WWII interrogators speak out against "enhanced interrogation techniques" (torture)

[RandomGuy]

Holy crap, this might actually turn into an intelligent discussion in a politics forum. Call the press, there is a story here.

[RandomGuy]

We are fighting religious fanatics. Who want to impose their
will on everyone who does not believe as they do. Some to
the extent that they will sacrifice their lives to destroy the
non-believers. This really is not a new thing. It happened
during the WWII. The Japanese did the same. The big difference
is that the religious fanatics hit soft targets, slap you might
say, when they kill the innocent, non-combatants. That is
the difference. You say we are losing the PR war. But are we
really or is that what we are being fed. Look at what happened
just recently. Israel bombed Syria and no one said a word.
Quite as a church mouse in the ME. Why? Abu Gharaib was
way overblown and politicized to the point that no one really
knows what happen there. I read all these post in this forum
about sodomizing prisoners, I don't recall any such thing
happening. There was a group of idiot soldiers, with way too
much time on their hands doing stupid things with dog collars
and making people remove their clothes. But that is covered
in other threads.

We are fighting religious fanatics with a political agenda.
I know that the dumbassery that went on at Abu Gharaib was indeed an exception, not a rule.

What I know doens't count for in a PR war. It is not MY perception that matters but the perception of the billion or so muslims in the ME and elsewhere that counts.

Reality matters less than how it is spun by Al Qaeda and their sympathizers. They can use things that we are doing to "win over" people sitting on the fence.

I would bet there are more want to move here than
join the Al Qaeda movement. Wouldn't you?

Yes. Most definitely. I would say they are probably a majority. Again, that isn't my point.

Take the number 1,000,000,000. Now take one hudredth of one percent of that number. That is one hundred thousand.

If just one hudredth of a percent of that billion go from "neutral" to "looking the other way or giving money" we now have 100,000 more people that are working to harm us.

It isn't the terrorist whose opinion we are trying to win over, it is the sypathetic border gaurd who looks the other way, or the housewife who donates money to the cause that we have to worry about.

Lets not use Russia.

You missed the point. Once again, it is not what YOU think that matters, it is what the rest of the world does. I was merely trying to relate the idea to you. For a lot of the rest of the world, a US military "secret tribunal" in NOT seen as fair and impartial, just as you do not see such a "secret tribunal" as fair and impartial in Russia.

We are fighting for moral authority, and secret trials do not get that, no matter what reality is.

But saying all this, remember something. We didn't
attack AQ, they attack us. And AQ is not a country, but
some countries have welcomed them into their country
and allowed them free reign to do as they please.

I know all this. And the above is half of my point. We need the "soft power" of moral authority to win this war of ideas. Military force, as any general in Iraq will tell you, is necessary but not sufficient, just as lumber is necessary but not sufficient to build a house.

Giving AQ easy PR victories is the same as shoving money and guns under their nose. They will use these weapons to harm us.

[RandomGuy]

Dammit. My lunch break is waaay too short. I will try to get to Cobra's bit tonight.

[xrayzebra]

Your welcome. I'm more than glad to spend time with someone else who can be civil, and intelligent. I will share some of my opinions about your clarifications below. Like I said, I didn't think I would completely agreed with your premise.


There is a definite movement, and Al Qaeda isn't alone in it. I consider the radical Islam's a combination of people who interpret the Koran to suit their agenda, and those who believe the slant they are told. Then there is this seventh millennium aspect. The timing is right. 2001 was the start in the minds of many religions as the final times. Some of these Islamic extremists do speak of bringing the twelfth Imam.


Yes, but we are defeating ourselves. General Sanchez is dead on when he speaks of the media and our leaders doing us harm in this concept.


