water boarding for beginners


Hello Tap,

From spikethenews.blogspot.co.uk

News Spike

The Blog of Internet Muck-raking Scandal Wizard Spike 1138

Thursday, 11 December 2014


“ONLY 9/11 Truth can stop Bush, the Iran War, World War III…

…if you do not address 9/11 YOU GET NOTHING…”

Well, torture is not the issue when it comes to Guantanamo anyway.

No-one is (or was) in Guantanamo because they possess useful information that they have failed to give up – the torture and the interrogation is there merely to force submission, at which point the CIA offers you a job as a double agent and the training begins.

Guantanamo isn’t an intelligence centre or a Black Site, it’s a terrorist training and Mind Control indoctrination facility.

The point with something like Waterboarding is that after 15-20 seconds, most people will do whatever they are told to do immediately thereafter – which, in most cases, means “go and be a Jihadi for the US”.

Remember, KSM had to be water boarded over 300 times to obtain his detailed, factually correct false confession to 9/11.

The uproar is

1) Most of them are not terrorists – they are Afghan goat herders who got sold by their neighbours in October 2001.

2) They ARE terrorists by the time the US lets them out.

3) That’s the whole point.

“If roles are reversed they’ll be treating our soldier captives far, far, far worse.”

It’s already far, far worse – you are the aggressor. The US was not attacked on 9/11.

The Afghan, Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese, Yemenis, Libyan, Egyptians, Algerians, Iranians, Kurds and Tunisians  have done absolutely nothing to youYou have invaded their countries, smashed their infrastructure, raped their women, maimed their children, stolen all of their shit and keyed their car.

“Every country tortures the enemy in war time. ”

This is an absolute, complete lie.

For instance – the Nazis put captured allied officers in a Magical German Castle Fortress and let them iron their uniforms and put on nativity plays.

I lived through Irish terrorism, the Provisional IRA (some of them) were determined to blow up my English ass for at least the first 14-18 years of my life.

Here’s the thing with terrorists – if you ignore them and tell them to fuck off, eventually they get bored, go home and ask to be allowed to offer surrender terms.

You do not change your way of life. Ever.

And who are “Our soldier captives”?

I don’t support the troops. Not any more For the first five years only.

And I ALWAYS maintained “Not in my name” – I want no part of The Occupation.

After that time, anyone over there is a racist, a killer or too stupid and ignorant to know what they are getting into when they have every opportunity to find out and they deserve everything that happens to them. Especially decapitation.

Cartoon on the May 22, 1902 cover of Life magazine depicting American application of the water cure while Europeans watch. The caption reads:

“Chorus in background: ‘Those pious Yankees can’t throw stones at us anymore.'”

Lieutenant Grover Flint during the Philippine-American War:

“A man is thrown down on his back and three or four men sit or stand on his arms and legs and hold him down; and either a gun barrel or a rifle barrel or a carbine barrel or a stick as big as a belaying pin, – that is, with an inch circumference, – is simply thrust into his jaws and his jaws are thrust back, and, if possible, a wooden log or stone is put under his head or neck, so he can be held more firmly. In the case of very old men I have seen their teeth fall out, – I mean when it was done a little roughly. He is simply held down and then water is poured onto his face down his throat and nose from a jar; and that is kept up until the man gives some sign or becomes unconscious. And, when he becomes unconscious, he is simply rolled aside and he is allowed to come to. In almost every case the men have been a little roughly handled. They were rolled aside rudely, so that water was expelled. A man suffers tremendously, there is no doubt about it. His sufferings must be that of a man who is drowning, but cannot drown.”

