The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Or maybe the reason for the torture wasn't to discover plots against America. Maybe it was trying to find non-existent links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.

Report: Abusive tactics used to seek Iraq-al Qaida link | McClatchy

I'm sure there was some motiviation to determine any connection, but that wasn't even close to the primary reasoning behind it. Anyone who attempts to imply that was the main purpose is out of their gourd.

[Flasch186]

so you can determine the Primary, Secondary, and tertiary reasonings!? Holy shit.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Anyone who attempts to imply that was the main purpose is out of their gourd.

Ah, the wounded cry of a failed MBBF assertion.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Would really like to see more than just words from the White House concerning the Pakistani peace agreement with the Taliban. I'm not sure how much of an ally Pakistan is to us anymore (or if they ever were). News that the Taliban has taken more control in NW Afghanistan is pretty concerning.........

FOXNews.com - Taliban Tighten Their Grip on Pakistan's Northwest - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Ah, the wounded cry of a failed MBBF assertion.

There was nothing 'failed' about it. I have no doubt that intelligence likely probed for connections to several Middle East countries, including Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. But I also have no doubt that much of the motivation was to avoid any future attacks on our soil or interests.

[JPhillips]

So many things wrong it's hard to know where to start.

1) Why release these memos? From what I've read the memos were released due to an ACLU lawsuit. Nobody at the White House made a decision to release only those memos incriminating to Bush. You can argue that they should release info not a part of the lawsuit, but there is a very clear reason why these memos were released.

2) Waterboarding stopped the Library Tower attack? From Tim Noah:

In a White House press briefing, Bush's counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and "at that point, the other members of the cell" (later arrested) "believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward". A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, "In 2002, we broke up a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush's characterization of it as a "disrupted plot" was "ludicrous"—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003.

3) This information will allow terrorists to prep for their interrogation. CIA agents who have been waterboarded as part of their training last an average of 14 seconds. There is no known way of resisting waterboarding. Further, all of these techniques have been public knowledge for years. Hell there are plenty of photographs floating around for most of these techniques.

[cartman]

Historically, the use of torture has been used to make someone being tortured say what the interrogators want them to say. There wasn't some sort of quantum leap in torture tactics in 2002 that increased the reliability and accuracy of information gained during torture. It is clear that during the build up to the invasion of Iraq that the administration was looking for any and all evidence to support their positions for invasion.

If they were simply looking for information on Al-Qaeda tactics and future plans, there are much more effective and accurate means of eliciting information than waterboarding, keeping someone awake for days on end, or putting them in a sack and slamming the sack into the wall. You use those methods when you want a pre-determined answer to the question.

[Flasch186]

is he an ex-employee, this Noah guy? And What about this Townsend fellow? also an ex-employee? The disgruntledness must be overwhelming!

[Flasch186]

BTW, I am aware that any counterpoints to MBBF fall on deaf ears and this thread, along with the election thread are an effort in futility. MBBF may as well torture us to get the information he already wants and than discard the rest.....it almost seems like he does.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

You use those methods when you want a pre-determined answer to the question.

I'd agree at some level, though not completely. While you elicit a response, the tough part still remains figuring out if the info given was even reliable. I'm sure that some of it is good info while other parts may be to just stop the torture.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm sure that some of it is good info while other parts may be to just stop the torture.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The release of any of that information is damaging. It allows the terrorists a window into how things work and it also can give them hints as to where we might have obtained data, which could endanger operatives.

Listen, if Obama wanted to condemn this kind of thing, fine. Make a statement saying that he wouldn't do these kinds of things and even take a cheap shot at Bush if he'd like to do so. But releasing the inside information is a boneheaded move at best. It's only motivation can be political gain. It doesn't move us any closer to safety in regards to security. If anything, it moves us further away from that. It's a stupid move that is only compounded by the revelation that his staff only released those portions of the information that assisted their political gain.

