Skip to main content

The lost CIA interrogation technique: forcing suspects to crap themselves and sit in it for three days

Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent has a great piece of detective work in determining that the lost eleventh technique proposed by the CIA in 2002 was actually prolonged diapering.

This means forcing interrogation suspects to wear diapers, and when they shit and piss themselves requiring them to sit in it for up to 72 hours.

The tactic was apparently dropped because the CIA thought its inclusion might cause a delay in the Department of Justice review of its proposal. I guess it is good to know that the Ashcroft DOJ actually drew the line somewhere.

The documentation Ackerman has collated also suggests that prolonged diapering had the support of then CIA Director George Tenet.

I know, I know: we were only thinking about making them sit in their own poop, and they want to kill all of our children, and--besides--FDR nuked Hiroshima.

Comments

Just to forestall anybody who happens by and wants to score a quick, cheap point: I do know that Truman bombed Hiroshima. It's sarcasm.

FDR, as we all know, only bombed Nagasaki.
Hube said…
Seems to me that you're the one making a cheap point, Steve. Maybe you regret your lame explanations of why the a-bombs were OK, but roughing up homicidal maniacs is "unjust always."

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...