In his book The Forging of the American Empire Sidney Lens recounted:

A reporter for the New York Evening Post (April 8, 1902) gave some harrowing details. The native, he said, is thrown on the ground, his arms and legs pinned down, and head partially raised “so as to make pouring in the water an easier matter”. If the prisoner tries to keep his mouth closed, his nose is pinched to cut off the air and force him to open his mouth, or a bamboo stick is put in the opening. In this way water is steadily poured in, one, two, three, four, five gallons, until the body becomes “an object frightful to contemplate”. In this condition, of course, speech is impossible, so the water is squeezed out of the victim, sometimes naturally, and sometimes – as a young soldier with a smile told the correspondent – “we jump on them to get it out quick.”

One or two such treatments and the prisoner either talks or dies.

Tim Osman, aka The Bin Laden of 1998 of the CIA and his boss and handler, Ayman al-Zawahiri of MI6

From : 9/11 : Synthetic Terror – Made in USA


The role of London as the leading center of Islamic radicalism has been an open secret for years, but has never been reported by the U.S. controlled corporate media. In the nineteenth century, when Mazzini and Marx operated out of London, the slogan was that “England supports all revolutions but her own.” In the post-colonial world, the British have found it to their advantage to encourage violent movements which could be used for destabilizations and assassinations in the former colonies, which their ex-masters did not want to see become strong and effective modern states. Between 1995 and 1999, protests were lodged by many countries concerning the willingness of the British government to permit terror groups to operate from British territory. Among the protestors were: Israel, Algeria, Turkey, Libya, Yemen, India, Egypt, France, Peru, Germany, Nigeria, and Russia. This is a list which, if widely known, might force certain U.S. radio commentators to change their world picture about who is soft on terrorism.

A number of groups which were cited as terrorist organizations by the U.S. State Department had their headquarters in London. Among them were the Islamic Group of Egypt, led by Bin Laden’s current right-hand man, Zawahiri, who was a known participant in the plot to assassinate Egyptian President Sadat; this was also the group which had murdered foreign tourists at Luxor in an attempt to wreck the Egyptian tourist industry. Also present in London were Al Jihad of Egypt, Hamas of Palestine, the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) of Algeria (responsible for large-scale massacres in that country), the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), which attacked targets in Turkey, and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Tamil Tigers) of Sri Lanka, who assassinated Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Ghandi. Sheikh Bakri, Bin Laden spokesman’s spokesman, was openly active in London into mid-1998 and later; he gave a press conference after the bombings of the U.S. East African embassies. The killings of figures like Sadat and Rajiv Ghandi should indicate the scale of  the destabilization in developing countries of which some of these groups are capable.

Non-Anglo-Saxon press organs have from time to time pointed up the role of London in worldwide subversion. “The track of … the GIA leader in Paris leads to Great Britain. The British capital has served as logistical and financial base for the terrorists,” wrote Le Figaro on Nov. 3, 1995, in the wake of a murderous terror attack carried out in France. A report by the French National Assembly in October 2001 alleged that London played the key role as clearinghouse for money laundering of criminal and terrorist organizations. On March 3, 1996: Hamas bombed a market in Jerusalem, leaving 12 Israelis dead. A British newspaper reported soon after: “Israeli security sources say the fanatics … are funded and controlled through secret cells operating here. … Military chiefs in Jerusalem detailed how Islamic groups raised £7 million in donations from British organizations.” (Daily Express, London, March 5, 1996

In the midst of a campaign of destabilization against Egypt in the mid-1990s, the semi- official organ of the Egyptian government pointed out that “Britain has become the number one base in the world for international terrorism.” (Al Ahram, Cairo, September 7, 1996) Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak noted that “… some states, like Britain, give political asylum to terrorists, and these states will pay the price for that.” (Al-Hayat, September 18, 1996) British newspapers were also alarmed by the level of Islamic extremist activity they saw around them. By the late 1990s, there were so many Islamic extremists in London that the city had acquired the nickname of “Londonistan.” The leading right-wing paper in the UK wrote: “Britain is now an international center for Islamic militancy on a huge scale. ..and the capital is home to a bewildering variety of radical Islamic movements, many of which make no secret of their commitment to violence and terrorism to achieve their goals.” (London Daily Telegraph, November 20, 1999) President Putin of Russia saw a direct link between the London Islamic scene and terrorism in his own country. He said in an interview with a German newsmagazine: “In London, there is a recruitment station for people wanting to join combat in Chechnya. Today — not officially, but effectively in the open — they are talking there about recruiting volunteers to go to Afghanistan.” (Focus, September 2001)