If it's being condemned as torture and shouldn't be done, then what does it matter? "Hey, guys, here's a list of what we aren't going to do because it's torture". It's not like we're sending them a list of what we *are* going to do.

SI

[Flasch186]

pointless but here you go MBBF:

Points the finger all the way to the top, to Rumsfeld, was reverse engineered from processes we deemed torture when done by foreign interrogators, and were used to get false confessions by the Chiness who created many of the techniques we copied

Originally Posted by Time Article

Report Details Pentagon Role in Torture Tactics
Time.com



By BOBBY GHOSH / WASHINGTON, D.C. Bobby Ghosh / Washington, D.c. – 1 hr 30 mins ago

Opponents of last week's release of memos detailing CIA interrogation techniques argue that they will provide enemies of the United States with a training manual to prepare their operatives for capture. The irony is that the U.S. military appears to have done the exact opposite, taking a training program that had been designed to prepare American soldiers to withstand torture by communist regimes seeking to extract false confessions and twisting it into a highly controversial interrogation manual.

The story of that mutation emerges in disquieting detail in a new report by the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) on the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. It shows how U.S. interrogators at Abu Ghraib, GuantÁnamo Bay and camps in Afghanistan based some of their interrogations on techniques taken from the military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) training program. These techniques included waterboarding, walling (slamming detainees into a flexible wall), sleep deprivation, hooding and using dogs to inspire fear. (See pictures of life inside Guant[a {a}]namo.)

Although an executive summary of the report was released in December; the full version - which appears to have survived the Pentagon's declassification review with only mild redaction - will likely have much greater impact, coming on the heels of the CIA "torture memos" released last week.

In a statement, SASC chairman Senator Carl Levin said the report "represents a condemnation of both the Bush Administration's interrogation policies and of senior Administration officials who attempted to shift the blame for abuse - such as that seen at Abu Ghraib, GuantÁnamo Bay and Afghanistan - to low-ranking soldiers."

While much of the controversy over interrogation and detention practices at GuantÁnamo has centered on the CIA, the SASC report puts the spotlight firmly on the Pentagon - specifically on former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his DOD lawyer Jim Haynes, his policy chief Douglas Feith, GuantÁnamo commanders Major General Michael Dunleavy and Major General Geoffrey Miller, and a raft of other DOD officials. It offers a detailed account purporting to show how these officials - some of them knowingly, others unwittingly - allowed SERE techniques to be used for interrogation. It suggests, too, that many SERE experts and military lawyers raised concerns about and objections to this reverse engineering of techniques used in courses to train Americans to survive captures by communist regimes.

The process began in December 2001, when the DOD's office of general counsel asked the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA), which oversees the SERE program, about detainee "exploitation." Within a few months, SERE trainers were training military interrogators bound for Gitmo. (The JPRA would also pass on its expertise to the CIA.)

Soon afterward, the first alarms began to sound. Jerald Ogrisseg, an Air Force SERE psychologist, warned JPRA chief of staff Daniel Baumgartner that waterboarding detainees was illegal. In October 2002, Lieut. Colonel Morgan Banks, an Army SERE psychologist, warned officials at Gitmo of the risks of using SERE techniques for interrogation, pointing out that even with the Army's careful monitoring, injuries and accidents did happen. "The risk with real detainees is increased exponentially," he wrote.

But by then, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) had already issued two legal opinions, signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, declaring that the techniques did not amount to torture. JPRA training for Gitmo interrogators was stepped up. In December 2002, with Rumsfeld's authorization, officials of the Joint Task Force at Gitmo devised a standard operating procedure for the use of many SERE techniques to interrogate detainees.

Rumsfeld would rescind his authorization in a manner of weeks, after the Navy General Counsel, Alberto Mora, raised concerns about many techniques, arguing that they violated U.S. and international laws and constituted, at worst, torture. Mora met Haynes and warned him that the "interrogation policies could threaten [Rumsfeld's] tenure and could even damage the presidency."

