Obama's civil liberties Moment of Truth coming up April 16th.

[Direckshun]

Will he, or won't he, release three key Bush-era OLC memos authorizing torture techniques?

That's the debate. Obama will release the memos tomorrow, but will we see them in their complete form, or will we see only the authorizations, and not specific techniques?

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/obama_to_release_unredacted_torture_memos.php

The Bush "Torture" Memos: Release Or Redact
Apr 15 2009, 12:52 pm by Marc Ambinder

Tomorrow, the Department of Justice plans to release largely unredacted versions of three Bush-era memorandums that critics suspect contain legal justification for torture and the broad use of executive power during wartime, according to an administration official. The critical question: how much does the administration withhold in the name of national security?

After the Obama administration released nine earlier memorandums, written between 2002 and 2008 by several Justice Department lawyers, the administration asked a judge for more time to review three others, written by a senior Bush administration lawyer, Stephen Bradbury, over several years of Bush's second term. One of those memos reportedly outlines, in detail, the techniques that CIA officers and interrogators can use to extract information from subjects. According to the Wall Street Journal, the government authorized CIA officers to slam a detainee's head against a wall memos have since been withdrawn by the Obama administration, which has begun an interagency review on interrogation methods. The memos were obtained from the government by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Journal reported yesterday that the administration was leaning towards a comprehensive redaction of the operational details revealed by a memo, leaving intact the legal analysis used to justify them. That Solomonic compromise would not satisfy civil libertarians and would probably anger many Democrats in Congress. Depending on the scope of the blacked out parts, the administration will be forced to justify its decisions in a federal court, next week. That would put it in the position of having to repeat classification arguments made by the Bush administration in 2007.

Though several senior administration officials said that the Journal story does not reflect the current state of thinking, they would not disclose what decisions had been made.

Various news reports suggest that most of Obama's national security team favors the full release of the memos; Attorney General Eric Holder and White House counsel Greg Craig have lobbied for full release; CIA director Leon Panetta, who last week notified employees that the CIA's secret detention facilities would be shut down, has transmitted the concerns of the agency's field officers, who worry that full disclosure would hamper their efforts to question terrorists. Chief counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan favors releasing the legal analysis but not the specific techniques used; National Security Adviser James Jones and Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair count themselves in the transparency camp. Several members of Obama's Office of Legal Counsel urged the release of the memos before they joined the administration.

Pro-disclosure advocates have urged Obama to balance the trust he needs from CIA officials with the trust he earned from the many transparency advocates who backed his campaign. Obama vowed that "sunlight was the best disinfectant" for secret policies. During the campaign, he meant it.

The ACLU today put pressure on the administration to release "full, unredacted" copies of the Bradbury memos.

The information in these memos is vital to the historical record and to informing the public about what actions were carried out in its name," said Jameel Jaffer the ACLU's top national security lawyer. "The release of the memos is also crucial to holding officials accountable for authorizing torture."

Holder, the attorney general, and others have argued internally that most of the information contained within the memo has already been released. The ACLU and other civil liberties groups have obtained more than 100,000 pages of formerly secret documents. The International Committee of the Red Cross's damning report on detention and torture was leaked to reporter Mark Danner last month; federal prosecutors and senior military officials have acknowledged, in detail, that not only were prisoners in CIA and military custody tortured, but described the means used to torture them.

Others, knowing Washington's ways, believe that if the CIA is worried that some of the torture methods are truly gruesome, well, that's exactly the first bit of information that an enterprising official will leak. More headlines will be made.

Politically, this might be one of those situations where Obama is trying to please all his allies, when he can't possibly. So he's trying to compromise with people he wants to maintain good relations with where no compromise is possible.

I predict that if Obama doesn't release all the memos, the left will start to really hammer him on torture proceedings, state secrets privilege and his quiet evolution on the Patriot Act. Most have held back on this front, but this will make them feel abandoned and thus less restrained.

[Direckshun]

For the internal White House debate, here's the score, far as I read:

AG Eric Holder, legal counsel Greg Craig, National Security Adviser James Jones, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, and much of Obama's OLC favor total transparency.

CIA director Leon Panetta (in one imagines is a necessary dissent here), and chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan (who the liberal blogs have now been vindicated for opposing for CIA director) are on the side of limited release.

Interesting. I love reading about who sides up where in internal debates.

[Direckshun]

They are released. ACLU's website has them all.

If you do not have Greenwald bookmarked, do so now. His blog will be THE PLACE for discussion on these over the next few days.

Click to enlarge what the Bush administration authorized for a detainee that already had three bullet wounds from his capture:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SeeH_VDU3tI/AAAAAAAABxA/2C8iKq89ArA/s1600/bybee1.png

"Walling" is slamming someone into a wall.

"Cramped confinement" is a coffin-like space.

[Direckshun]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SeeJOHVx8lI/AAAAAAAABxI/bVajNRarhOE/s1600/bybee2.png

[Direckshun]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SeeL43vtNqI/AAAAAAAABxQ/Kw6mlwKMBDo/s1600/bybee.png

[SBK]

I wonder if Obama is going to release what he's authorized?

Not because Bush is teh awesome, but because I've been reading that nothing has changed under Lord Barry the Confiscator.

[Direckshun]

I wonder if Obama is going to release what he's authorized?

Subject change.

Nicely done, sir.

[SBK]

Subject change.

Nicely done, sir.

I'm honestly not trying to change the subject, I just wonder if he's going to release his records as well. Even you've posted things about how Obama=Bush.

[Donger]

Excellent. I'm sure his birth certificate and college records will be released shortly, too.

[Direckshun]

Excellent. I'm sure his birth certificate and college records will be released shortly, too.

Topic change.

Nicely done, sir.

[Direckshun]

I'm honestly not trying to change the subject, I just wonder if he's going to release his records as well. Even you've posted things about how Obama=Bush.

After five years, we are finally recovering serious evidence that the Bush administration had authorized torture... and you want to talk shit about Obama.

You've got separate thread-making capabilities, and you're welcome to use them.

[SBK]

Obama is all about transparency and not about political points. It's why he's releasing everything he's doing as well. LMAO


PREVIEW OF NEXT POST

Topic change. Nicely done, sir.

