‘We Could Have Done This the Right Way’

[StrengthOfFates]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='779278' date='May 28 2009, 10:10 PM']Didn't we help arm the mujahadeen (sp?) in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the early 1980's? I seem to recall a particular weapon called a Stinger shoulder-fired missle that was particularly effective against the flying-tank HIND attack helicopter the Soviets were using back then. And I'm sure that there was more munition supplying than that, since it's always a pleasure to supply a proxy country against your superpower enemy [i]du jour[/i]. Granted, the USSR was [i]du jour[/i] for a LONG time (and nuclear armed!), but this foreign policy behavior is unfortunately not unique for the USA. Or any other major nation throughout history for that matter.[/quote]

Yes and no. The author of the article specifically named the so-called Arab-Afghans. There were two distinct groups fighting the soviets: the Arab-Afghan Mujahideen (foreigners - NOT Afghani) and the Afghani Mujahideen. The Arab-Afghans were already well funded by the likes of Osama Bin Laden and other prominent Arabs. We funded the Afghani Mujahideen and the two groups hated each other.... that bit of history is how we became alied with the Northern Alliance (former Afghani Mujahideen) in the fight against Bin Laden and the Taliban. Read up on it.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='StrengthOfFates' post='779279' date='May 28 2009, 09:35 PM']Yes and no. The author of the article specifically named the so-called Arab-Afghans. There were two distinct groups fighting the soviets: the Arab-Afghan Mujahideen (foreigners - NOT Afghani) and the Afghani Mujahideen. The Arab-Afghans were already well funded by the likes of Osama Bin Laden and other prominent Arabs. We funded the Afghani Mujahideen and the two groups hated each other.... that bit of history is how we became alied with the Northern Alliance (former Afghani Mujahideen) in the fight against Bin Laden and the Taliban. Read up on it.[/quote]
Without looking it up, IIRC Bin Laden was a part of the US-supplied fight against the Soviets and did not become so anti-USA until well afterwards (USA troops staging out of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait after Gulf Wars I: Daddy Bush).

[StrengthOfFates]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='779283' date='May 28 2009, 11:04 PM']Without looking it up, IIRC Bin Laden was a part of the US-supplied fight against the Soviets and did not become so anti-USA until well afterwards (USA troops staging out of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait after Gulf Wars I: Daddy Bush).[/quote]


Seriously, it would be much easier if you looked it up yourself. Research the difference between the Arab-Afghani Mujihideen (bin laden) and the U.S. supplied Afghani Mujihideen. You are dead wrong on this one.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='StrengthOfFates' post='779273' date='May 28 2009, 09:42 PM']What does this have to do with our argument? The article you've posted even points out that people who are [u]already[/u] anti-American are coming to Iraq to fight ...and so they are fighting, right? So that means they gain experience in fighting. Not to mention, this article was written in 2005 and is a little out-dated.



By the way, this author's credibility, in my eyes, has just flown out of the window. He needs to brush up on his history a bit, considering we NEVER funded the "Arab-Afghans" (Who weren't Afghani at all).

Where's this phantom CIA report he keeps referencing? I give this article 2 "dismissive wanks".[/quote]


So you dismiss the whole idea of blowback? The CIA is wrong?

[StrengthOfFates]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='779288' date='May 28 2009, 11:17 PM']So you dismiss the whole idea of blowback? The CIA is wrong? [/quote]

The CIA? Where, in that article, was there any comment from the CIA? Sure, the author keeps referencing a classified CIA report containing ridiculously common-sense information (Does this report even exist?). Did he even apply the term 'blowback' correctly? Debatable (can the Iraq war be considered a covert operation?). To answer your question: no, I'm not dismissing the 'whole idea of blowback'. However, I still do not see how this ties into the conversation that you and I were having.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='StrengthOfFates' post='779294' date='May 29 2009, 12:05 AM']The CIA? Where, in that article, was there any comment from the CIA? Sure, the author keeps referencing a classified CIA report containing ridiculously common-sense information (Does this report even exist?). Did he even apply the term 'blowback' correctly? Debatable (can the Iraq war be considered a covert operation?). To answer your question: no, I'm not dismissing the 'whole idea of blowback'. However, I still do not see how this ties into the conversation that you and I were having.[/quote]


Thats because you dismiss water boarding as adding to the problem, and I disagree. Regardless, the argument is getting circular now.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='StrengthOfFates' post='779294' date='May 28 2009, 10:05 PM']The CIA? Where, in that article, was there any comment from the CIA? Sure, the author keeps referencing a classified CIA report containing ridiculously common-sense information (Does this report even exist?). Did he even apply the term 'blowback' correctly? Debatable (can the Iraq war be considered a covert operation?). To answer your question: no, I'm not dismissing the 'whole idea of blowback'. However, I still do not see how this ties into the conversation that you and I were having.[/quote]
I will read your article, but excuse me if the blowback from the direct involvement from federal agencies like the CIA doesn't blow me back.