Most of these stories are hyped to produce propaganda. Many stories from the field have been proven false in the aftermath with no retractions. Reporters sit safely in their green zone hotels while paying informants for information that is often nothing more than propaganda from the enemy. The media may not do it as propaganda intentionally, but for the sensational aspect of it for selling the news. The soldiers involved with Abu Ghriab are a disgrace to the uniform. No question about that, and I will not believe they were ordered or given permission to do such things. At least from a command level. In my opinion, everyone involved should get a dishonorable discharge. Now I have little to say about Guantanamo Bay. I hear reports that have proven false, and reports that I don't know about. Like you say though, a PR disaster.

As for the credibility of Al Qaeda and others, yes. Our media and leftist congressional leaders are emboldening the enemy by their words.


I agree. What do we do about our enemy within though? If I had my way, I would have them rounded up for things ranging from inciting riot to treason, and court upheld 'time/place/manner' restrictions of the first amendment. You might say extreme, but do you disagree with me on the negative impact our own leaders and media is having? It's pretty bad when Al Jazeera plays clips of our own congressional leaders and media to motivate the insurgency.


It depends on the cir stances. First of all, they do have sovereignty, and people traveling abroad are foolish not to check the laws and customs before traveling. I wouldn't know in a non combat situation if this person was a spy or not. Without being there I wouldn't be ably to ascertain the fairness of any trial, secret or not. Not knowing are agreements with them, that's the best answer I have.


If it was only of words and ideas, it wouldn't matter. Real people are killing other real people.

I don't think we will ever completely stop radicalized Islamic extremists without flat out decimating them. This is a Holy war to them. Again, a seventh millennium thing. We have to show them that our military might is stronger than their God. I see no other answer regarding those already indoctrinated. They will fight to their death, so we need to provide that.

As for the Muslins in general. Most of them just live in fear. Remove the fear and propaganda, and they are some great people.

There was an interesting revelation I heard about some time regarding the Sunni's and Shiite's. They weren't killing Americans because of the radicalized teachings of Islam, but because they are repeatedly told not only by their propaganda, but by our own democrat leaders that we are 'occupiers'. That we plan to control everything and steal their oil. Notice as the truth gets out to them, as we learned what they believe, there are far less insurgency uprisings...

Our soldiers are dying because of what the democrats who hate president Bush say. They choose political attacks over our soldiers lives.

I would expect you disagree with me on much of this. Ask away...

WC, while I agree with alot of what you say, I would
like to disagree with some of it. But right now, with a
few glasses of wine, I really can't be coherent in my
reply. I really do enjoy a good give and take and yes,
I enjoy some that agree with me. So I shall return,
but not today. Carry on, my good friends.

[RandomGuy]

There is a definite movement, and Al Qaeda isn't alone in it. I consider the radical Islam's a combination of people who interpret the Koran to suit their agenda, and those who believe the slant they are told. Then there is this seventh millennium aspect. The timing is right. 2001 was the start in the minds of many religions as the final times. Some of these Islamic extremists do speak of bringing the twelfth Imam.

I know. I take all of that with a grain of salt, as people have been saying this kind of stuff for millenia.

Yes, but we are defeating ourselves. General Sanchez is dead on when he speaks of the media and our leaders doing us harm in this concept.

(shrugs)

"The media" is far too easy to blame when things go wrong, and is an easy scapegoat for people seeking to blame everyone but themselves for whatever problem of the day pops up. I am not saying that modern television news reporting isn't sensationalist drek, I just don't buy the whole "it's all the media's fault" bit.

Most of these stories are hyped to produce propaganda. Many stories from the field have been proven false in the aftermath with no retractions. Reporters sit safely in their green zone hotels while paying informants for information that is often nothing more than propaganda from the enemy.

Com' on, this is a bit of an exaggeration. It is not "propagada" to report on what is going on. Killing, revenge killing, revenge-revenge killing, and all manner of nasty things are going on, and that is not enemy propaganda, that is simply ground truth.

Most supporters of the war and this administration simply wave their hands and say "all bad news out of Iraq is propaganda". Bull-puckey. It is extremely short-sighted,a little bit childish, and downright dangerous in this situation to wave information away that one might not agree with.

Good decisions are rarely made with 1/2 the data needed.

I hear reports that have proven false, and reports that I don't know about. Like you say though, a PR disaster.