But even after Rumsfeld in January 2003 rescinded the authority for the use of SERE techniques at Gitmo, they remained in use in Afghanistan, and later in Iraq. Since Rumsfeld never declared these techniques illegal, military lawyers down the line were able to cite his original authorization as Pentagon policy. JPRA instructors would eventually travel to Iraq to train military interrogators there.

In the summer of 2004, the JPRA was even considering sending trainers to Afghanistan, prompting another SERE psychologist, Colonel Kenneth Rollins, to warn his colleagues by e-mail: "[W]e need to really stress the difference between what instructors do at SERE school (done to INCREASE RESISTANCE capability in students) versus what is taught at interrogator school (done to gather information). What is done by SERE instructors is by definition ineffective interrogator conduct. Simply stated, SERE school does not train you on how to interrogate, and things you 'learn' there by osmosis about interrogation are probably wrong if copied by interrogators."

The final irony: the torture techniques around which the SERE training was devised were used by Chinese interrogators during the Korean War, not to gather actionable intelligence but to force false confessions from captured U.S. soldiers - confessions that could then be used in anti-American propaganda.

I have no doubt you dont care.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Points the finger all the way to the top, to Rumsfeld, was reverse engineered from processes we deemed torture when done by foreign interrogators, and were used to get false confessions by the Chiness who created many of the techniques we copied.

Pretty big assumption built into the conclusion of that article. Just because the Chinese used those techniques to achieve a false confession does not mean that is the only result that can be achieved from those techniques. An argument built on the assumption that only false information can come from torture is pretty questionable. There's definitely a lot of information that can be gathered from these techniques, despite the author's attempt to lead the reader to believe otherwise.

As far as the rest of the information, it's mostly a rehash of what we already knew. There were a lot of people who voiced concerns as to whether or not the techniques were legal. That's been reported numerous times. That doesn't change what is obviously a situation where the Obama Administration is using this situation for political gain. In addition, they are hindering future efforts by the intelligence agency members to keep our country safe by introducing concerns as to whether they might face prosecution for many of the things that occur behind the scenes to keep our citizens safe. The negligence of some should not compromise the safety of all.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

In addition, they are hindering future efforts by the intelligence agency members to keep our country safe by introducing concerns as to whether they might face prosecution for many of the things that occur behind the scenes to keep our citizens safe. The negligence of some should not compromise the safety of all.

I'm pretty sure that Obama has said that any interrogator who was following policy which may have been illegally implemented will not be investigated, while those that implemented the policy might.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The memos may not directly say that and the Admiral is certainly doing an excellent job of spinning his original comments, but there is very strong evidence that a Los Angeles attack was silently thwarted directly due to information obtained from waterboarding the 9-11 mastermind.......

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=46949

These are the same guys that said Saddam had WMDs, right?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Pretty big assumption built into the conclusion of that article. Just because the Chinese used those techniques to achieve a false confession does not mean that is the only result that can be achieved from those techniques. An argument built on the assumption that only false information can come from torture is pretty questionable. There's definitely a lot of information that can be gathered from these techniques, despite the author's attempt to lead the reader to believe otherwise.

As far as the rest of the information, it's mostly a rehash of what we already knew. There were a lot of people who voiced concerns as to whether or not the techniques were legal. That's been reported numerous times. That doesn't change what is obviously a situation where the Obama Administration is using this situation for political gain. In addition, they are hindering future efforts by the intelligence agency members to keep our country safe by introducing concerns as to whether they might face prosecution for many of the things that occur behind the scenes to keep our citizens safe. The negligence of some should not compromise the safety of all.

What, no mention that the Library Tower claim is bullshit?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

These are the same guys that said Saddam had WMDs, right?

I don't think Clinton and his staff were involved here

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

In addition, they are hindering future efforts by the intelligence agency members to keep our country safe by introducing concerns as to whether they might face prosecution for many of the things that occur behind the scenes to keep our citizens safe.

You mean torture. Use English dammit.