[StrengthOfFates]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' post='778970' date='May 27 2009, 01:42 PM']I'm jumping in here late but are you saying that us waterboarding them is [i]insignificant[/i] or [i]does nothing completely [/i]to fuel the terrorist fire?[/quote]

I'm saying it is insignificant. I'm saying that the fact that we waterboarded two or three KNOWN terrorists is not going to be that last straw that throws somebody over the edge.

I will say this: I found the public classification of waterboarding as torture by Government officials, while being involved in a relative conflict, to be highly irresponsible. We hardly mention waterboarding anymore, just 'torture'. It's dangerous because those are soundbites being played over and over again in the middle east and, as I mentioned earlier, when those people hear the term 'torture' being thrown around, they aren't thinking waterboarding and sleep deprivation.

[quote]I would say that any poor treatment of prisoners from impovershed conditions to various forms of torture to death can be construed in any way they deem necessary to recrute new terrorists.[/quote]

You are talking about something that cannot be controlled - the actions of individuals. BTW, I'm assuming you are talking about Abu Ghraib. The couple of incidents of waterboarding were official actions.

While we're on the subject - Anything you do can be misconstrued and used to influence people who are too ignorant or starved of proper sources of information.

[quote]I don't think waterboarding is any significant cause of future terrorism, even now in light of all the allegations, but to say it is completely neglegable because they already hate us so much seems brash.[/quote]

It may seem brash, but ask yourself the same question that I posed to Jamie_B and answer it honestly.

[quote]Throw in no real evidence that torture is even successful at eliciting accurate information and we find ourselves wondering "why even do it in the first place?" Unless you just want to inflict pain and suffering upon alleged enemies, there is no reason.[/quote]

I'd sure like to know if they worked. Maybe Obama should release the memos that Cheney keeps referencing.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='StrengthOfFates' post='779305' date='May 29 2009, 01:11 AM']I'd sure like to know if they worked. Maybe Obama should release the memos that Cheney keeps referencing.[/quote]


I would just respond with Homers post...

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='779091' date='May 28 2009, 12:44 AM']C'mon, Bung. It isn't hard to figure some of this stuff out. It's not like we're living in a vacuum, that there was no conflict before 9-11. The Geneva Conventions were negotiated for reasons, and the Nuremberg Trials were held..ditto. Insofar as specific techniques go, I'm sure enough experts have spoken out in recent months to provide plenty of grist for the thought-mill. And, lastly, given the general consensus that torture doesn't provide reliable intel, it's hard to imagine that there could be any justification for sodomizing kids at Gitmo.

In any case, [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492.html"]"For six decades, they held their silence..."[/url][/quote]

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='StrengthOfFates' post='779305' date='May 29 2009, 01:11 AM']I'm saying it is insignificant. I'm saying that the fact that we waterboarded two or three KNOWN terrorists is not going to be that last straw that throws somebody over the edge.

I will say this: I found the public classification of waterboarding as torture by Government officials, while being involved in a relative conflict, to be highly irresponsible. We hardly mention waterboarding anymore, just 'torture'. It's dangerous because those are soundbites being played over and over again in the middle east and, as I mentioned earlier, when those people hear the term 'torture' being thrown around, they aren't thinking waterboarding and sleep deprivation.

You are talking about something that cannot be controlled - the actions of individuals. BTW, I'm assuming you are talking about Abu Ghraib. The couple of incidents of waterboarding were official actions.

While we're on the subject - Anything you do can be misconstrued and used to influence people who are too ignorant or starved of proper sources of information.

[b]It may seem brash, but ask yourself the same question that I posed to Jamie_B and answer it honestly.[/b]

I'd sure like to know if they worked. Maybe Obama should release the memos that Cheney keeps referencing.[/quote]

I'm not sure which question your talking about.