[Amnorix]

Excellent. I'm sure his birth certificate and college records will be released shortly, too.

Nobody cares except Obama-haters, and it's a non-issue, but feel free to continue to bleat about it as if it mattered.

[Donger]

Topic change.

Nicely done, sir.

He's all for transparency, after all. I guess not for himself, just what others have done.

[Direckshun]

Obama is all about transparency and not about political points. It's why he's releasing everything he's doing as well. LMAO

It just cracks me up that you're this HUGE fan of transparency, and Obama's increased transparency of some of the shadiest things that have happened in the past eight years... and you're criticizing him.

You just make no sense.

[Donger]

After five years, we are finally recovering serious evidence that the Bush administration had authorized torture... and you want to talk shit about Obama.

You've got separate thread-making capabilities, and you're welcome to use them.

Did anyone think that Bush hadn't authorized enhanced interrogation techniques?

[SBK]

It just cracks me up that you're this HUGE fan of transparency, and Obama's increased transparency of some of the shadiest things that have happened in the past eight years... and you're criticizing him.

You just make no sense.

This isn't about transparency. That's the issue.

[Donger]

Nobody cares except Obama-haters, and it's a non-issue, but feel free to continue to bleat about it as if it mattered.

I don't hate Obama. I care that our POTUS actually be eligible for the office he holds.

If you don't, that's peachy.

[blaise]

Topic change.

Nicely done, sir.

Yes and no, after all Obama's doing this under the guise of transparency.

[RaiderH8r]

They are released. ACLU's website has them all.

If you do not have Greenwald bookmarked, do so now. His blog will be THE PLACE for discussion on these over the next few days.

Click to enlarge what the Bush administration authorized for a detainee that already had three bullet wounds from his capture:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SeeH_VDU3tI/AAAAAAAABxA/2C8iKq89ArA/s1600/bybee1.png

"Walling" is slamming someone into a wall.

"Cramped confinement" is a coffin-like space.

"Sharting" is when your farts have lumps.

So "cramped confinement" is now torture? Excellent, my lawsuit against the airline industry is now pending.

"Walling" Boo f'ing hoo. Ride the red line during rush hour bunch of f'ing babies. Really wanna have fun? Do it in August when the AC is busted.

[Direckshun]

Did anyone think that Bush hadn't authorized enhanced interrogation techniques?

We're starting to see what "enhanced interrogation" included.

Torment. Psychological brutality. Physical brutality. Coffin enclosures.

Torture.

[Donger]

We're starting to see what "enhanced interrogation" included.

Torment. Psychological brutality. Physical brutality. Coffin enclosures.

Torture.

Was there any loud music?

What I'd like to know is if these techniques led to actionable intelligence on other bad guys.

[blaise]

Didn't Obama say today that he won't be prosecuting any CIA employees for waterboarding or other interrogation techniques?

[SBK]

We're starting to see what "enhanced interrogation" included.

Torment. Psychological brutality. Physical brutality. Coffin enclosures.

Torture.

We should be teaching these guys ballet while they plot to cut our heads off?

[Direckshun]

This isn't about transparency. That's the issue.

Yes and no, after all Obama's doing this under the guise of transparency.

Then it's not transparency. Whatever you need to hear.

Right now my concern is torture, but I'll leave you to it.

[Direckshun]

Didn't Obama say today that he won't be prosecuting any CIA employees for waterboarding or other interrogation techniques?

Yes.

[Direckshun]

We should be teaching these guys ballet while they plot to cut our heads off?

ROFL

[RaiderH8r]

We're starting to see what "enhanced interrogation" included.

Torment. Psychological brutality. Physical brutality. Coffin enclosures.

Torture.

Shit, Rush Week at most frat houses is tougher than any "torture" these pansies have been put through. Get'em a f'ing baby bonnet and pacifier.

[Donger]

Then it's not transparency. Whatever you need to hear.

Right now my concern is torture, but I'll leave you to it.

Let's ask Daniel Pearl what he thinks: Danny, would you rather be decapitated or be made to cry via harsh language?

[orange]

Didn't Obama say today that he won't be prosecuting any CIA employees for waterboarding or other interrogation techniques?

Yes.


... thus eliminating 5th Amendment grounds for not providing full information about what they did. Expect more to come... like, why so many prisoners died in captivity.

[Direckshun]

Let's ask Daniel Pearl what he thinks: Danny, would you rather be decapitated or be made to cry via harsh language?

If going softer than Al Qaeda is the only bar we need to clear... then you're competing in the Special Olympics of civil liberties.

[Direckshun]

... thus eliminating 5th Amendment grounds for not providing full information about what they did. Expect more to come... like, why so many prisoners died in captivity.

I'd hope so.

[Donger]

If going softer than Al Qaeda is the only bar we need to clear... then you're competing in the Special Olympics of civil liberties.

I think we should do whatever is required to extract information from them that leads actionable intelligence. If that is giving them a monkey to hump, do it. If it means dripping water on their heads, do it. If it means breaking out the bamboo, do it.

[Adept Havelock]

I think we should do whatever is required to extract information from them that leads actionable intelligence. If that is giving them a monkey to hump, do it. If it means dripping water on their heads, do it. If it means breaking out the bamboo, do it.

Feliks Dzerzhinsky would applaud you.

[Donger]

Feliks Dzerzhinsky would applaud you.

I doubt it. He tortured his own people, didn't he?

[Adept Havelock]

I doubt it. He tortured his own people, didn't he?

From what I've read, he and his organization were never too picky about to whom they applied the methods you are calling for (whatever it takes). I have no doubt "Iron Feliks" or Mr. R. Heydrich would applaud your willingness to do "whatever it takes" to someone to extract the information you want.

[Donger]

From what I've read, he and his organization were never too picky about to whom they applied the methods you are calling for (whatever it takes). :shrug:

Good. I would be.

[Jenson71]

I think we should do whatever is required to extract information from them that leads actionable intelligence. If that is giving them a monkey to hump, do it. If it means dripping water on their heads, do it. If it means breaking out the bamboo, do it.