I agree, and here is some of the crux of my point. The bad things that we do will get magnified a hundred times, and a good chunk of stuff will be just made up intentionally, or simply be unsupported rumors reported as fact.
That is why we need to avoid even the perception of impropriety.

A company buying it's CPA auditors tickets to a baseball game might not actually effect the audits of the financial statements, but creates the perception of impropriety, and that is bad for both.

As for the credibility of Al Qaeda and others, yes. Our media and leftist congressional leaders are emboldening the enemy by their words.

Sorry, but it isn't just "leftists" that are against this clusterf***, and I highly doubt that your average suicide bomber gives a rats ass what Nancy Pelosi has to say about anything.

I don't doubt that opposition in the US against our continued occupation of Iraq is factored into the plans of many in Iraq, friend and foe alike. I just don't think and, frankly, don't care if it does "embolden" anybody. I don't see it as having an effect.

Quite honestly, I see the "emboldening" spin on the part of the administration as yet another cynical manipulation of people like you, no offense. I think it is simply a way that this administration is suckering people into thinking that opposition to their grabassery is somehow unpatriotic, and that REALLY makes me dislike them even more.

Given this administrations rather proven track record of saying one thing and doing/believing another, I am pretty sure that the people running things know that "emboldening" has little to no real effect on the ground.

If I had my way, I would have them rounded up for things ranging from inciting riot to treason, and court upheld 'time/place/manner' restrictions of the first amendment. You might say extreme, but do you disagree with me on the negative impact our own leaders and media is having?

I do. Further, I would say that giving up an inch of the first amendment is essentially saying that everything that Americans have died for in the last 200 years is worthless.

Our strength in terms of moral authority and as a nation lies in the ideals in the bills of rights. Give up that, and you give up one of the most powerful weapons we have.

[Regarding secret military trials]It depends on the cir stances. First of all, they do have sovereignty, and people traveling abroad are foolish not to check the laws and customs before traveling. I wouldn't know in a non combat situation if this person was a spy or not. Without being there I wouldn't be ably to ascertain the fairness of any trial, secret or not. Not knowing are agreements with them, that's the best answer I have.

If you were already su ious of the motives of those giving the secret military trials, like say any totalitarian government that will charge a visiting scholars with "espionage" you would think it was full of , and you would probably be right.

BUT

Again, this is not what WE think, this whole thing is about perception of those "neutral" people on the border of those invisible lines in the spectrum of people's opinion of us.

I don't think we will ever completely stop radicalized Islamic extremists without flat out decimating them. This is a Holy war to them. Again, a seventh millennium thing. We have to show them that our military might is stronger than their God. I see no other answer regarding those already indoctrinated. They will fight to their death, so we need to provide that.

We did not win the Cold War by killing every communist in the world. We won it because they had a failed ideology that didn't live up to its promises.

I am all for killing when necessary. As I have said before it is necessary, but not sufficient, just as lumber is necessary but not sufficient to build a house.

The other front of this war uses "soft power" and other means to push the people who are on the border of helping or actively joining this ideology into less harmful categories.

As for the Muslins in general. Most of them just live in fear. Remove the fear and propaganda, and they are some great people.

Correction:
Most live in poverty under corrupt, repressive governments. They see their own governments doing all sorts of nasty things, and grew up under such conditions. They are very susceptible to believing the worst about the motivations of the powerful.

I personally believe that the "war" on terror is really a war against poverty and repression, as both of these breed the kind of hopelessness and rage that spill over into masses of willing recruits for people with violent "solutions".

Try reading this book by Thomas P. M. Barnett, The Pentagons New Map. This guy is shaping the way that the current crop of middle officers, and our nation's future generals think about war and the function of the military. I happen to think he is also right, as he put into a more concrete framework, things I had being thinking for a while.