I think you make good points...but my stance has always been that these people are SUSPECTS. I have a hard time justifying any poor treatment of someone WHO MAY NOT BE GUILTY. In this day and age, I feel we should be above the tactics of (what I veiw as an inferior, barbaric society) the radical Muslims. I think we can/should treat POW's and terror suspects humanely even in the face of the way they treat us and think about us because we are capable of acknowleding that the way they act is wrong.

If we were engaged in war on our soil or the threat was far graver than it appears (the potential for millions of deaths vs thousands), as an evolutionary mechanism of survival I would be much more accepting of radical means to interrogate and destroy the enemy. But we're not there.

Plus for every instance of good information gotten from torture or "alternative/extreme interrogation" I could probably find another couple hundred of instances where it failed. The history books are lined with them. It would take some damn good evidence that torture of any kind, from sleep deprevation to the rack, gets reliable, accurate, life-saving information that could not have been gotten without breaking down the barriers of humanity, to convince me its ok.

[|kennethmw|]

[quote name='StrengthOfFates' post='779305' date='May 29 2009, 01:11 AM']I'm saying it is insignificant. I'm saying that the fact that we waterboarded two or three KNOWN terrorists is not going to be that last straw that throws somebody over the edge.

I will say this: I found the public classification of waterboarding as torture by Government officials, while being involved in a relative conflict, to be highly irresponsible. We hardly mention waterboarding anymore, just 'torture'. It's dangerous because those are soundbites being played over and over again in the middle east and, as I mentioned earlier, when those people hear the term 'torture' being thrown around, they aren't thinking waterboarding and sleep deprivation.



You are talking about something that cannot be controlled - the actions of individuals. BTW, I'm assuming you are talking about Abu Ghraib. The couple of incidents of waterboarding were official actions.

While we're on the subject - Anything you do can be misconstrued and used to influence people who are too ignorant or starved of proper sources of information.



It may seem brash, but ask yourself the same question that I posed to Jamie_B and answer it honestly.



[b]I'd sure like to know if they worked. Maybe Obama should release the memos that Cheney keeps referencing.[/b][/quote]

Does it really matter? Waterboarding is considered torture. Our Laws state that it is illegal to torture. Our Country has prosecuted people for the act of Waterboarding. If I rob a Bank, and then use the money to give scholarships to kids, am I any less guilty of robbery? If Maddow had taken the Investor's money, and used it to support the troops, would he have been any less an embezzler? The end DOES NOT justify the means!!

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Elflocko' post='779094' date='May 28 2009, 01:56 AM']He always goes to the extreme to prove his point, but his point stands nonetheless...[/quote]
Just noticed this...not extreme, just a reference to Marlowe's [i]Faustus[/i].

[quote]Spirit: Who calls to me?

Faust (averting his face). Horrible vision!

Spirit: Thou hast compelled me hither, by dint of long
sucking at my sphere. And now

Faust: Torture! I endure thee not.

Spirit: Thou, prayest, panting, to see me, to hear my
voice, to see my face. Thy powerful invocation works upon
me. I am here! What pitiful terror seizes thee, the demigod!
Where is the soul's calling? Where is the breast, that
created a world in itself, and upbore and cherished it? which,
with tremors of delight, swelled to lift itself to a level with
us, the Spirits. Where art thou, Faust, whose voice rang
to me, who pressed towards me with all his energies? Art
thou he? thou, who, at the bare perception of my breath,
art shivering through all the depths of life, a trembling,
writhing worm?[/quote]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' post='779381' date='May 29 2009, 12:50 PM']I'm not sure which question your talking about.

I think you make good points...but my stance has always been that these people are SUSPECTS. I have a hard time justifying any poor treatment of someone WHO MAY NOT BE GUILTY. In this day and age, I feel we should be above the tactics of (what I veiw as an inferior, barbaric society) the radical Muslims. I think we can/should treat POW's and terror suspects humanely even in the face of the way they treat us and think about us because we are capable of acknowleding that the way they act is wrong.

If we were engaged in war on our soil or the threat was far graver than it appears (the potential for millions of deaths vs thousands), as an evolutionary mechanism of survival I would be much more accepting of radical means to interrogate and destroy the enemy. But we're not there.