I don't want to pamper terrorists. But torture doesn't seem to work. There are really good psychologists out there that have devised better ways of extracting information from even the hardest of terrorists. Plus it hurts our image in the ME and around the world. In short, it does no good.

[Adept Havelock]

Good. I would be.

I'm sure unlike Mr. Heydrich or Gospodin Dzerzhinsky, you would at least feel a modicum of guilt if the person you interrogated using the "whatever it takes" moral standard ended up being innocent, or having no information, etc. :shrug:

[Donger]

I don't want to pamper terrorists. But torture doesn't seem to work. There are really good psychologists out there that have devised better ways of extracting information from even the hardest of terrorists. Plus it hurts our image in the ME and around the world. In short, it does no good.

As I said, use whatever works.

[Donger]

I'm sure unlike Mr. Heydrich or Gospodin Dzerzhinsky, you would at least feel a modicum of guilt if the person you interrogated using the "whatever it takes" moral standard ended up being innocent, or having no information, Etc. :shrug:

You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

[Adept Havelock]

You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

Charming.

[Donger]

Charming.

Well, there seems to be plenty of people whose primary concern is the well-being of the terrorists. Thankfully, there are others who do not share that weakness.

[HonestChieffan]

Id bet all 35 people who think its important will be thrilled.

[Adept Havelock]

Well, there seems to be plenty of people whose primary concern is the well-being of the terrorists. Thankfully, there are others who do not share that weakness.

I'm sure there are a very few people for whom that is true.

For me, my primary concern is my country. If we adopt the "whatever it takes" moral standard, IMO, we have become that which we profess to struggle against. Thankfully, there are many of us who recognize the danger in adopting the "whatever it takes" standard and the way it would weaken this nation by making us more like those Islamic extremists whom would undermine or destroy the United States.

[Dave Lane]

Nobody cares except Obama-haters, and it's a non-issue, but feel free to continue to bleat about it as if it mattered.

This times a gazillion

[Dave Lane]

Let's ask Daniel Pearl what he thinks: Danny, would you rather be decapitated or be made to cry via harsh language?

So we should lower ourselves to their level whatever they do? Are you in favor of decapitating detainees?

[Brock]

I hope all of the information is released, so I can get a good chuckle when the reaction among Americans is "So what".

[Donger]

I'm sure there are a very few people for whom that is true.

For me, my primary concern is my country. If we adopt the "whatever it takes" moral standard, IMO, we have become that which we profess to struggle against. Thankfully, there are many of us who recognize the danger in adopting the "whatever it takes" standard and the way it would weaken this nation by making us more like those Islamic extremists whom would undermine or destroy the United States.

As I said, thankfully, there are others who do not share that weakness. If one American dies because the Obama administration is concerned about our moral standing with the world, it will be a tremendous shame.

[blaise]

I hope all of the information is released, so I can get a good chuckle when the reaction among Americans is "So what".

Exactly.

[Donger]

So we should lower ourselves to their level whatever they do? Are you in favor of decapitating detainees?

I think a vast deal can be through psychological means, but it seems that is torture, too.

[patteeu]

I don't want to pamper terrorists. But torture doesn't seem to work. There are really good psychologists out there that have devised better ways of extracting information from even the hardest of terrorists. Plus it hurts our image in the ME and around the world. In short, it does no good.

What do you think publicly releasing details of harsh interrogations to a bunch of people who are already committed to claiming that the Bush administration was a torturefest will do in terms of our image in the ME? It doesn't matter what the details end up being, the one thing I can guarantee is that people who have already invested themselves in claims of torture will claim that they've been vindicated. That's what happens when such a nebulous term is used. Some definitions of torture are so broad as to include anything short of 3 meals a day and occasional, polite interrogation.

If these activities don't rise to the level of prosecution, why would anyone think it's good marketing for the US to give guided tours of the sausage-making factory? Not to mention the damage it causes in terms of providing intelligence to our enemies so that they can better resist the interrogation methods that we use.

[blaise]

I don't want to pamper terrorists. But torture doesn't seem to work. There are really good psychologists out there that have devised better ways of extracting information from even the hardest of terrorists. Plus it hurts our image in the ME and around the world. In short, it does no good.

I don't know how you can say it doesn't work, or that it does no good. How do you know what kind of information they've received by doing it? You could maybe argue that the negative PR effects outweigh the benefits, but to say it doesn't work is an assumption I think.

[BucEyedPea]

I don't know how you can say it doesn't work, or that it does no good. How do you know what kind of information they've received by doing it? You could maybe argue that the negative PR effects outweigh the benefits, but to say it doesn't work is an assumption I think.

Well McCain said it produces unreliable info. I'd think he'd have first-hand experience knowing that.

[orange]

What do you think publicly releasing details of harsh interrogations to a bunch of people who are already committed to claiming that the Bush administration was a torturefest will do in terms of our image in the ME? It doesn't matter what the details end up being, the one thing I can guarantee is that people who have already invested themselves in claims of torture will claim that they've been vindicated. That's what happens when such a nebulous term is used. Some definitions of torture are so broad as to include anything short of 3 meals a day and occasional, polite interrogation.

If these activities don't rise to the level of prosecution, why would anyone think it's good marketing for the US to give guided tours of the sausage-making factory? Not to mention the damage it causes in terms of providing intelligence to our enemies so that they can better resist the interrogation methods that we use.

People in the ME and elsewhere have already heard about the torture from former prisoners, family, rumormongers and inciters. What they believe now is in excess of the reality. Releasing the truth has very little to do with them; it has to do with our own definition of what America is. To the degree that it shows us as a country committed to and not afraid of the truth, it can only help us internationally.

[TEX]

Excellent. I'm sure his birth certificate and college records will be released shortly, too.

That's RACIST! :rolleyes:

[blaise]

People in the ME and elsewhere have already heard about the torture from former prisoners, family, rumormongers and inciters. What they believe now is in excess of the reality. Releasing the truth has very little to do with them; it has to do with our own definition of what America is. To the degree that it shows us as a country committed to and not afraid of the truth, it can only help us internationally.

I think it has more to do with trying to make George Bush and the Republicans look bad and Obama and the Democrats look good.