There was an interesting revelation I heard about some time regarding the Sunni's and Shiite's. They weren't killing Americans because of the radicalized teachings of Islam, but because they are repeatedly told not only by their propaganda, but by our own democrat leaders that we are 'occupiers'. That we plan to control everything and steal their oil. Notice as the truth gets out to them, as we learned what they believe, there are far less insurgency uprisings...

Our soldiers are dying because of what the democrats who hate president Bush say. They choose political attacks over our soldiers lives.

I would expect you disagree with me on much of this. Ask away...

I have to call "bull " on this. Source?

AQ has been saying this for decades, and it is this administrations blundering in post-war Iraq that has made this stuff much more credible, not anything any democrat has said.

[Wild Cobra]

I know. I take all of that with a grain of salt, as people have been saying this kind of stuff for millenia.

Except by biblical accounts, we are in the 7th millennia as of 2001 and the twelfth Imam is a real concept in their religeon. This is definately different than past times.

(shrugs)

"The media" is far too easy to blame when things go wrong, and is an easy scapegoat for people seeking to blame everyone but themselves for whatever problem of the day pops up. I am not saying that modern television news reporting isn't sensationalist drek, I just don't buy the whole "it's all the media's fault" bit.

Not all is the medias fault. Would you deny that Al Jazeera broadcasting our leaders pubilcally dissenting has a motivational effect for insurgency?

Com' on, this is a bit of an exaggeration. It is not "propagada" to report on what is going on. Killing, revenge killing, revenge-revenge killing, and all manner of nasty things are going on, and that is not enemy propaganda, that is simply ground truth.

Except their have been real examples over the years of absolutely false stories! It has been do ented several times! Plenty of stories have been hyped, but plenty were complete fabrications too.

Most supporters of the war and this administration simply wave their hands and say "all bad news out of Iraq is propaganda". Bull-puckey. It is extremely short-sighted,a little bit childish, and downright dangerous in this situation to wave information away that one might not agree with.

Really? I don't know of a single example that says that. Do you? There is plenty of real news that is bad. To imply my reasoning that some false news means all is would be way off.

Good decisions are rarely made with 1/2 the data needed.

You lost me here as to equating to reporting. News is suppose to be true and accurate. Otherwise it belongs in gossip columns.

I agree, and here is some of the crux of my point. The bad things that we do will get magnified a hundred times, and a good chunk of stuff will be just made up intentionally, or simply be unsupported rumors reported as fact.
That is why we need to avoid even the perception of impropriety.

It is statistically impossible to accomplish zero impropriety when dealing with such a vast number of human individuals. That is one reason why reporting lies about the situations should be dealt with harshly.

Sorry, but it isn't just "leftists" that are against this clusterf***, and I highly doubt that your average suicide bomber gives a rats ass what Nancy Pelosi has to say about anything.

I never said others than 'the lefties' were not against the war, but how many non-lefties who are in leadership positions are careless about their words to the point it emboldens the enemy? I am speaking out against those who are choosing party politics or Bush bashing over what is right when it amounts to sedition.

I don't doubt that opposition in the US against our continued occupation of Iraq is factored into the plans of many in Iraq, friend and foe alike. I just don't think and, frankly, don't care if it does "embolden" anybody. I don't see it as having an effect.

Would those choosing to newly side with Iraq or become a suicide bomber do so if the USA leaders were solidly united? Doesn't the talk about us losing, or being occupiers, or us being there for the oil possible inspire the Iraqi's to fight against us, seeing us as the enemy rather than their champion?

Quite honestly, I see the "emboldening" spin on the part of the administration as yet another cynical manipulation of people like you, no offense. I think it is simply a way that this administration is suckering people into thinking that opposition to their grabassery is somehow unpatriotic, and that REALLY makes me dislike them even more.

Stop thinking in terms or what we know, and the freedoms we enjoy. Put yourself in their shoes and the strict structures they live under. Without knowing us, they believe the propaganda.

Given this administrations rather proven track record of saying one thing and doing/believing another, I am pretty sure that the people running things know that "emboldening" has little to no real effect on the ground.

I believe otherwise. I really think that they wouldn't be ably to muster the support against us without our own leaders saying we are wrong to be their.