Brixton Mosque was one of the notorious centers for terrorist recruitment in the heart of London. This was the home base of Zacharias Mousawi, the French citizen put on trial in Alexandria, Va. It was also the home of Richard Reid, the shoe bomber of December 2001. Imam Qureshi of Brixton and others were allowed by the British authorities to preach anti-U.S. sermons to the some 4,000 Moslem inmates in British prisons, and thus to recruit new patsies for the world-wide terror machine. According to Bakri, Bin Laden’s spokesman, during the late 1990s 2,000 fighters were trained yearly, including many in the U.S. because of the lax firearms legislation. The rival of Brixton Mosque was the equally redoubtable Finsbury Mosque, the home of the Saudi demagogue al Masri, who was finally taken into custody in the spring of 2004. There is every reason to believe that London is one of the main recruiting grounds for patsies, dupes, fanatics, double agents, and other roustabouts of the terrorist scene.



Muammar Qaddafi of Libya, who had been bombed by the U.S. in the mid-1980s, now coincidentally became a target of al Qaeda. In March 1994, Bin Laden supporters killed 2 German agents in Libya. In November 1996, there was an MI-5 assassination attempt against the Libyan dictator with the help of the local Bin Laden organization, in which several people were killed. Here is a prime example of al Qaeda being employed by UK intelligence for purposes of state sponsored terrorism with the goal of eliminating a political leader who was not appreciated by London. (Hollingsworth and Fielding) The conclusion is clear: al Qaeda is a subsidiary of Anglo-American intelligence.

According to the French authors Brisard and Dasquie, Bin Laden’s controllers had been using him to cause trouble for Qaddafi since the early 1980s, when Bin Laden had demanded permission to set up a base of operations in Libya, but was rebuffed by Qaddafi. “Enraged by Libya’s refusal, Bin Laden organized attacks inside Libya, including assassination attempts against Qadaffi,” Dasquie told IPS press service. The French authors cited the Islamic Fighting Group, headquartered in London, as the Libyan opposition group most closely allied with Bin Laden. Author Dasquie told IPS, “Qadaffi even demanded that Western police institutions, such as Interpol, pursue the IFG and Bin Laden, but never obtained cooperation. Until this very day [late 2001], members of IFG openly live in London.” In 1998, former MI5 officer David Shayler told reporters that the British secret services had financed the assassination attempt against Qadaffi. (Inter Press service, November 15, 2001

A rare moment of truth about the infrastructure of international terrorism was provided in October 2001 by Qaddafi, who was aware of al Qaeda’s track record of attempting to eliminate him in the service of the U.S. and UK. In an appearance on the popular Al-Jazeera program “The Opposite Direction,” Qaddafi condemned the 9/11 attacks, and referred to Bin Laden’s Arab Afghans as “stray dogs” and terrorists. But then Qaddafi began to talk about the support network for al Qaeda:

Qaddafi: I am actually puzzled. I mean, if America were serious about eliminating terrorism, the first capital it should rock with cruise missiles is London.

Interviewer: London!?

Qaddafi: London. It is the center of terrorism. It gives safehousing to the terrorists. I mean, as long as America does not bomb London, I think the U.S. is not serious, and is using a double standard. I mean, on the contrary, London is far more dangerous than Kabul. How could it rock Kabul with missiles and leave London untouched?

(Al-Jazeera, Qatar-Tripoli, October 25, 2001)

The interviewer, a former BBC employee, quickly changed the subject before the mercurial dictator could say more. At this time, al Jazeera was closely monitored by all the international wire services, since it had the best reporting from inside Afghanistan. But none of them reported these illuminating remarks from Qaddafi.