Plus for every instance of good information gotten from torture or "alternative/extreme interrogation" I could probably find another couple hundred of instances where it failed. The history books are lined with them. It would take some damn good evidence that torture of any kind, from sleep deprevation to the rack, gets reliable, accurate, life-saving information that could not have been gotten without breaking down the barriers of humanity, to convince me its ok.[/quote]


Well said

[Jamie_B]

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090529/us_time/09171190149100;_ylt=AgQtPtffLFCrNg8sVMRFbnguQE4F;_ylu=X3oDMTJzazlkZm5rBGFzc2V0Ay90aW1lLzIwMDkwNTI5L3VzX3RpbWUvMDkxNzExOTAxNDkxMDAEY3BvcwM0BHBvcwM0BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDaG93ZG95b3VtYWtl"]http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090529/us_t...G93ZG95b3VtYWtl[/url]

[quote][size=4]How to Make Terrorists Talk[/size]

The most successful interrogation of an Al-Qaeda operative by U.S. officials required no sleep deprivation, no slapping or "walling" and no waterboarding. All it took to soften up Abu Jandal, who had been closer to Osama bin Laden than any other terrorist ever captured, was a handful of sugar-free cookies.


Abu Jandal had been in a Yemeni prison for nearly a year when Ali Soufan of the FBI and Robert McFadden of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service arrived to interrogate him in the week after 9/11. Although there was already evidence that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks, American authorities needed conclusive proof, not least to satisfy skeptics like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, whose support was essential for any action against the terrorist organization. U.S. intelligence agencies also needed a better understanding of al-Qaeda's structure and leadership. Abu Jandal was the perfect source: the Yemeni who grew up in Saudi Arabia had been bin Laden's chief bodyguard, trusted not only to protect him but also to put a bullet in his head rather than let him be captured. (See pictures of do-it-yourself waterboarding attempts.)


Abu Jandal's guards were so intimidated by him, they wore masks to hide their identities and begged visitors not to refer to them by name in his presence. He had no intention of cooperating with the Americans; at their first meetings, he refused even to look at them and ranted about the evils of the West. Far from confirming al-Qaeda's involvement in 9/11, he insisted the attacks had been orchestrated by Israel's Mossad. While Abu Jandal was venting his spleen, Soufan noticed that he didn't touch any of the cookies that had been served with tea: "He was a diabetic and couldn't eat anything with sugar in it." At their next meeting, the Americans brought him some sugar-free cookies, a gesture that took the edge off Abu Jandal's angry demeanor. "We had showed him respect, and we had done this nice thing for him," Soufan recalls. "So he started talking to us instead of giving us lectures."


It took more questioning, and some interrogators' sleight of hand, before the Yemeni gave up a wealth of information about al-Qaeda - including the identities of seven of the 9/11 bombers - but the cookies were the turning point. "After that, he could no longer think of us as evil Americans," Soufan says. "Now he was thinking of us as human beings."


Soufan, now an international-security consultant, has emerged as a powerful critic of the George W. Bush - era interrogation techniques; he has testified against them in congressional hearings and is an expert witness in cases brought by detainees. He has described the techniques as "borderline torture" and "un-American." His larger argument is that methods like waterboarding are wholly unnecessary - traditional interrogation methods, a combination of guile and graft, are the best way to break down even the most stubborn subjects. He told a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee that it was these methods, not the harsh techniques, that prompted al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah to give up the identities of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla. Bush Administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, had previously claimed that Abu Zubaydah supplied that information only after he was waterboarded. But Soufan says once the rough treatment began - administered by CIA-hired private contractors with no interrogation experience - Abu Zubaydah actually stopped cooperating. (Read "Dick Cheney: Why So Chatty All of a Sudden?")


The debate over the CIA's interrogation techniques and their effectiveness has intensified since President Barack Obama's decision to release Bush Administration memos authorizing the use of waterboarding and other harsh methods. Defenders of the Bush program, most notably Cheney, say the use of waterboarding produced actionable intelligence that helped the U.S. disrupt terrorist plots. But the experiences of officials like Soufan suggest that the utility of torture is limited at best and counterproductive at worst. Put simply, there's no definitive evidence that torture works.


The crucial question going forward is, What does? How does an interrogator break down a hardened terrorist without using violence? TIME spoke with several interrogators who have worked for the U.S. military as well as others who have recently retired from the intelligence services (the CIA and FBI turned down requests for interviews with current staffers). All agreed with Soufan: the best way to get intelligence from even the most recalcitrant subject is to apply the subtle arts of interrogation rather than the blunt instruments of torture. "There is nothing intelligent about torture," says Eric Maddox, an Army staff sergeant whose book Mission: Black List #1 chronicles his interrogations in Iraq that ultimately led to the capture of Saddam Hussein. "If you have to inflict pain, then you've lost control of the situation, the subject and yourself."