[wild1]

I expect whatever was authorized will be underwhelming, like what the twinkly toed among us call 'torture'.

I will however find it humorous if he has no problem with shooting the teenage Somali pirates in the head for putting an American citizen at risk, but wages war on the Bush administration for using "torture" on hardened terrorists who work for an organization that puts thousands of people at risk.

[orange]

I think it has more to do with trying to make George Bush and the Republicans look bad and Obama and the Democrats look good.

Those cagey Democrats - making the Republicans look bad by telling the world what Republicans do. ROFL


“I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.” - Adlai Stevenson

[blaise]

Those cagey Democrats - making the Republicans look bad by telling the world what Republicans do. ROFL


“I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.” - Adlai Stevenson

And it's equally laughable to assume their motives are totally altruistic. You're right, it was all about the truth. That's why they did it.

[blaise]

That quote by Stevenson- that's what you believe? Some pollyanna bullcrap that Democrats tell the truth and Republicans lie? That's what you're selling? What kind of sap are you? Or are you just blinded by your loyalty to the DNC that you can't see it any other way? Give me a break, dude.

[Velvet_Jones]

Nobody cares except Obama-haters, and it's a non-issue, but feel free to continue to bleat about it as if it mattered.

hehehe - you are to stupid to care - hehehe thanks for letting us know that.

[Velvet_Jones]

kinda funny that Direck was the first to post on his own thread - no once but 4 times - what a tool.

[Velvet_Jones]

Torment. Psychological brutality. Physical brutality. Coffin enclosures.

Torture.
Reading your dumb-ass post are exactly like that. They torment - make me think you are either fucked in the head or just plain stupid - they make me want to get all stabby - they make me want to put you in a coffin. So I summize that listening to your dumb-ass is torrure. Has anyone ever let you know you are stupid or are they just being nice?

[patteeu]

People in the ME and elsewhere have already heard about the torture from former prisoners, family, rumormongers and inciters. What they believe now is in excess of the reality. Releasing the truth has very little to do with them; it has to do with our own definition of what America is. To the degree that it shows us as a country committed to and not afraid of the truth, it can only help us internationally.

I disagree. The main thing that releasing these details will accomplish is to give demagogues ammunition to play on people's emotions in order to drive the US toward abandoning unpleasant techniques even if they fall short of creating severe physical pain/lasting damage. That will weaken the US not help us.

[patteeu]

Well McCain said it produces unreliable info. I'd think he'd have first-hand experience knowing that.

You have a lot of faith in markets. If aggressive interrogation techniques, including actual torture, didn't work, people would have quit using them to extract information a long time ago. Sure they are also good for sadistic pleasure and forcing confessions, but that's not the only reason they are used so you're being confronted with a market result here.

[KC native]

I disagree. The main thing that releasing these details will accomplish is to give demagogues ammunition to play on people's emotions in order to drive the US toward abandoning unpleasant techniques even if they fall short of creating severe physical pain/lasting damage. That will weaken the US not help us.

Torturing people puts us in more danger. It doesn't produce good intelligence according to the Army Field Manual, several CIA officials, and even ex-interrogators.

Ex-Interrogator: Torture Doesn't Work
December 06, 2008
McClatchy-Tribune Information Services

Writing under the pseudonym of Matthew Alexander, a former special intelligence operations officer, who in 1996 led an interrogations team in Iraq, has written a compelling book where he details his direct experience with torture practices. He conducted more than 300 interrogations and supervised more than a thousand and was awarded a Bronze Star for his achievements in Iraq. Alexander's nonviolent interrogation methods led Special Forces to Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. His new book is titled "How to Break a Terrorist: The US Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq."

"It's extremely ineffective, and it's counterproductive to what we're trying to accomplish," he told reporters. "When we torture somebody, it hardens their resolve," Alexander explained. "The information that you get is unreliable ... And even if you do get reliable information, you're able to stop a terrorist attack, Al-Qaeda's then going to use the fact that we torture people to recruit new members." Alexander says torture techniques used in Iraq consistently failed to produce actionable intelligence and that methods outlined in the US Army Field Manual, which rest on confidence building, consistently worked and gave the interrogators access to critical information.

Publication of the book was delayed for six weeks to allow the Pentagon to scrutinize it. Alexander said he wrote it under a pseudonym for security reasons. He says the US military's use of torture is responsible for the deaths of thousands of US soldiers because it inspired foreign fighters to kill Americans.

His revelations are significant as, last July, a poll showed that 44 percent of Americans supported torture on "terrorist suspects." A key architect of America's torture program, Doug Feith, testified to Congress recently that torture is necessary because otherwise the US couldn't get any information out of the "bad guys". Many Congress members agreed. But now with a new administration about to take office, an outburst of protest against torture is being heard from highly respected sources.

A dozen retired generals met with President-elect Barack Obama's top legal advisers Wednesday, pressing their case to overturn some of the Bush administration's terrorism-fighting policies.

Obama has criticized practices that he says amount to torturing detainees during interrogations and has promised to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Among those who met with Eric Holder, Obama's pick to be attorney general, and Greg Craig, the incoming White House counsel, were Gen. Charles Krulak, a former Marine Corps commandant, and retired Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar, former chief of the Central Command.

"It's important that the dialogue is going," Hoar said. "Part of the challenge here is big and philosophical. Part is nuts and bolts. How do you translate the rhetoric of the campaign and the transition period into action?"

The generals would like to see authority rescinded for the CIA to use harsh interrogation methods that go beyond those approved for use by the military; an end to the secret transfer of prisoners to other governments that have a history of torture; and the closing of the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.

The generals first organized against the administration's current policies through an advocacy group, Human Rights First, shortly after the 2004 revelations of prison abuse at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. They helped win passage of a 2005 bill requiring that all U.S. prisoners, including those taken by the CIA, receive humane treatment.

President George W. Bush in March vetoed legislation supported by the retired officers that would have held the CIA to the military's interrogation methods.

This Thursday, Congressmen John Conyers and Jerrald Nadler wrote in a letter to the Attorney General, that the torture-facilitating lawyers were well aware they were breaking laws, even when FBI agents "were so troubled with some approved interrogation methods that they refused to participate."