I do. Further, I would say that giving up an inch of the first amendment is essentially saying that everything that Americans have died for in the last 200 years is worthless.

I'm not speaking of just any speech. I mean the same types of exceptions ruled by courts that don't allow you to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre or incite riot. Our leaders are effectively inviting subversion over there, against out soldiers.

Our strength in terms of moral authority and as a nation lies in the ideals in the bills of rights. Give up that, and you give up one of the most powerful weapons we have.

Everything must be tempered with reasonable limits. That's why certain hate crime actions like hanging a noose is punishable rather than a first amendment right. That's why threatening someone's life can be a crime rather than free speech.

Do you disagree that there needs to be reasonable limits of the first amendment? Maybe we just don't agree where that point is. Where would you place it when it comes to warfare?

If you were already su ious of the motives of those giving the secret military trials, like say any totalitarian government that will charge a visiting scholars with "espionage" you would think it was full of , and you would probably be right.

BUT

Again, this is not what WE think, this whole thing is about perception of those "neutral" people on the border of those invisible lines in the spectrum of people's opinion of us.

I'm sorry. I am not one to live and likely die because of such politically correct beliefs. I prefer truth over perception.

We did not win the Cold War by killing every communist in the world. We won it because they had a failed ideology that didn't live up to its promises.

I am all for killing when necessary. As I have said before it is necessary, but not sufficient, just as lumber is necessary but not sufficient to build a house.

The other front of this war uses "soft power" and other means to push the people who are on the border of helping or actively joining this ideology into less harmful categories.

Do you think there is reasoning with an enemy that sees us as infidels? The radicals are living by a code that they either convert us, or kill us. If you don't believe that, then I suggest you do some research on it.

I have to call "bull " on this. Source?

Sure, if you asked me months ago. Old news, and too many stories to filter through. Too many search hits that reflect opinion rather than the stories coming from over there. Look at the reporting of Al Jazeera, and tell me that such stories don't make the insurgency hopeful rather than discouraged:

Democrats attack Bush war policy

Democrats: Bush reckless in Iraq

AQ has been saying this for decades, and it is this administrations blundering in post-war Iraq that has made this stuff much more credible, not anything any democrat has said.

Sure, mistakes are made. Must the democrats compound them?

[RandomGuy]

Hmm. No offense, but you don't seem to be understanding what I was saying. I would recommend reading it again. I would recommend that when you do so, you go back over my previous posts as well, as some of what I say in my last posts refers to some of the prior postings.

Originally Posted by RandomGuy
We did not win the Cold War by killing every communist in the world. We won it because they had a failed ideology that didn't live up to its promises.

I am all for killing when necessary. As I have said before it is necessary, but not sufficient, just as lumber is necessary but not sufficient to build a house.

The other front of this war uses "soft power" and other means to push the people who are on the border of helping or actively joining this ideology into less harmful categories.

[Cobra responded]
Do you think there is reasoning with an enemy that sees us as infidels? The radicals are living by a code that they either convert us, or kill us. If you don't believe that, then I suggest you do some research on it.

The above is an example.

I have acknowledged that the hard-core AQ are really not going to be dissuaded or convinced.

What I DID say, more than once is that we are fighting for the fence sitters, not the hard core element.

Killing one bas is all well and good, but if you end up doing things that piss off 10 others who will look the other way, convert to being hard core, or give money to the hard core of AQ, you have not helped your cause.

Focusing too narrowly on killing misses the broader picture. It is like a car company improving quality to sell more cars but completely ignoring customer service. To be a successful car company you can't do one or the other, you have to do both.

This is what I am talking about when I say that we need to use the other weapons in our arsenal, such as moral authority, money, and diplomacy.

[Wild Cobra]

Hmm. No offense, but you don't seem to be understanding what I was saying. I would recommend reading it again. I would recommend that when you do so, you go back over my previous posts as well, as some of what I say in my last posts refers to some of the prior postings.