[Greyroofoo]

It's funny how many torture experts have appeared on the intertubes in the last week or so.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I don't think Clinton and his staff were involved here

Clinton didn't kill hundreds of thousands including thousands of young American soldiers for it.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What, no mention that the Library Tower claim is bullshit?

Yeah, try to do better, MBBF.


http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/

What clinches the falsity of Thiessen's claim, however (and that of the memo he cites, and that of an unnamed Central Intelligence Agency spokesman who today seconded Thessen's argument), is chronology. In a White House press briefing, Bush's counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and "at that point, the other members of the cell" (later arrested) "believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward" [italics mine]. A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, "In 2002, we broke up [italics mine] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush's characterization of it as a "disrupted plot" was "ludicrous"—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003.

[Dutch]

Historically, the use of torture has been used to make someone being tortured say what the interrogators want them to say.

True, torture is designed for that. But what the interogators here are after is new information. They are and have been trying to fight a war against actual bad guys and they need information. Not pretend information. That is why it is my belief that effective interogation has never used torture. Do I believe we've had fairly harsh torture? Yes. Do I believe it's possible for the individual to cross the line? Yes. Do I believe harsh interogation tactics havebeen used widely enough and accepted by enough leadership to blatantly call all US interogations as "torture"? Absolutely not.

I disagree completely with the notion that all interogation tactics are worthy of being labelled "torture".

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I disagree completely with the notion that all interogation tactics are worthy of being labelled "torture".

I agree with that, but no one here is making that argument.

[JPhillips]

Yeah, Dutch, who are you disagreeing with?

[Dutch]

heh. I don't believe we have tortured anybody (Abu Graib debacle excluded) and thought cartman was calling our interogation tactics(in general)--'torture'. I guess I jumped the gun after reading that first line. FWIW, I'm glad you don't think that way, cartman.

[Flasch186]

We waterboarded in Gitmo and pretty much everyone agrees that that was torture. {shrug}

[Raiders Army]

This has truly become a thread with something for everyone (or it could be argued, a thread for a select few who like to argue).

[JPhillips]

Everything done at Abu Ghraib has been done elsewhere, we just don't have as many pictures. If you believe that was torture there's no way you believe nothing else has been.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

We waterboarded in Gitmo and pretty much everyone agrees that that was torture. {shrug}

I think your beef is with Cheney.

"The military has interrogated terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay. And in addition, a small number of terrorists, high-value targets, held overseas have gone through an interrogation program run by the CIA. It's a tougher program, for tougher customers. These include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11. He and others were questioned at a time when another attack on this country was believed to be imminent. It's a good thing we had them in custody, and it's a good thing we found out what they knew.

"The procedures of the CIA program are designed to be safe, and they are in full compliance with the nation's laws and treaty obligations. They've been carefully reviewed by the Department of Justice, and very carefully monitored. The program is run by highly trained professionals who understand their obligations under the law. And the program has uncovered a wealth of information that has foiled attacks against the United States; information that has saved thousands of lives.

"The United States is a country that takes human rights seriously. We do not torture - it's against our laws and against our values. We're proud of our country and what it stands for. We expect all of those who serve America to conduct themselves with honor. And we enforce those rules. Some years ago, when abuses were committed at Abu Ghraib prison, a facility that had nothing to do with the CIA program, the abuses that came to light were, in fact, investigated, and those responsible were prosecuted. …

"From the very morning our nation was attacked on 9/11, the President of the United States has had to make some immensely enormous decisions. Every day he faces responsibilities that others would pale before. I've been there with him. I've seen him make the tough calls, and then weather the criticism and take the hits. President Bush has been tough and courageous. He's made the right decisions for the right reasons, and he always reflects the best values of the American people. I've been proud to stand by him and by the decisions he's made. And I would support those same - and would I support those same decisions again today? You're damn right I would."

--former VP Cheney

[JPhillips]

Amen Shep Smith.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

You mean torture. Use English dammit.