Voices from the Washington neocon oligarchy leave no doubt that the U.S. establishment’s reliance on al Qaeda as its tool for ordering world affairs is intended to be a long-term one. The neocon retired Army colonel Robert Killebrew considers al Qaeda as the “once and future threat, : since he believes that “the al Qaeda we will face in 2010 will be an even more dangerous threat to Americas than the al Qaeda our troops are fighting today.” According to Killebrew, “we can expect that within a decade al Qaeda will open one, or possibly several, political fronts in predominantly Islamic states, transforming itself from a deadly but diffuse terrorist movement into implacably hostile governmental factions throughout the Middle East that will pose critical geostrategic challenges to America and our allies…. the political transformation of al Qaeda into a radical pan Islamic movement would divide the world between the progressive West and a number of deeply reactionary, nuclear-armed states, and raise the possibility of far more serious conflict.” (Washington Post, August 8, 2004) Here we see the oligarchy’s intent of employing the benighted ideology of al Qaeda to organize the Arab and Islamic worlds for their own destruction. As we will see, neocolonial and neo-imperial powers have always feared secular Arab nationalism of the Nasser type, and have been eager to foment fundamentalist alternatives in the hope of perpetuating backwardness and isolation. The big danger for the U.S. has always been that Arab oil producers would reach their own economic development accords with western Europe, Japan, and the larger third world nations, such as Brazil. Al Qaeda fanaticism makes precisely these types of understandings impossible, preventing the forms of cooperation which would do the most damage to U.S.. The U.S. is biggest backer of al Qaeda, in just the same way that the Bank of England, Royal Dutch Shell, the City of London, and Wall Street were the biggest boosters of Hitler: if you know that you may face an adversary, the reasoning goes, then try to make sure that adversary will have a raving, incompetent, fanatical leader who will be structurally incapable of making successful alliances with your other foes.

Perhaps this is what Bush 43, whose family tradition includes grandfather Prescott Bush’s implication in the Thyssen Nazi financial infrastructure, meant when he said in late 2001 that the United States has “the best intelligence we can possibly have,” and what Porter J. Goss, the Florida Republican who chaired the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in 2001, meant when he denied that any intelligence failure had taken place around 9/11. (R.W. Apple, New York Times, December 14, 2001


Guys, now you saw this bomb went off and you both known we could avoid that. — Emad Salem to the FBI, 1993

Synthetic terrorism is an enterprise that terrorist controllers often choose to escalate gradually, partly to enhance their own technical preparedness, and partly as a means of progressively degrading public intelligence while institutionalizing fantastic lies about what is going on. The Italian terrorism of 1967-1985, for example, which was directed by NATO intelligence, MI-6, the CIA, and SISMI, shows an unmistakable pattern of escalation, inasmuch as each terrorist attack became the stepping stone of the successive one, with an overall tendency towards larger and more complicated operations with higher and higher numbers of victims, reaching a culmination at Bologna in 1980. lf we look at terrorism in the U.S. during the 1990s, we see a similar pattern. One has the impression of looking at a crescendo of terror attacks, in which each new attack introduces new elements which will be important in the attacks to come. It is worth pointing out that, during the 1990s, few if any wealthy oligarchs became victims of terrorism; the dead were almost always the little people, the masses, and so it was to remain on 9/11. In addition, each new distortion accepted by the public increased the overall gullibility of the political system.

Posted by Spike EP at 15:47

sent to The Tap by


“Verschärfte Vernehmung” (Yes, that’s Nazi for ‘enhanced interrogation’)

21st Century Wire says…

After listening to CIA director John Brennan’s long-winded attempt at community relationstoday, only three words come to mind…

Ya vol Commandant!