The transition team official said no decisions about the detainee policies will be made until after the inauguration and Obama's full national security and legal teams are in place.
© Copyright 2009 McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[Direckshun]

If aggressive interrogation techniques, including actual torture, didn't work, people would have quit using them to extract information a long time ago.

Holy shit that's retarded.

[Donger]

Torturing people puts us in more danger. It doesn't produce good intelligence according to the Army Field Manual, several CIA officials, and even ex-interrogators.

"who in 1996 led an interrogations team in Iraq"

1996?

[Direckshun]

I don't know how you can say it doesn't work, or that it does no good. How do you know what kind of information they've received by doing it? You could maybe argue that the negative PR effects outweigh the benefits, but to say it doesn't work is an assumption I think.

To say it DOES work is an assumption.

[Direckshun]

From what I've read, he and his organization were never too picky about to whom they applied the methods you are calling for (whatever it takes).

As I said, use whatever works.

...

[orange]

"who in 1996 led an interrogations team in Iraq"

1996?

2006 obviously.

Finding Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, had long been the U.S. military's top priority — trumping even the search for Osama bin Laden. No brutality was spared in trying to squeeze intelligence from Zarqawi's suspected associates. But these "force on force" techniques yielded exactly nothing, and, in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, the military rushed a new breed of interrogator to Iraq.

Matthew Alexander, a former criminal investigator and head of a handpicked interrogation team, gives us the first inside look at the U.S. military's attempt at more civilized interrogation techniques — and their astounding success. The intelligence coup that enabled the June 7, 2006, air strike on Zarqawi's rural safe house was the result of several keenly strategized interrogations, none of which involved torture or even "control" tactics.

Matthew and his team decided instead to get to know their opponents. Who were these monsters? Who were they working for? What were they trying to protect? Every day the "'gators" matched wits with a rogues' gallery of suspects brought in by Special Forces ("door kickers"): egomaniacs, bloodthirsty adolescents, opportunistic stereo repairmen, Sunni clerics horrified by the sectarian bloodbath, Al Qaeda fanatics, and good people in the wrong place at the wrong time. With most prisoners, negotiation was possible and psychological manipulation stunningly effective. But Matthew's commitment to cracking the case with these methods sometimes isolated his superiors and put his own career at risk.

This account is an unputdownable thriller — more of a psychological suspense story than a war memoir. And indeed, the storyreaches far past the current conflict in Iraq with a reminder that we don't have to become our enemy to defeat him. Matthew Alexander and his ilk, subtle enough and flexible enough to adapt to the challenges of modern, asymmetrical warfare, have proved to be our best weapons against terrorists all over the world.


Publishers Weekly

Alexander, a pseudonymous air force officer, and writer Bruning (House to House), collaborate to tell the stranger-than-fiction "story of the intelligence operation that located and ultimately killed Abu Musab Al Zarqawi," the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq. An "Air Force investigator turned interrogator," Alexander was trained in the post-Abu Ghraib interrogation techniques that replace "fear and control" with "respect, rapport, hope, cunning and deception." He arrived in Iraq in March 2006, a month after al-Qaeda bombed the Golden Dome Mosque in Samarra in an effort to incite sectarian violence, and Zarqawi became "the most wanted man in Iraq" and the primary focus of U.S. intelligence efforts. Using the new methods, Alexander interrogated five captured al-Qaeda members and tracked down Zarqawi's personal spiritual adviser, who unwittingly led U.S. Special Forces to Zarqawi's hideout; this vindicated Alexander's methods and eliminated the key terrorist leader. Alexander provides a front-row seat to the intelligence war inside the "Global War on Terrorism" in a riveting, fast-paced account that reads like a first-rate thriller. (Oct.)

Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

More Reviews and Recommendations
Biography

Matthew Alexander spent fourteen years in the U.S. Air Force and is now part of the U.S. Air Force Reserves. He has personally conducted more than 300 interrogations in Iraq and supervised more than 1,000. Matthews was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for his achievement in Iraq, has two advanced degrees, and speaks three languages. When he's not chasing the world's most wanted, he goes surfing.

Bad McClatchy.

[patteeu]

Torturing people puts us in more danger. It doesn't produce good intelligence according to the Army Field Manual, several CIA officials, and even ex-interrogators.

You're welcome to believe that myth if you want to.

[KC native]

You're welcome to believe that myth if you want to.

:spock: Myth? When CIA officials and interrogators and even the Army Field Manual say it doesn't work? I guess you have some super secret info that not even the CIA has huh?

[BucEyedPea]

Excellent. I'm sure his birth certificate and college records will be released shortly, too.

I heard an interesting take on why no release of his BC which makes perfect sense. Under religion he was listed as Muslim at birth, but he became a Christian. I do believe he is a Christian. But converting to Christianity makes him an apostate in the Muslim world and they are very hard, even cruel about that. So it's best for PR and keeping the peace that he not release it. Meanwhile, there was a listing in the Hawaiian papers back then showing he was indeed born there. That is a good enough reason for me. There could be a bloodbath.

Now I got this from another poster elsewhere, so according to the lefty Obama supporters here, anecdotal info isn't valid. But if true, it makes perfect sense.
Let's see how consistent the lefty Obama supporters are about this type of info, now.

[BucEyedPea]

You have a lot of faith in markets.
No, it's NOT "faith" in markets it's "knowledge" and therefore "knowingness" or "certainty."
There's historical examples all around us, even today in our mixed economic climate. In fact even in Hamilton's time there were examples all around him and many who opposed him at that time were aware of them. Adam Smith catalogued examples with various industries. Sorry your mischaracterization doesn 't wash. Then there's HongKong, the freest economy in the world with a very high standard of living for a modern example. So, I wouldn't call that "faith" at all. Where there is faith, it's in believing govt is the solution and not the problem which applies to FP too.

If aggressive interrogation techniques, including actual torture, didn't work, people would have quit using them to extract information a long time ago. Sure they are also good for sadistic pleasure and forcing confessions, but that's not the only reason they are used so you're being confronted with a market result here.

I disagree. I think there is a vindictive need for revenge to inflict suffering on those who attacked us. That's human nature but it doesn't make it right. Nor does it make it workable.