Call it whatever you want. I have no problem with waterboarding or the other interrogation tactics approved by the previous administration. I have a lot of problems with some of the policies under Bush, but I'm one of their biggest supporters when it comes to interrogation. I'm not going to sugar-coat what's done. It's simple really. They stop threatening my country's welfare and we'll stop doing the things that need to be done to keep our country safe that they don't particularly like.

[Flasch186]

and finally a statement out of MBBF I can respect. Now stop trying to convince everyone that A. it isnt torture, B. That it didnt happen, C. that somehow under the Bush administration the statistics changed and most of the info. that was garnered from torture wasn't false information given in an effort to stop said torture from continuing or D. that it stopped an impending attack. Please continue down the path of, Im a supporter of torture, it happened, Im glad it did, and I feel safer for it. At least you can stand by an opinion.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Amen Shep Smith.

Epic win.

[cartman]

Here is an interesting editorial from the NYT today from a former FBI interrogator.

Op-Ed Contributor - My Tortured Decision - NYTimes.com

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

and finally a statement out of MBBF I can respect. Now stop trying to convince everyone that A. it isnt torture, B. That it didnt happen, C. that somehow under the Bush administration the statistics changed and most of the info. that was garnered from torture wasn't false information given in an effort to stop said torture from continuing or D. that it stopped an impending attack. Please continue down the path of, Im a supporter of torture, it happened, Im glad it did, and I feel safer for it. At least you can stand by an opinion.

In regards to A, I don't care what you call it. Obama doesn't allow anyone on his administration to use the term 'War on Terror', but that doesn't change what's happening.

In regards to B, I never claimed that the interrogation tactics didn't happen. I'm assuming you're confusing me with another poster.

In regards to C, I disagree that most of it was false information but it's impossible to argue firmly one way or another as we have don't have the total picture laid before us, which is just fine by me. As long as the mainland and our interests abroad remain as safe as possible, I won't care to be right or wrong. My personal concern is that some moves by the Obama administration are removing some safeguards, but I suppose no one cares as long as they aren't the victims of an attack. As long as no attacks occur, especially here at home, he'll be considered to have done a good job, though most of the credit should go to the people behind the scenes that never get the credit they deserve for risking their life for our safety.

In regards to D, the timeline presented by KWhit is pretty good. There could be a case that claim is untrue.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

In regards to D, the timeline presented by KWhit is pretty good. There could be a case that claim is untrue.

Worded very indirectly, but is this MBBF admitting he was wrong?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Worded very indirectly, but is this MBBF admitting he was wrong?

I've admitted I was wrong before. It just makes it more fun for some posters to carry on the masquerade that I haven't.

[Flasch186]

he did use the word "could".

And dont let a history of studies regarding information derived via torture stop ya.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

he did use the word "could".

See there? According to Flasch, I STILL have not admitted I was wrong (even though I did).

[flere-imsaho]

Hrm, looks like I do have to repost this:

Torture doesn't work. It just makes those wanting vengeance feel better.

General David H. Petraeus:

Originally Posted by General Petraeus

The top U.S. commander in Iraq admonished his troops regarding the results of an Army survey that found that many U.S military personnel there are willing to tolerate some torture of suspects and unwilling to report abuse by comrades.

"This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we -- not our enemies -- occupy the moral high ground," Army Gen. David H. Petraeus wrote in an open letter dated May 10 and posted on a military Web site.

He rejected the argument that torture is sometimes needed to quickly obtain crucial information. "Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary," he stated.

Lieutenant General John Kimmons (Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, 2006):

Originally Posted by Lt. General Kimmons

No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tell us that.

And moreover, any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, under -- through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility. And additionally, it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used. And we can't afford to go there.

Some of our most significant successes on the battlefield have been -- in fact, I would say all of them, almost categorically all of them have accrued from expert interrogators using mixtures of authorized, humane interrogation practices, in clever ways that you would hope Americans would use them, to push the envelope within the bookends of legal, moral and ethical, now as further refined by this field manual. So we don't need abusive practices in there. Nothing good will come from them.

