Reply With Quote
And just so everyone is on the same page, the term is "enhanced interrogation techniques".
Sincerely,
Robert Gibbs
Ideally.
And just so everyone is on the same page, the term is "enhanced interrogation techniques".
Sincerely,
Robert Gibbs
The odd thing is, nobody seems too worked up about the ones who didn't make it off the battlefield alive.
That's where it belongs. Regular soldiers shouldn't have anything to do with it.
I'll see Crookshank's dodgy CNSNews right-wing agitprop and raise with a Washington Post article:
Detainee's Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots
Waterboarding, Rough Interrogation of Abu Zubaida Produced False Leads, Officials Say
By Peter Finn and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 29, 2009; Page A01
When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.
The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.
In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.
(cont.)...
As weeks passed after the capture without significant new confessions, the Bush White House and some at the CIA became convinced that tougher measures had to be tried.
The pressure from upper levels of the government was "tremendous," driven in part by the routine of daily meetings in which policymakers would press for updates, one official remembered.
"They couldn't stand the idea that there wasn't anything new," the official said. "They'd say, 'You aren't working hard enough.' There was both a disbelief in what he was saying and also a desire for retribution -- a feeling that 'He's going to talk, and if he doesn't talk, we'll do whatever.' "
The application of techniques such as waterboarding -- a form of simulated drowning that U.S. officials had previously deemed a crime -- prompted a sudden torrent of names and facts. Abu Zubaida began unspooling the details of various al-Qaeda plots, including plans to unleash weapons of mass destruction.
Abu Zubaida's revelations triggered a series of alerts and sent hundreds of CIA and FBI investigators scurrying in pursuit of phantoms. The interrogations led directly to the arrest of Jose Padilla, the man Abu Zubaida identified as heading an effort to explode a radiological "dirty bomb" in an American city. Padilla was held in a naval brig for 3 1/2 years on the allegation but was never charged in any such plot. Every other lead ultimately dissolved into smoke and shadow, according to high-ranking former U.S. officials with access to classified reports.
"We spent millions of dollars chasing false alarms," one former intelligence official said.
Despite the poor results, Bush White House officials and CIA leaders continued to insist that the harsh measures applied against Abu Zubaida and others produced useful intelligence that disrupted terrorist plots and saved American lives.
Two weeks ago, Bush's vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11.
"I've seen a report that was written, based upon the intelligence that we collected then, that itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs," Cheney asserted, adding that the report is "still classified," and, "I can't give you the details of it without violating classification."
Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests.
The agency provided none, the officials said.
That a person that supports Cheney drops the 'created more terrorists' card is mind bending. The doctrine of preemtive attack or whatever it was called, that involved invading a sovereign nation has probably created more terrorists that we'll ever know. You can thank Cheney for that one.
Good point.
So where exactly is the line between torture and "enhanced interrogation"? And who gets to decide? This seems like a pretty important point to clarify if we're going to make blanket statements about whether or not we should use torture. Okay, so waterboarding is out. What's still in?
I think they were worked up enough to speak with their votes. After all, opposition to the war was at an all time high and the primary concern of Americans before the economy bug hit.
Read the Geneva convention declaration. It should clear all your doubts about it.
How many opposed the Afghan invasion?
Snipers take out three Somali "volunteer coast guard" members to save ONE life and Obama is a hero.
But waterboarding that thwarted an attack on a city the size of LA is not cool.
Interesting.
What's going to happen to the captured 17 year old Somali?
Did it really? That memo was really strangely worded.
Inside baseball. Source materials. Darrin won't read the memo. He'll just accept the journalistic gloss.
Amnesty?
That is such a bull question.
Tell me Darrin, are you willing to let your mother die from a car accident?
If not, then you should be out banning cars right now.
There's a risk/reward factor, as well as a moral one. One can even argue that it might be an effective risk/reward ratio, were there no moral implications involved.
You can agree that something would work without agreeing with the method.
It's funny -- that memo basically said "Our understanding is that waterboarding is awesome and generated a load of actionable intel."
What if the reply to the memo was "Your understanding is wrong. We tried that 270 times and all we got was a wet floor."
Well, we're not talking about plotting large scale murder.
Considering AFRICOM is (relatively) new, I would guess no.
On which occassion of the 177 times or so that they used on him did he crack?
The same way we've done it for the rest of our history.
Note: I'm sure that we've done some dirty stuff in the past. There's a difference between performing it in the dark (though I don't agree with it) and actively making it an 'acceptable' policy.
Mainly because in a battlefield, there is some leeway on who a soldier fires on in the heat of the moment. However, our conduct towards prisoners far away from war, when we have time to reflect, shows alot more about us.
Really DarrinS? You're going to be this asinine? I expected better.
At some point, everyone is willing to use deadly force to save lives.
The only way I'm against the use of "enhanced interrogation" techniques is if there's a more effective way to get the information.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions