How many people did we torture to death in the war on terror so far?

I have heard 8, 20-something and over 100 people who have died as a result of torture. Does anyone have a report or article that can clarify this?

Since the war on terror started, so since 9/12 2001.

If you look at the reports about detainee deaths, there are an awful lot of them categorized as "heart failure" or something similar. I would guess that a good many of those had "heart failure" as a direct consequence of their treatment, even if it were something as seemingly innocuous as keeping them out in the heat, or keeping them in a cold room. So many possibilities. We will never know.

I've heard 8, 21-ish and 100+. So I'm not sure which is true.

I'm asking because someone on another message board said we only tortured 3 people in the war on terror. So I want some concrete evidence on all the people we've tortured to death so far.

The Bush Administration Homicides

by John Sifton

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-05/how-many-were-tortured-to-death/

For five years as a researcher for Human Rights Watch and reporter, John Sifton helped investigate homicides resulting from the Bush administration's torture policy. His findings include:





You may also be interested in:

How Many Americans Died Because of Bush’s Torture Program?

"the answer is a number north of three thousand–not counting the tens of thousands maimed or seriously wounded"

Harper's Scott Horton
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/12/hbc-90003947

...of each and every perpetrator, up to and including George "War Criminal" Bush.

--

If the Obama administration fails to keep us safe and our citizens are attacked at home or abroad, shall we then prosecute those who dismantled our safeguards and gutted our intelligence?

Torture is depravity. Our intelligence agencies were gutted during bush and politicised.

It is illegal just like raping a suspect's daughter and videotaping it to coerce a confession is illegal, not policy advice. Even if the benefits outweighed the drawbacks, which they do not, it is still not policy advice and you still cannot do it.

Not only that but torture is a giant recruitment tool for Al Qaeda, so should we prosecute all the torture apologists if an Al Qaeda member who joined because he was upset with torture commits a terrorist act?

And we can gain great intel using legal interrogation tactics. Several interrogators have come forward attesting to this fact.

You seem to be making several assumptions.

1. Torture works for gaining necessary intelligence
2. Torture does not drive more recruits to Al Qaeda than it captures, and there are no effects on AL Qaeda recruitment from our torture policies
3. Obama wants to destroy our intelligence agencies
4. Torture is the only effective method of gaining intelligence and legal methods do not work

None of which is true.

...as the posters above have done a fine job of describing your rather unusual definitions of "policy," "safeguards," and "intelligence."

But as to prosecuting Obama's admin for failing to "keep us safe," that is quite simply http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/26/brookings/index.html">not the job he swore (or affirmed) to carry out.

---

Such as that poor girl who was raped , killed, burned and her family all killed. If that situation was not torture for the entire family, I don't what would be.

these incidents are under reported.

Every time this subject is broached I feel enveloped in unreality.

WTF? This is the U.S.A. and we're discussing the use of torture? In any way, shape or form?

WTF?

It just seems unreal that we actually have to convince fellow "citizens" that shit is wrong. Period.

Damn.