Robert Baer, former CIA Case Officer:

But legal or not, the important thing to remember is that torture doesn't work. When I was in the CIA I never came across a country that systematically tortures its citizens and at the same time produces useful intelligence. The objective of torture, invariably, is intimidation.

When Stalin asked the KGB to find out how to make an atomic bomb, the KGB didn't kidnap and torture American and British scientists. It recruited spies. And Stalin got his bomb.

The Israelis figured all of this out a long time ago. For the last three years I have been in and out of Israeli jails interviewing members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Many of them had been in suicide bomber cells — just the kind of people the Israelis would want to extract every last detail out of. None of them, however, claimed to have been tortured. The Israelis found out what they needed to know using traditional, legal police methods. It simply isn't worth it for them to risk damaging their already shaky international reputation by torturing suspects on the slim hope they just may get a lead.

Another thing the Israelis learned is that the "ticking bomb" scenario so popular on shows like 24 (and even in recent presidential debates) is a false choice. Any terrorist group capable of carrying off a sophisticated attack knows enough to "compartmentalize" its attack — the operatives are told only what they need to know. Or the attacks are so closely timed that it is impossible to stop them. For instance, had we arrested one of the 9/11 teams, there would not have been enough time to physically coerce its members into telling us about the other three hijacking teams.

Vincent Cannistraro, 27 veteran with the CIA, including leading clandestine units:

Detainees will say virtually anything to end their torment

Merle Pribbenow (CIA):

A similar stance was articulated last year by Merle L. Pribbenow, a 27-year veteran of the agency's clandestine Directorate of Operations. Writing in Studies in Intelligence, the CIA's in-house journal, Pribbenow recalled that an old college friend had recently expressed his belief that "the terrorist threat to America was so grave that any methods, including torture, should be used to obtain the information we need." The friend was vexed that Pribbenow's former colleagues "had not been able to 'crack' these prisoners."

Pribbenow sought an answer by revisiting the arcane case of Nguyen Van Tai, the highest-ranking Vietcong prisoner captured and interrogated by both South Vietnamese and American forces during the Vietnam War. Re-examining in detail the techniques used by the South Vietnamese (protracted torture that included electric shocks; beatings; various forms of water torture; stress positions; food, water, and sleep deprivation) and by the Americans (rapport-building and no violence), Pribbenow reached a stark conclusion: "While the South Vietnamese use of torture did result (eventually) in Tai's admission of his true identity, it did not provide any other usable information," he wrote. In the end, he said, "it was the skillful questions and psychological ploys of the Americans, and not any physical infliction of pain, that produced the only useful (albeit limited) information that Tai ever provided."

But perhaps most noteworthy was Pribbenow's conclusion: "This brings me back to my college classmate's question. The answer I gave him -- one in which I firmly believe -- is that we, as Americans, must not let our methods betray our goals," he said. "There is nothing wrong with a little psychological intimidation, verbal threats, bright lights and tight handcuffs, and not giving a prisoner a soft drink and a Big Mac every time he asks for them. There are limits, however, beyond which we cannot and should not go if we are to continue to call ourselves Americans. America is as much an ideal as a place, and physical torture of the kind used by the Vietnamese (North as well as South) has no place in it."

Frank Snepp (CIA):

From 1972 to 1975, Frank Snepp was the CIA's top interrogator in Saigon, where he choreographed elaborate, protracted sessions with Nguyen Van Tai and, at one point, seven other senior Vietcong captives. To the question of whether torture or abusive behavior by interrogators is justified, Snepp's answer is unequivocally no. And the fact that this point isn't understood at the agency today, Snepp says, is a sign of serious problems.