Maybe not. I'm pretty tired right now anyway. I'll do just that. Read it again, later.

[johnsmith]

Hmm. No offense, but you don't seem to be understanding what I was saying. I would recommend reading it again. I would recommend that when you do so, you go back over my previous posts as well, as some of what I say in my last posts refers to some of the prior postings.

Ego stroking thread.

[RandomGuy]

Ego stroking thread.

Meh. I am more interested in communicating an idea correctly than stroking my own ego.

This is not my thread, I am merely talking about something I have given a lot of thought to.

[Wild Cobra]

Hmm. No offense, but you don't seem to be understanding what I was saying.

I read it again. I actually was more coherent that you made me think I was originally.

I would recommend that when you do so, you go back over my previous posts as well, as some of what I say in my last posts refers to some of the prior postings.

Well, I'm not taking that much time. Keep in mind, I was responding to the (then) current text of what I understood. I will expand a little.

We did not win the Cold War by killing every communist in the world. We won it because they had a failed ideology that didn't live up to its promises.

I am all for killing when necessary. As I have said before it is necessary, but not sufficient, just as lumber is necessary but not sufficient to build a house.

The other front of this war uses "soft power" and other means to push the people who are on the border of helping or actively joining this ideology into less harmful categories.

[Cobra responded]
Do you think there is reasoning with an enemy that sees us as infidels? The radicals are living by a code that they either convert us, or kill us. If you don't believe that, then I suggest you do some research on it.

The above is an example.

I have acknowledged that the hard-core AQ are really not going to be dissuaded or convinced.

What I DID say, more than once is that we are fighting for the fence sitters, not the hard core element.

That's fine, but this was in response to my statement:

I don't think we will ever completely stop radicalized Islamic extremists without flat out decimating them. This is a Holy war to them. Again, a seventh millennium thing. We have to show them that our military might is stronger than their God. I see no other answer regarding those already indoctrinated. They will fight to their death, so we need to provide that.

Maybe I should have expanded, but the cold war is completely different to me. I started with a question "Do you think there is reasoning with an enemy that sees us as infidels?" wondering if that was your solution.

I see no similarities that matter. The people of the USSR were not actively jointing what a huge authoritarian government chose to do. A religious war is unlike any other.

The people if Iraq know the stakes, and that we do try to avoid killing the innocent. The few bad apples are exposed and taken action against. As a whole, the Iraqi people know they are less likely to die by us than under Saddam. I think most the examples shown of Iraqi hatred because of a loved one killed by accident are more lies coming from the enemy. They have studied us well, and use our own sense of morality against us.

As for the fence sitters, I will maintain the belief that our own leaders who speak words of sedition push them to the wrong side rather than our unfortunate accidents that harm civilians.

Killing one bas is all well and good, but if you end up doing things that piss off 10 others who will look the other way, convert to being hard core, or give money to the hard core of AQ, you have not helped your cause.

I don't believe most of the accounts of civilian casualties caused by us. Sure some have happened, but not as many as the media reports. You take terrorists or insurgence who are in civilian attire, kill them, then their friends remove their weapons...

Walla...

Instant civilian for propaganda purposes. Now I'm not saying this is the norm, but it does happen, and we don't really know how many times.

Focusing too narrowly on killing misses the broader picture. It is like a car company improving quality to sell more cars but completely ignoring customer service. To be a successful car company you can't do one or the other, you have to do both.

Sorry, I believe the radicals are so steeped in their religious beliefs, that killing them is the only way to stop them. Making things hard, cutting supplies, money, etc. will only slow them down. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think they either need to be in jail, or dead.

This is what I am talking about when I say that we need to use the other weapons in our arsenal, such as moral authority, money, and diplomacy.

Proven to my satisfaction not to work. Israel has tried that over and over, yet the enemies of Israel take the diplomacy as a way to recuperate and rebuild with the money given, then attack again later.

[RandomGuy]

I am not saying we limit ourselves to non-violent means to combat the AQ ideology.

I just don't think evil is the way to go when combatting them.