[Dottefan]

Obama is all about transparency and not about political points. It's why he's releasing everything he's doing as well. LMAO

HONK IF OUR FORMER PRESIDENT(BUSH) IS THE REASON THAT YOUR PAYING SOMEONES MORTGAGE....Why are you trying to change the topic of this thread?..typical Republican\conservative\Independent move, when the answer will make you look bad............change the subject..lol

[blaise]

HONK IF OUR FORMER PRESIDENT(BUSH) IS THE REASON THAT YOUR PAYING SOMEONES MORTGAGE....Why are you trying to change the topic of this thread?..typical Republican\conservative\Independent move, when the answer will make you look bad............change the subject..lol

Yes, Democrats are immune to that type of behavior. It's strictly a Republican\conservative\Independent move.
That's why Democrats, across the board, are different.

[patteeu]

:spock: Myth? When CIA officials and interrogators and even the Army Field Manual say it doesn't work? I guess you have some super secret info that not even the CIA has huh?

No, I have common sense. But I think it's worth remembering and unavoidably obvious that the CIA has some super secret information that neither you nor I have.

A sledgehammer can be unwieldy, making it hard to apply force in a fine tuned way. You can't drive a screw with it. And when it's used to separate one part of a piece of wood from the rest, it doesn't result in a smooth cut. Nonetheless, it would be a myth to say that a sledgehammer is not a useful tool when remodeling a kitchen. It's very useful for some things (tearing out an unwanted wall) and useless for others (laying tile). So too with harsh interrogation techniques.

Even the experts who claim that harsh interrogation techniques don't work, admit that subjects of these techniques will do what they have to do to make them stop. If an interrogator is in a room with a safe and a person who knows the combination to that safe, do you think harsh techniques are likely to get that safe open? Of course they are. When the subject decides he needs to tell his interrogator something that will make the interrogation end, his only option is to give up the combination. False information will quickly be seen for what it is and won't be successful in bringing the interrogation to an end.

At the other end of the spectrum is the case that "torture naysayers" like to talk about. At this end of the spectrum, you have a subject who may or may not be guilty of a crime and you're trying to force a confession through harsh means. Under that circumstance, I agree that you're liable to end up with an unreliable confession whether the subject was guilty or not.

So if you're honest with yourself, you'll realize that there are jobs for which harsh techniques are likely to work and jobs for which they are pretty much useless. The key is in sorting out the former from the latter and applying the tool to the right job, just like a sledgehammer.

As for the denials from experts, there are some very good reasons other than the truth for these myths to be propagated. We don't want our front line soldiers applying this sledgehammer to every job they run into because in many cases it's going to be the wrong tool (especially given the emotionalism and the impulse for retribution that might cloud a front line soldier's analysis of the situation). And given that the Geneva Convention, which applies to most circumstances a soldier is going to encounter, prohibits not only true torture but also pretty much any form of harsh technique, we don't want them even thinking about using those techniques. The best way to prevent that is to convince our soldiers that the harsh techniques don't work anyway.

Furthermore, we have an incentive to try to avoid giving anyone, including our own citizens and foreigners alike, reason to believe that we practice anything close to torture. Proclaiming widely and repeatedly that torture doesn't work is a part of this propaganda campaign. The fact that our use of harsh techniques became public is regrettable, but people who think this started for the first time under GWBush are naive to the extreme. For heaven's sake, our CIA used to practice (and perhaps still does) murder for political reasons, aka assassination and we've been using rendition of international prisoners to countries that practice torture since at least the Clinton administration with only the slightest of fig leaf assurances that torture won't be used on these people.

[patteeu]

No, it's NOT "faith" in markets it's "knowledge" and therefore "knowingness" or "certainty."
There's historical examples all around us, even today in our mixed economic climate. In fact even in Hamilton's time there were examples all around him and many who opposed him at that time were aware of them. Adam Smith catalogued examples with various industries. Sorry your mischaracterization doesn 't wash. Then there's HongKong, the freest economy in the world with a very high standard of living for a modern example. So, I wouldn't call that "faith" at all. Where there is faith, it's in believing govt is the solution and not the problem which applies to FP too.

Good lord, what a nit pick. Faith or "knowingness", either way, you believe in the wisdom of markets, as do I.

I disagree. I think there is a vindictive need for revenge to inflict suffering on those who attacked us. That's human nature but it doesn't make it right. Nor does it make it workable.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

[Duck Dog]

The real question would be, did the techniques used work? If they didn't then they should be shelved. If they did, then they should be used again.

One saved American life out weighs the hurt feelings of a few bleeding heart feel goods.

Another point. These techniques aren't going to put our soldiers further into harms way. Islamists were torturing and beheading long before GITMO was a house hold name.

[patteeu]

Another point. These techniques aren't going to put our soldiers further into harms way. Islamists were torturing and beheading long before GITMO was a house hold name.

Truth

BTW, when was the last time our soldiers weren't faced with harsh interrogations if captured by an enemy? Maybe Germany?

[stevieray]

Torture? Pull up any Fred Phelps thread and see how people think others they disagree with should be treated.

[Donger]

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Two former top Bush officials on Friday slammed President Barack Obama's release of Justice Department memos detailing CIA terror interrogations, saying it would create "timidity and fear" among US spies.

"The release of these opinions was unnecessary as a legal matter, and is unsound as a matter of policy," former CIA director General Michael Hayden and former attorney general Michael Mukasey wrote in an editorial published in The Wall Street Journal.

"Its effect will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on September 11, 2001."

White House senior adviser David Axelrod countered that Obama's decision to release the memos written by top legal officials in George W. Bush's administration was "a weighty decision."

Obama "thought very long and hard about it, consulted widely, because there were two principles at stake," Axelrod told the Politico news website.

"One is the sanctity of covert operations and keeping faith with the people who do them, and the impact on national security, on the one hand. And the other was the law and his belief in transparency."

Obama consulted officials from the Justice Department, the CIA, the Homeland Security Department and the director of national intelligence, according to Axelrod.

In releasing four partially blacked-out memos detailing the tactics -- largely decried as torture by critics -- Obama said Thursday that the tactics adopted by the administration of his predecessor "undermine our moral authority and do not make us safer."