And then maybe these two words, “Verschärfte Vernehmung”. As it happens, those two German words are straight out of the Gestapo’s own manual on torture. Translated from German to English, it means, ‘enhanced interrogation’ – you get that fancy term we keep hearing about this week, you know, that thing that’s ‘keeping America safe’.

OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD: Let the record show that, in the wake of the release of the Senate’s Torture Report, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer spent most of the week defending the CIA’s erroneous, immoral and highly ineffective torture program.

So for all those still romanticizing about CIA during thoe golden Bush Jr years, and to the security state hacks and torture apologists in the media (like Wolf Blitzer) – just remember that the brain child of Pennsylvania Ave’s legal pond life, Johns Ashcroft and Yoo – was gleaned straight out of a Nazi handbook – and the term you proudly festoon today, was casually tossed around by Cheney and Rumsfeld’s professional predecessors, Hermann Göring and Heinrich ‘Gestapo’ Müller…

Now, we’re pretty sure that newsroom gatekeeper Wolf will be upset and throw a tantrum if we made unauthorized use of the term ‘Nazi’ like he did when Dr. Ben Carson used it during a recent segment on Blitzer’s ‘Situation Room’ program on CNN. Are we comparing American’s contemporary political system to that of the Nazi’s in the 1930′s and 40′s? Of course not, there’s no comparison politically – but we will say that’s both governments’ prescription of “Verschärfte Vernehmung” and ‘Enhanced Interrogation’, are identical from where we’re sitting.

Read more from the Atlantic below…

Andrew Sullivan
The Atlantic

The phrase “Verschärfte Vernehmung” is German for “enhanced interrogation”. Other translations include “intensified interrogation” or “sharpened interrogation”. It’s a phrase that appears to have been concocted in 1937, to describe a form of torture that would leave no marks, and hence save the embarrassment pre-war Nazi officials were experiencing as their wounded torture victims ended up in court.

The methods, as you can see above, are indistinguishable from those described as “enhanced interrogation techniques” by the president. As you can see from the Gestapo memo, moreover, the Nazis were adamant that their “enhanced interrogation techniques” would be carefully restricted and controlled, monitored by an elite professional staff, of the kind recommended by Charles Krauthammer (FOX News), and strictly reserved for certain categories of prisoner. At least, that was the original plan.

Also: the use of hypothermia, authorized by Bush and Rumsfeld, was initially forbidden.“Waterboarding” was forbidden too, unlike that authorized by Bush. As time went on, historians have found that all the bureaucratic restrictions were eventually broken or abridged. Once you start torturing, it has a life of its own. The “cold bath” technique – the same as that used by Bush against al-Qahtani in Guantanamo – was, according to professor Darius Rejali of Reed College, pioneered by a member of the French Gestapo by the pseudonym Masuy about 1943. The Belgian resistance referred to it as the Paris method, and the Gestapo authorized its extension from France to at least two places late in the war, Norway and Czechoslovakia. That is where people report experiencing it.

In Norway, we actually have a 1948 court case that weighs whether “enhanced interrogation” using the methods approved by president Bush amounted to torture. The proceedings are fascinating, with specific reference to the hypothermia used in Gitmo, and throughout interrogation centers across the field of conflict. The Nazi defense of the techniques is almost verbatim that of the Bush administration…

Here’s a document from Norway’s 1948 war-crimes trials detailing the prosecution of Nazis convicted of “enhanced interrogation techniques” in the Second World War. Money quote from the cases of three Germans convicted of war crimes for “enhanced interrogation”:

Between 1942 and 1945, Bruns used the method of “verschärfte Vernehmung” on 11 Norwegian citizens. This method involved the use of various implements of torture, cold baths and blows and kicks in the face and all over the body. Most of the prisoners suffered for a considerable time from the injuries received during those interrogations.

Between 1942 and 1945, Schubert gave 14 Norwegian prisoners “verschärfte Vernehmung,” using various instruments of torture and hitting them in the face and over the body. Many of the prisoners suffered for a considerable time from the effects of injuries they received.