"One of the big lessons for the agency was that the South Vietnamese torturing people got in the way of getting information," he says. "One day, without my knowledge, the South Vietnamese forces beat one of my subjects to a pulp, and when he staggered into the interrogation room, I was furious. And I went to the station chief and he said, 'What do you want me to do about it?' I told him to tell the Vietnamese to lay off, and he said, 'What do you want me to tell them in terms of why?' I said, 'Because it's wrong, it's just wrong.' He laughed and said, 'Look, we've got 180,000 North Vietnamese troops within a half hour of here -- I can't tell them, don't beat the enemy. Give me a pragmatic reason.' I said, 'He can't talk. He's a wreck. I can't interrogate him.' He said, 'That, I can use with them.'

"The important lesson for me was that moral arguments don't work," Snepp says. "But if you have pragmatic reasons, that will work. But the most important thing is that the only time you can be sure that what you're getting from someone is valid is through discourse. In Tai's case, the idea was to develop absolute trust, which you do not do by alienating and humiliating someone. He liked poetry; I brought him books of poetry, and in many sessions we sat and discussed poetry, nothing else. The most extreme thing I did was a disorientation technique, where I would keep jumping from one subject to another so rapidly that he might not remember what he'd told me the day before, or not remember that he had not, in fact, told me what I was saying he'd told me. Little by little, I drew him into revelations. And I was highly commended for this work."

Jack Cloonan, FBI Special Agent (full article in link, description/summary below):

An FBI special agent from 1977 to 2002, Cloonan started working Al Qaeda cases in the mid-1990s. In this interview, he explains why he believes the FBI's method of interrogation is successful. He describes how the FBI cultivated former Al Qaeda operatives Jamal al-Fadl and Ali Mohammed as cooperative sources in the years before 9/11. Cloonan also recounts the FBI's battle with the CIA over custody of Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who ran an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan and who was one of the highest-ranking Al Qaeda operatives captured in the first months of the war in Afghanistan. Cloonan says al-Libi was revealing information that could have been useful in the prosecutions of Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui, before he was transferred to CIA custody, duct-taped, put in the back of a truck, and sent to Egypt for more aggressive interrogation. Cloonan also discusses the FBI's role at Guantanamo and why he believes little good intelligence came out of there. This is the edited transcript of an interview conducted on July 13, 2005.

Brigadier General David R. Irvine (Retired Army Reserve strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner interrogation and military law for 18 years with the Sixth Army Intelligence School):

No one has yet offered any validated evidence that torture produces reliable intelligence. While torture apologists frequently make the claim that torture saves lives, that assertion is directly contradicted by many Army, FBI, and CIA professionals who have actually interrogated al Qaeda captives. Exhibit A is the torture-extracted confession of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al Qaeda captive who told the CIA in 2001, having been "rendered" to the tender mercies of Egypt, that Saddam Hussein had trained al Qaeda to use WMD. It appears that this confession was the only information upon which, in late 2002, the president, the vice president, and the secretary of state repeatedly claimed that "credible evidence" supported that claim, even though a now-declassified Defense Intelligence Agency report from February 2002 questioned the reliability of the confession because it was likely obtained under torture. In January 2004, al-Libi recanted his "confession," and a month later, the CIA recalled all intelligence reports based on his statements.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Call it whatever you want. I have no problem with waterboarding or the other interrogation tactics approved by the previous administration. I have a lot of problems with some of the policies under Bush, but I'm one of their biggest supporters when it comes to interrogation. I'm not going to sugar-coat what's done. It's simple really. They stop threatening my country's welfare and we'll stop doing the things that need to be done to keep our country safe that they don't particularly like.

Some would say that the United States should be above countries like Egypt and Sudan when it comes to treatment of prisoners.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Some would say that the United States should be above countries like Egypt and Sudan when it comes to treatment of prisoners.

There's no 'should be' about it. Even under the Bush policies, we're still well clear of those countries in that regard (i.e. their techniques are much worse).