But he also pledged not to prosecute operatives who carried out the interrogations because they acted on orders and were defending their country.

Hayden and Mukasey, who both served during Bush's second term, said the release "assures that terrorists are now aware of the absolute limit of what the US government could do to extract information from them, and can supplement their training accordingly and thus diminish the effectiveness of these techniques."

They also argued that the disclosure meant that Obama was making permanent the suspension of the interrogation techniques.

"By allowing this disclosure, President Obama has tied not only his own hands but also the hands of any future administration faced with the prospect of attack," Hayden and Mukasey wrote.

The former officials argued for the use of the techniques, noting that some detainees, including top Al-Qaeda detainee Abu Zubaydah, had voluntarily disclosed information after being submitted to CIA interrogations.

The memos were authored by Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury, who at the time were lawyers for Bush's Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel.

During his second day in office, Obama signed an executive order banning the use of torture and ordering the closure of all CIA detention centers.

[Donger]

"The release of these opinions was unnecessary as a legal matter, and is unsound as a matter of policy"

Yeah, but it sure has made the Obama-lovers all warm and fuzzy.

[Mr. Kotter]

....

Hayden and Mukasey, who both served during Bush's second term, said the release "assures that terrorists are now aware of the absolute limit of what the US government could do to extract information from them, and can supplement their training accordingly and thus diminish the effectiveness of these techniques."

They also argued that the disclosure meant that Obama was making permanent the suspension of the interrogation techniques.

"By allowing this disclosure, President Obama has tied not only his own hands but also the hands of any future administration faced with the prospect of attack," Hayden and Mukasey wrote.....

This is the most disturbing part of this....

The standard of, precisely, what constitutes "torture" needs to be much more clearly defined though; that's for sure.

[Chief Henry]

The real question would be, did the techniques used work? If they didn't then they should be shelved. If they did, then they should be used again.

One saved American life out weighs the hurt feelings of a few bleeding heart feel goods.

Another point. These techniques aren't going to put our soldiers further into harms way. Islamists were torturing and beheading long before GITMO was a house hold name.

Spot on Duck. The Bush haters believe this will land him in jail.

Imagine, the cruel behavior of being tortured by a f'n caterpillar ROFL

[Brock]

Torture? Pull up any Fred Phelps thread and see how people think others they disagree with should be treated.

:doh!: Huh?

[stevieray]

:doh!: Huh?

Selective humanity...not endorsing Phelps, just that we're worried about those who would kill us, but wish death on those who are sorely misguided.

[alanm]

BAD, BAD, BAD decision by the Obama administration. This one will come back to haunt them.. Big time. :shake:

[dirk digler]

Truth

BTW, when was the last time our soldiers weren't faced with harsh interrogations if captured by an enemy? Maybe Germany?

I would say it never has not occurred. Germany tortured our POW's all the time and the Japs ususally didn't hold onto POW's they just killed them which is probably what we should do.

[dirk digler]

"The release of these opinions was unnecessary as a legal matter, and is unsound as a matter of policy"



That is called I am scared of going to jail or extradited to Spain.

[Duck Dog]

WASHINGTON (AFP) –
Hayden and Mukasey, who both served during Bush's second term, said the release "assures that terrorists are now aware of the absolute limit of what the US government could do to extract information from them, and can supplement their training accordingly and thus diminish the effectiveness of these techniques."



:doh!:

WTF. :rolleyes:

[patteeu]

That is called I am scared of going to jail or extradited to Spain.

The two men who wrote that weren't involved with the policy when the memos were written so they weren't likely candidates for a Spanish indictment. A better interpretation is that it's a sober analysis from people who didn't have any skin in the game, political or personal, other than an interest in good national security policy.

[patteeu]

:doh!:

WTF. :rolleyes:

After echoing Bush policies in so many aspects of national security, Obama needed a win with his anti-Bush, anti-War base. At some point, the interests of the nation had to yield to the interests of Obama.

[Chief Henry]

After echoing Bush policies in so many aspects of national security, Obama needed a win with his anti-Bush, anti-War base. At some point, the interests of the nation had to yield to the interests of Obama.

Thats sad, very sad but true.

[blaise]

Thats sad, very sad but true.

This is what I think happened too.

[Duck Dog]

This will force our clandestine operators to perform in greater secrecy. We can still hand prisoners over to certain allies.

[dirk digler]

The two men who wrote that weren't involved with the policy when the memos were written so they weren't likely candidates for a Spanish indictment. A better interpretation is that it's a sober analysis from people who didn't have any skin in the game, political or personal, other than an interest in good national security policy.

They can always be added. :p

[StcChief]

This will force our clandestine operators to perform in greater secrecy. We can still hand prisoners over to certain allies. can the snopes in media be shot as terrorists for infringment. I know a few merceneries that would take 'em out in heartbeat.

[SBK]

Hopefully when Obama starts rounding up conservatives he adheres to Bush's torture rules.

[Donger]

Heh. Cheney has called for the other memos to be released. The ones that detail the results of the "torture."

[mlyonsd]

Heh. Cheney has called for the other memos to be released. The ones that detail the results of the "torture."

But you don't get it. It doesn't matter if ANY information that saved American lives was gathered.

Terrorists running around without a national flag deserve the very best we can offer once they are captured.

I hope you didn't just delete the memo without reading it.

[wild1]

Heh. Cheney has called for the other memos to be released. The ones that detail the results of the "torture."

What do you bet we don't get them?

[Sully]

What do you bet we don't get them?

Of course not. Cheney knows this, so it's an easy statement to male, whether there was useful info or not.

[Donger]

Of course not. Cheney knows this, so it's an easy statement to male, whether there was useful info or not.

Why not? The memos already released were classified as TS, so they can't use that as an excuse.

If Obama really is for transparency, these will be released.

[Sully]

Why not? The memos already released were classified as TS, so they can't use that as an excuse.

If Obama really is for transparency, these will be released.

I guess if you want to pretend there is no difference between the two pieces of info, that's your prerogative

[Ultra Peanut]

Sure. Let's just assume that Cheney is telling the truth and not playing a blatantly obvious game by suggesting that things which may or may not exist actually mitigate his support of reprehensible actions that destroy any claim to moral high ground we may ever want to exercise.