On 1st February, 1945, Clemens shot a second Norwegian prisoner from a distance of 1.5 metres while he was trying to escape. Between 1943 and 1945, Clemens employed the method of ” verschäfte Vernehmung ” on 23 Norwegian prisoners. He used various instruments of torture and cold baths. Some of the prisoners continued for a considerable time to suffer from injuries received at his hands.

1-Nazi-TortureFreezing prisoners to near-death, repeated beatings, long forced-standing, waterboarding, cold showers in air-conditioned rooms, stress positions [Arrest mit Verschaerfung], withholding of medicine and leaving wounded or sick prisoners alone in cells for days on end – all these have occurred at US detention camps under the command of president George W. Bush. Over a hundred documented deaths have occurred in these interrogation sessions. The Pentagon itself has conceded homocide by torture in multiple cases. Notice the classic, universal and simple criterion used to define torture in 1948 (my italics):

In deciding the degree of punishment, the Court found it decisive that the defendants had inflicted serious physical and mental suffering on their victims, and did not find sufficient reason for a mitigation of the punishment in accordance with the provisions laid down in Art. 5 of the Provisional Decree of 4th May, 1945. The Court came to the conclusion that such acts, even though they were committed with the connivance of superiors in rank or even on their orders, must be regarded and punished as serious war crimes.

The victims, by the way, were not in uniform. And the Nazis tried to argue, just as John Yoo did, that this made torturing them legit. The victims were paramilitary Norwegians, operating as an insurgency, against an occupying force. And the torturers had also interrogated some prisoners humanely. But the argument, deployed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the Nazis before them, didn’t wash with the court. Money quote:

As extenuating circumstances, Bruns had pleaded various incidents in which he had helped Norwegians, Schubert had pleaded difficulties at home, and Clemens had pointed to several hundred interrogations during which he had treated prisoners humanely.

The Court did not regard any of the above-mentioned circumstances as a sufficient reason for mitigating the punishment and found it necessary to act with the utmost severity. Each of the defendants was responsible for a series of incidents of torture, every one of which could, according to Art. 3 (a), (c) and (d) of the Provisional Decree of 4th May, 1945, be punished by the death sentence.

So using “enhanced interrogation techniques” against insurgent prisoners out of uniform was punishable by death. Here’s the Nazi defense argument:

(c) That the acts of torture in no case resulted in death. Most of the injuries inflicted were slight and did not result in permanent disablement.

This is the Yoo position. It’s what Glenn Reynolds calls the “sensible” position on torture. It was the camp slogan at Camp Nama in Iraq: “No Blood, No Foul.” Now take the issue of “stress positions”, photographed at Abu Ghraib and used at Bagram to murder an innocent detainee. Here’s a good description of how stress positions operate:

The hands were tied together closely with a cord on the back of the prisoner, raised then the body and hung the cord to a hook, which was attached into two meters height in a tree, so that the feet in air hung. The whole body weight rested thus at the joints bent to the rear. The minimum period of hanging up was a half hour. To remain there three hours hung up, was pretty often. This punishment was carried out at least twice weekly.

This is how one detainee at Abu Ghraib died (combined with beating) as in the photograph above. The experience of enduring these stress positions has been described by Rush Limbaugh as no worse than frat-house hazings. Those who have gone through them disagree. They describe:

Dreadful pain in the shoulders and wrists were the results of this treatment. Only laboriously the lung could be supplied with the necessary oxygen. The heart worked in a racing speed. From all pores the sweat penetrated.

Yes, this is an account of someone who went through the “enhanced interrogation techniques” at Dachau. (Google translation here.)

Critics will no doubt say I am accusing the Bush administration of being Hitler. I’m not… 




2 Responses to “water boarding for beginners”

  1. sovereigntea says:

    CIA / SAVAK – Shah of IRAN again we see TORTURE

    Published on 19 Aug 2014

    In 1957 the CIA helped the Shah of Iran to establish The Organization of Intelligence and National Security. SAVAK as it was known by its Persian acronym was a significant tool in persecution, incarceration and torture of revolutionaries and political prisoners.