I don't have a problem with people debating the need for these techniques. I have a big problem with people who like to pretend that our form of torture is even remotely similar to other countries like the ones you mention. It's not.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There's no 'should be' about it. Even under the Bush policies, we're still well clear of those countries in that regard (i.e. their techniques are much worse).

I don't have a problem with people debating the need for these techniques. I have a big problem with people who like to pretend that our form of torture is even remotely similar to other countries like the ones you mention. It's not.

Torture is torture in my book. You either do it or you don't.

[JPhillips]

Maybe not in scope, but the details are very much in line with what some of the worst regimes of the past 100 years did. There isn't a whole lot of difference between what McCain went through and what was "legalized" for the CIA.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Torture is torture in my book. You either do it or you don't.

You're at least consistent. You're the FOFC king of painting with a broad brush. I totally disagree.

[gstelmack]

I'm with flere on this: techniques that disorient that subject do work because they reduce the resistance to telling the truth, but inflicting pain causes them to tell you what they think you want to hear.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Maybe not in scope, but the details are very much in line with what some of the worst regimes of the past 100 years did. There isn't a whole lot of difference between what McCain went through and what was "legalized" for the CIA.

Interesting............

1. I'm pretty sure that the U.S. policy does not include sticking a bayonette into a prisoner as soon as you capture him.

2. I'm also pretty sure that the U.S. policy allows for medical treatment of any prisoner injuries at the earliest opportunity, regardless of who they are.

3. The U.S. policy also does not allow the neglect of a prisoner during that medical care which could/would cause them to lose 50+ pounds.

4. The U.S. policy also does not consist of taking an injured prisoner out of a hospital ward for interrogations several times a day.

5. In addition, I'm pretty sure that the U.S. policy does not allow the striking of a prisoner during interrogation, especially every two hours for weeks at a time.

6. The U.S. policy does not allow a prisoner to be shackeled by the neck, hands, and feet and placed in a 4 x 4 bamboo cage in the middle of the jungle with limited food, to the point where you lose the ability to move your legs.

7. The U.S. policy does not allow a person to only be bathed once a month.

8. The U.S. policy does not allow neglect to the point of no toilet facilities being available to the prisoner.

9. U.S. policy does not allow the captor to let a prisoner with dysentary go 1 1/2 years without treatment.

10. U.S. policy does not allow 10 guards to simulaneously beat one prisoner.

11. U.S. policy does not allow the removal of fingernails or any body parts.

12. U.S. policy does not allow the captor to burn their prisoners in any way.

13. U.S. policy does not allow the captors to beat a prisoner to death after any escape attempt.

14. U.S. policy does not allow a captor to jump on a prisoner's knee over and over until it breaks in multiple places with no medical treatment afterwards for the injury.

Just a few small deviations between the treatment of those prisoners. I can see how you'd consider those scenarios to be roughly the same.

If you'd like to familiarize yourself further with the treatment of Senator McCain, you can find the full story here:

John McCain, Prisoner of War: A First-Person Account - US News and World Report

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Rough week for the administration. In addition to the flip-flop on whether they would or would not allow possible charges against Bush administration officials, it has now come to light that many high ranking Democrat leaders and their Republican counterparts were briefed on the interrogation tactics being used as early as 2002. None of the people involved voiced any concerns over the tactics, including Speaker Pelosi. Republicans are asking that all briefing information be made public.

Republicans Claim Top Lawmakers Were in the Loop on Interrogations - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

Hopefully President Obama will hold all of his former Congressional peers accountable for their lack of action when these techniques were reported to them by the administration in a meeting nearly 7 years ago. I'd hate to know that all of this outrage was nothing more than political grandstanding as I had previously indicated.

[RainMaker]

Well every week is going to be considered "rough" by your standards. I highly doubt many people care about this stuff at this time. The economy is the only thing that matters and he'll ultimately be judged on that in 4 years, not some meaningless partisian bickering. With the mistake of Iraq, it's going to be pretty tough for Republicans to have any credibility on foreign policy for awhile now.