3 ms·
I was surprised actually watching the show how ineffective the torture was. Once I started watching for it - in every single case using torture actually did ge
by jbattle 13y ago
I was surprised actually watching the show how ineffective the torture was. Once I started watching for it - in every single case using torture actually did get information out of the victim, but the information either came to late or was a red herring. I don't think they were trying to subtly undermine the justification for torture, but in that fictional world at least it was inevitably ultimately futile
- vorg 13y ago> or was a red herring As often in real life. There's this report from late 2006 (though I haven't checked any other sources)... "Last week Omar Nasiri, a Moroccan who spent seven years infiltrating al-Qaeda as a double agent working for the French and British intelligence services, told the BBC’s Newsnight programme that al-Qaeda deliberately fed false information to the US government in order to encourage it to invade Iraq. According to Nasiri (a pseudonym), Ibn Sheikh al-Libi, who ran al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and was captured in the US invasion of that country five years ago, told his US interrogators that Saddam Hussein was cooperating with the terrorist organisation to plan attacks with chemical and biological weapons. [...] American forces had scooped up Ibn Sheikh al-Libi in Afghanistan in November, 2001, and sent him off to Egypt to be tortured (because the US itself doesn’t do torture) in the presence of American interrogators. And Libi told his lie about Saddam Hussein’s complicity with al-Qaeda, which Colin Powell seized on as justification for the US attack on Iraq." (http://gwynnedyer.com/2006/al-qaeda-and-iraq/ http://gwynnedyer.com/2006/al-qaeda-and-iraq/)