Brian Ross flips just like Jay Rockefeller

[Yonivore]

I'm going to repost this because it was getting lost in another thread.

They aren't the most effective methods and they are far from least damaging.

For argument's sake, let's call this the video you must see to be informed on whether “harsh interrogation” works. Why? Because...well...you'll see in a minute. Suffice it to say the administration's not in a position to demonstrate to the general public how well the harsh techniques work so, I'm willing to hand that duty over to a journalist who, only a year ago, engaged in a hit piece with another journalist on the administration's use of these techniques.

Now that you’ve seen the video . . . Oh, not yet? Ok, I’ll wait a bit longer.

Finished now?

All right. Back to the regularly scheduled broadcast. Brian Ross confirms that not only did those methods work on the 14 high-level detainees just transfered to Guantanamo and sound intelligence was gained from each one of them, Ramzi Binalshibh even cried, but that he was told the methods worked by CIA operatives who didn’t necessarily agree with the methods.

Those same CIA agents told Ross that they just wanted to know whether they are legal or illegal, and not work in the grey area of not knowing whether they should attain legal counsel or not. Enter the Mi ary Commissions Act of 2006.

That seems fair, very fair actually, but what Ross told O’Reilly is in direct contrast to an article he wrote with Richard Esposito published on November 18, 2005. In the November article, Ross and Esposito reported:

The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques “appeared to cons ute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention,” the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.

It is “bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture’s bad enough,” said former CIA officer Bob Baer.

Also citing Larry Johnson, former CIA agent turned schill against the Bush Administration who called those tactics similar to the Nazis and the Soviets (oh pahleeeeze!), we were told those methods will get any type of information out of suspects and it won’t be reliable. Ross and Esposito also reported that in at least one instance, “ABC News was told that the techniques led to questionable information aimed at pleasing the interrogators and that this information had a significant impact on U.S. actions in Iraq.”

Here's the article. Sense of fairness and all...

Maybe Ross was just confused in the interview when he said the complete opposite of what was in an article on the same subject nearly one year ago? Or maybe the editors got ahold of what he planned to submit and made a few changes? At present I’m just trying to grapple what exactly the report Ross filed said, because from his showing last night, he does indeed say the methods used and advocated to be allowed in special cir stances have worked in the past to not just break detainees, but also get valuable information that have prevented attacks.

Ross informed us what an ABC investigation uncovered, and it’s very different from what most media outlets have repeatedly told us and even what ABC News reported just one year ago.

Is Ross lying then or now? And, why?

Go figure.

[PixelPusher]

Maybe you should take a minute to rewatch that video.

(paraphrasing) O'Reilly: "...the ACLU, Human Rights Watch say 'It's garbage. They told them what they wanted to hear; it wasn't truthful' and such"

Ross: "That has happened, in some cases, where the material given has not been acurate; has been essentially to stop the torture..."

(later on in the interview, O'Reilly brings up the "human rights people" again)

Ross: "I think it's an open debate, because there's sometimes the information doesn't hold up..."

(at the end of the interview, O'Reilly asks if "O'Reilly's arguement" (yes, he refers to himself in the 3rd person) is fallacious)


Ross: "The arguement is, at least to one or two people I know as a fact, is not fallacious."
----

Listen to learn. Learn to listen. That "one or two people I know" part should be a clue. But in Yoni's world those 2 sources trump everyone else simply because they agree with him.