Read about a top interrogator who is against torture.


See pictures of the aftershocks from the Abu Ghraib scandal.


The Rules of the Game
There is no definitive textbook on interrogation. The U.S. Army field manual, updated in 2006, lists 19 interrogation techniques, ranging from offering "real or emotional reward" for truthful answers to repeating questions again and again "until the source becomes so thoroughly bored with the procedure, he answers questions fully and candidly." (Obama has ordered the CIA to follow the Army manual until a review of its interrogation policies has been completed.)


Some of the most interesting techniques are classified as "emotional approaches." Interrogators may flatter a detainee's ego by praising some particular skill. Alternatively, the interrogators may attack the detainee's ego by accusing him of incompetence, goading him to defend himself and possibly give up information in the process. If interrogators choose to go on the attack, however, they may not "cross the line into humiliating and degrading treatment of the detainee." (See pictures of the battle against the Taliban.)


But experienced interrogators don't limit themselves to the 19 prescribed techniques. Matthew Alexander, a military interrogator whose efforts in Iraq led to the location and killing of al-Qaeda leader Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi, says old-fashioned criminal-investigation techniques work better than the Army manual. "Often I'll use tricks that are not part of the Army system but that every cop knows," says Alexander. "Like when you bring in two suspects, you take them to separate rooms and offer a deal to the first one who confesses." (Alexander, one of the authors of How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq, uses a pseudonym for security purposes.)


Others apply methods familiar to psychologists and those who deprogram cult members. James Fitzsimmons, a retired FBI interviewer who dealt extensively with al-Qaeda members, says terrorism suspects often use their membership in a group as a psychological barrier. The interrogator's job, he says, "is to bring them out from the collective identity to the personal identity." To draw them out, Fitzsimmons invites his subjects to talk about their personal histories, all the way back to childhood. This makes them think of themselves as individuals rather than as part of a group.


Ultimately, every interrogation is a cat-and-mouse game, and seasoned interrogators have more than one way to coax, cajole or trick their captives into yielding information. Lying and dissimulation are commonplace. When a high-ranking insurgent spoke of his spendthrift wife, Alexander said he sympathized because he too had a wife who loved to shop. The two men bonded over this common "problem"; the insurgent never knew that Alexander is single. The Army manual even includes a "false flag" technique: interrogators may pretend to be of other nationalities if they feel a captive will not cooperate with Americans. (Read "Beyond Waterboarding: What Interrogators Can Still Do.")


Other countries that have experienced insurgencies and terrorism have evolved rules too. From Britain, with its Irish separatists, to Israel, with its Palestinian militants, most such countries have tended to move away from harsh techniques. But institutional relapses can occur: human-rights lawyers and Palestinians with experience in Israeli prisons say some violent interrogation techniques have returned in recent years.


The Tricks of the Trade
Each interrogator has his own idea of how to run an interrogation. Soufan likes to research his captive as thoroughly as possible before entering the interrogation room. "If you can get them to think you know almost everything to know about them - their families, their friends, their movements - then you've got an advantage," he says. "Because then they're thinking, 'Well, this guy already knows so much, there's no point in resisting ... I might as well tell him everything.'" When Abu Zubaydah tried to conceal his identity after his capture, Soufan stunned him by using the nickname given to him by his mother. "Once I called him 'Hani,' he knew the game was up," Soufan says.


To get Abu Jandal's cooperation, Soufan and McFadden laid a trap. After palliating his rage with the sugar-free cookies, they got him to identify a number of al-Qaeda members from an album of photographs, including Mohamed Atta and six other 9/11 hijackers. Next they showed him a local newspaper headline that claimed (erroneously) that more than 200 Yemenis had been killed in the World Trade Center. Abu Jandal agreed that this was a terrible crime and said no Muslim could be behind the attacks. Then Soufan dropped the bombshell: some of the men Abu Jandal had identified in the album had been among the hijackers. Without realizing it, the Yemeni prisoner had admitted that al-Qaeda had been responsible for 9/11: For all his resistance, he had given the Americans what they wanted. "He was broken, completely shattered," Soufan says. From that moment on, Abu Jandal was completely cooperative, giving Soufan and McFadden reams of information - names and descriptions of scores of al-Qaeda operatives, details of training and tactics.


See pictures of a jihadist's journey.