    Earlier documentary


    SAVAK (Persian: ساواک, short for سازِمانِ اطلاعات وَ امنیَتِ کِشوَر Sāzemān-e Ettelā’āt va Amniyat-e Keshvar, Organisation of Intelligence and National Security) was the secret police, domestic security and intelligence service established by Iran’s Mohammad Reza Shah with the help of the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency (the CIA). SAVAK operated from 1957 to 1979, when the Pahlavi dynasty was overthrown. SAVAK has been described as Iran’s “most hated and feared institution” prior to the revolution of 1979 because of its practice of torturing and executing opponents of the Pahlavi regime. At its peak, the organization had as many as 60,000 agents serving in its ranks according to one source, although Gholam Reza Afkhami, whose work on the Shah has been described as a “sympathetic biography”, estimates SAVAK staffing at between 4,000 and 6,000.

    After removing the populist regime of Mohammad Mosaddeq (which was originally focused on nationalizing Iran’s oil industry but also set out to weaken the Shah’s power) from power on 19 August 1953, in a coup, the monarch, Mohammad Reza Shah, established an intelligence service with police powers. The Shah’s goal was to strengthen his regime by placing political opponents under surveillance and repress dissident movements. According to Encyclopædia Iranica: A U.S. Army colonel working for the CIA was sent to Persia in September 1953 to work with General Teymur Bakhtiar, who was appointed military governor of Tehran in December 1953 and immediately began to assemble the nucleus of a new intelligence organization. The U.S. Army colonel worked closely with Bakhtīār and his subordinates, commanding the new intelligence organization and training its members in basic intelligence techniques, such as surveillance and interrogation methods, the use of intelligence networks, and organizational security. This organization was the first modern, effective intelligence service to operate in Persia. Its main achievement occurred in September 1954, when it discovered and destroyed a large communist Tudeh Party network that had been established in the Persian armed forces.

    In March 1955, the Army colonel was “replaced with a more permanent team of five career CIA officers, including specialists in covert operations, intelligence analysis, and counterintelligence, including Major General Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf who “trained virtually all of the first generation of SAVAK personnel.” In 1956 this agency was reorganized and given the name Sazeman-e Ettela’at va Amniyat-e Keshvar (SAVAK). These in turn were replaced by SAVAK’s own instructors in 1965. Chief CIA Iran analyst Jesse Leaf in an interview on 6th Jan. 1979 stated that the CIA taught Nazi torture techniques to SAVAK.

    SAVAK had the power to censor the media, screen applicants for government jobs, “and according to reliable Western source, use all means necessary, including torture, to hunt down dissidents”. The CIA provided SAVAK with lists of Communists to torture and murder. These lists originated with KGB defectors working for the CIA.

    After 1963, the Shah expanded his security organizations, including SAVAK, which grew to over 5300 full-time agents and a large but unknown number of part-time informers.

    In 1961 the Iranian authorities dismissed the agency’s first director, General Teymur Bakhtiar; he later became a political dissident. In 1970 SAVAK agents assassinated him, disguising the deed as an accident.

    Sources disagree over how many victims SAVAK had and how inhumane its techniques were. Writing at the time of the Shah’s overthrow, TIME magazine described SAVAK as having “long been Iran’s most hated and feared institution” which had “tortured and murdered thousands of the Shah’s opponents.” The Federation of American Scientists also found it guilty of “the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners” and symbolizing “the Shah’s rule from 1963-79.” The FAS list of SAVAK torture methods included “electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails.” According to a former CIA analyst on Iran, Jesse J. Leaf, SAVAK was trained in torture techniques by the CIA.

  2. sovereigntea says:

    How The CIA Tortured Terror Suspects In Uzbekistan – Craig Murray former British Ambasadoor.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.