lies about torture, and uncomfortable truths about a kidnapping case in Iraq,

I remember reading a few cases of torture where the detainees where forced to sign false confessions.

There is the case of the the Tipton Three, British Muslims, who the US said were in Afghanistan with Al Qaeda in 2000. The problem with that is, their passports, travel records, employers, all show that they didn't leave the UK in 2000. MI5 actually backs up their story.

Another example is the case of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. He was tortured by the Egyptians (one of the CIA's favourite places to 'outsource' torture).
He signed documents that were used the sole source to "prove" a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. This was then used in a speech by Bush in 2002 to persuade Congress to get behind the invasion of Iraq, then just a few months away. Powell also repeated the same garbage at the UN.

He later said, it was false, and he signed it so they would stop torturing him.
He claimed that his interrogators staged a mock burial, locking him in a box for 17 hours, and after they let him back up, they punched and beat him until he agreed to sign the detailed confession.

The only people who benefited from this torture, were the ones who wanted a convincing argument to attack Iraq, and didn't care that the argument was a work of fiction.

Torture is terrorism. It's politically motivated and has nothing to do with saving lives.


I recently bought and read Patrick Cockburn's book "The Occupation - War and Resistance in Iraq".
In chapter 15, he describes the kidnapping of a Baghdad doctor by an armed gang.
Luckily for the victim, Dr. Thamir Muhammad Ali Hasafa al-Kaisey, the kidnappers were stopped at a police checkpoint and during the shoot-out, he managed to escape.
Cockburn writes that the arrest and interrogation "was a rare success for the police" and "the Iraqi police were jubilant that they finally had detailed information on how a kidnap gang operated. The two captured men were willing to provide the names and addresses of other gang members.".
Unfortunately, as Cockburn goes on to inform us, a convoy of US military police suddenly turned up at al-Khansa police station and demanded, and got custody of the two suspects, took them to Camp Cuervo, and according to officals they were "almost certainly freed after they agreed to inform on the insurgents."

So, why was it necessary to release a bunch or armed kidnappers, murderers, to get intel?
How come THESE guys didn't go to Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay...
Is it because they actually had REAL information and were willing to trade it?

It's also a sign of utter stupidity of the military occupation in Iraq, that in return for some info on insurgents, they ignore the kidnappings.
The very absence of security for ordinary Iraqis, combined with their knowledge that the Americans don't prioritise their security, their employment, their access to electricity, healthcare, or clean water is one of the factors that recruits people to the insurgency.

The defeat of lies about WMD, secret torture programmes and supposed humanitarian motives for the war is essential to shortening the occupations of both Iraq and Afghanistan, (and indeed any occupation).