy us. But they know that when people are scared, they start calling for extreme measures. In effect, we have people beginning to actually want curtails on freedom. And if this happens, the terrorists have won. Thus, the people themselves have become unwitting terrorist weapons.

By no means am I calling for complacency. We all should be more aware of what is going on around us, and the fact that more Americans are arming themselves is a step in the right direction. If something seems wrong, either let somebody know, or calmly remove yourself from the situation. Just don't start screaming the next time you see somebody spill some coffemate at your local coffee house.

[dodger]

Apart from your whinging peroratory, I merely noted the term of art is 'elicitation' (not torture) nor have I advocated murder in this phase ....

[Scott from the Left Coast]

LOL -- I've not heard of that one! Unique local color, you might call that. The term "torture" raises a lot of issues with people, the word is a pejorative, and I think many people think of that term without really knowing what is being discussed. There's too much Hollywood involved in what comes to people's minds when that term is used.

To better describe the methods, it is more accurate to say that you place the subject in an uncomfortable situation -- psychologically more than physically. What works is more the concern in the mind of the subject about what you might do -- not what is actually done, uncomfortable though that may be.

I said before that the methods of torture that is in people's minds is likely not very accurate to what really occurs in this more aggressive form of questioning. I don't think many (or anyone really) would agree that the "dark ages" methods are acceptable or, for that matter, effective. Now that block of ice...

[Amore]

This very thread shows that this is an issue upon which reasonable people can disagree. I repeat: Your implication that everyone here who disagrees with you is without honor or high moral principle is nonsense, to put it mildly. I for one, resent the aspersion, and I'm sure others here do as well.

[VRWC_Member428]

I repeat:

I repeat: Name somebody known for their honor and high moral calliber who would condone torture.

[Amore]

"I repeat: Name somebody known for their honor and high moral calliber [sic] who would condone torture."

I told you. But, o.k., fine, I'll tell you again. I do, and so do many others here on this board who disagree with you.

[VRWC_Member428]

I told you. But, o.k., fine, I'll tell you again. I do, and so do many others here on this board who disagree with you.

Wow, you're world renowned for your honor and high moral caliber? Wow, I didn't know I was speaking to somebody who was so world-renound! So, are you Mother Teresa's daughter?

My point is that I could say that I'm of high moral caliber. But you have no way to know that. I'm looking for somebody KNOWN (read: famous) for honor, etc. who approved of torture. Mahatma Gahndi?

"As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance,cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side."

-Mahatma Gahndi

God bless America. At the same time, we hope God doesn't mind if we decide to start torturing people.

[Fred]

Force them to listen to a Hillary Clinton speech...