See pictures from inside Guantanamo Bay's detention facilities.

Alexander, who conducted more than 300 interrogations and supervised more than 1,000 others in Iraq, says the key to a successful interrogation lies in understanding the subject's motivation. In the spring of 2006, he was interrogating a Sunni imam connected with al-Qaeda in Iraq, which was then run by al-Zarqawi; the imam "blessed" suicide bombers before their final mission. His first words to Alexander were, "If I had a knife right now, I'd slit your throat." Asked why, the imam said the U.S. invasion had empowered Shi'ite thugs who had evicted his family from their home. Humiliated, he had turned to the insurgency. Alexander's response was to offer a personal apology: "I said, 'Look, I'm an American, and I want to say how sorry I am that we made so many mistakes in your country.'"

The imam, Alexander says, broke down in tears. The apology undercut his motivation for hating Americans and allowed him to open up to his interrogator. Alexander then nudged the conversation in a new direction, pointing out that Iraq and the U.S. had a common enemy: Iran. The two countries needed to cooperate in order to prevent Iraq from becoming supplicant to the Shi'ite mullahs in Tehran - a fear commonly expressed by Sunnis. Eventually the imam gave up the location of a safe house for suicide bombers; a raid on the house led to the capture of an al-Qaeda operative who in turn led U.S. troops to al-Zarqawi. (See pictures of U.S. troops' 6 years in Iraq.)

The Ticking Time Bomb
Proponents of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques say the noncoercive methods are useless in emergencies, when interrogators have just minutes, not days, to extract vital, lifesaving information. The worst-case scenario is often depicted in movies and TV series like 24: a captured terrorist knows where and when a bomb will go off (in a mall, in a school, on Capitol Hill), and his interrogators must make him talk at once or else risk thousands of innocent lives. It's not just fervid screenwriters who believe that such a scenario calls for the use of brute force. In 2002, Richard Posner, a Court of Appeals judge in Chicago and one of the most respected legal authorities in the U.S., wrote in the New Republic that "if torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used ... No one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility."

The CIA's controversial methods, argue their defenders, were spawned by precisely that sense of urgency: in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, amid swirling rumors of further attacks to come - including the possibility of a "dirty" nuclear bomb - the Bush Administration had no choice but to authorize the use of whatever means necessary to extract information from suspected terrorists. "We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country," former Vice President Cheney explained in a May 21 speech in Washington. "We didn't know about al-Qaeda's plans, but Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we didn't think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all."

But professional interrogators say the ticking-time-bomb scenario is no more than a thought experiment; it rarely, if ever, occurs in real life. It's true that U.S. intelligence managed to extract information about some "aspirational" al-Qaeda plots through interrogation of prisoners captured after 9/11. But none of those plots have been revealed - at least to the public - to have been imminent attacks. And there is still no conclusive proof that any usable intelligence the U.S. did glean through harsh interrogations could not have been extracted using other methods.

In fact, a smart interrogator may be able to turn the ticking-bomb scenario on its head and use a sense of urgency against a captive. During combat raids in Iraq, Maddox grew used to interrogating insurgents on the fly, often at the point of capture. His objective: to quickly extract information on the location of other insurgents hiding out nearby. "I'd say to them, 'As soon as your friends know you've been captured, they'll assume that you're going to give them up, and they'll run for it. So if you want to help yourself, to get a lighter sentence, you've got to tell me everything right now, because in a couple of hours you'll have nothing of value to trade.'"

That trick led to Maddox's finest hour in Iraq. At 6 a.m. on December 13, 2003, the final day of his tour of duty, two hours before his flight out of Baghdad, he began interrogating Mohammed Ibrahim, a midranking Baath Party leader known to be close to Saddam Hussein. More than 40 of Ibrahim's friends and family members associated with the insurgency were already in custody. For an hour and a half, Maddox tried to persuade him that giving up Saddam could lead to the release of his friends and family. Then Maddox played his final card: "I told him he had to talk quickly because Saddam might move," he says. "I also said that once I got on the plane, I would no longer be able to help him. My colleagues would just toss him in prison. Instead of saving 40 of his friends and family, he'd become No. 41." It worked. That evening, Ibrahim's directions led U.S. forces to Saddam's spider hole.[/quote]

[Homer_Rice]

[url="http://masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/America-as-a-jihad-state.htm"]America as a Jihad State: Middle Eastern perceptions of modern American theopolitics[/url]

[Jamie_B]

bump