These guys have never lied about the existence of proof that they needed to do something horrible before, or anything.

[Donger]

I guess if you want to pretend there is no difference between the two pieces of info, that's your prerogative

There's none whatsoever. Method versus result. Part of the same. If releasing the method is fine, why not release the result?

Please don't say "national security concerns" or I may blow a seal.

[patteeu]

Sure. Let's just assume that Cheney is telling the truth and not playing a blatantly obvious game by suggesting that things which may or may not exist actually mitigate his support of reprehensible actions that destroy any claim to moral high ground we may ever want to exercise.

These guys have never lied about the existence of proof that they needed to do something horrible before, or anything.

You're right, they haven't. But just as you've convinced yourself that they have, I'm sure that no matter how convincing the documents that Cheney wants to see released are, you'd find a way to doubt them too.

[patteeu]

Please don't say "national security concerns" or I may blow a seal.

Hmmm. Which type?

http://www.mcbi.org/what/what_images/monk_seal.jpg

http://ourmagonline.com/wp-content/uploads/seal-700_368.jpg

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/navy-seal-4.jpg

[Ultra Peanut]

You're right, they haven't. But just as you've convinced yourself that they have, I'm sure that no matter how convincing the documents that Cheney wants to see released are, you'd find a way to doubt them too.Never change, pat.

[wild1]

You're right, they haven't. But just as you've convinced yourself that they have, I'm sure that no matter how convincing the documents that Cheney wants to see released are, you'd find a way to doubt them too.

i'm sure any list of actionable intelligence they got from it would just be "fake", a bunch of trumped up lies, blah blah blah

[Sully]

There's none whatsoever. Method versus result. Part of the same.

Like I said, it's completely within your rights to pretend that is true.

[patteeu]

Like I said, it's completely within your rights to pretend that is true.

What's the important difference that you see?

The national security problem with releasing methods is that your enemy can take actions to reduce the effectiveness of your methods. Of course, previous leaks have already let a part of this cat out of the bag.

If the intelligence gained from KSM was still valuable, e.g. knowledge of an ongoing plot that has yet to be executed or terminated, then you definitely wouldn't want AQ to be tipped off that you know about it, but we can assume that ever since AQ found out that we had KSM in custody that they've taken measures to minimize the value of any knowledge he had. After so many years, the intelligence gained from KSM is surely stale for the most part.

If the intelligence is indeed stale, I'm not sure what you think makes it so much more secret than the methods that were used to obtain it.

As a rule of thumb, more often than not, the method for collecting intel (or the source from which it comes) is more valuable than the intel itself.

[blaise]

I thought it was interesting that when Obama spoke to the CIA he explained that he released these memos because much of the information was already public, and that this is a special case. It sounded like he was planning on picking and choosing when he wants to be transparent and when he won't be.

[Donger]

Like I said, it's completely within your rights to pretend that is true.

Well, Obama could certainly prove it through transparency. Wouldn't you like to know the results?

Personally, I find it highly likely that results of the "torture" would have been detailed.

[Sully]

Well, Obama could certainly prove it through transparency. Wouldn't you like to know the results?

Personally, I find it highly likely that results of the "torture" would have been detailed.

I'd love to know the results.
Dick Cheney and I both know they won't be released, whether we got tons of intel, some intel, or no intel at all. So he's playing games.

[Donger]

I'd love to know the results.
Dick Cheney and I both know they won't be released, whether we got tons of intel, some intel, or no intel at all. So he's playing games.

But, why would they not be released? Obama has already shown that he's fine with releasing TS memos when it suits him and his agenda. Should we assume that he's not fine with releasing TS memos when it does not suit him or his agenda?

Personally, I'd rather not presume. I thought that's what "transparency" was all about.

[Sully]

As a rule of thumb, more often than not, the method for collecting intel (or the source from which it comes) is more valuable than the intel itself.

I disagree. I'm no professional, so I can only look at this from my life experiences.

As a coach, I don't care if every team I play knows what drills I run, how much conditioning my players do, when and where I practice, etc.

Those things aren't nearly as important for my opponent to know than the evaluations those drills have produced on my staff, and the playbook I've crafted based on that evaluation.

[KC native]

There's none whatsoever. Method versus result. Part of the same. If releasing the method is fine, why not release the result?

Please don't say "national security concerns" or I may blow a seal.

National Security reasons (patiently waiting for donger's head to explode)

[Ultra Peanut]

http://j.photos.cx/gotdatwmd-064.gif

[patteeu]

I disagree. I'm no professional, so I can only look at this from my life experiences.

As a coach, I don't care if every team I play knows what drills I run, how much conditioning my players do, when and where I practice, etc.

Those things aren't nearly as important for my opponent to know than the evaluations those drills have produced on my staff, and the playbook I've crafted based on that evaluation.

No one is talking about publishing our playbook. No one is even talking about publishing secrets that remain critical to ongoing operations.

Your life experiences may not make this obvious, but I'm telling you that sources and methods are typically more valuable secrets than the average piece of collected intelligence. Sources and methods are gifts that keep on giving, until they are compromised. A piece of intelligence data has value, but it often loses it's value over time. For example, knowing that Osama bin Laden is sleeping in a house at 1321 Taliban Place, Tribal Areas Pakistan on the night of March 12, 2008 is VERY valuable before March 12 because you can arrange to take him out. It's somewhat valuable after that date because it might tell you something about the people who control that location, but the value diminishes when the opportunity to deal with OBL has passed. The source of that intel, in this case lets say it's a mole within the AQ organization, may well be more important than the data even before March 12 because the mole should be able to continue to give you intel about OBL's location, maybe about Zawahiri's location, maybe about AQ operations, and on and on. Often, the classification level of a document is driven by the fact that it's a clue as to the source/method more than it is by the value of the data in the document itself.

[Sully]

No one is talking about publishing our playbook. No one is even talking about publishing secrets that remain critical to ongoing operations.

Your life experiences may not make this obvious, but I'm telling you that sources and methods are typically more valuable secrets than the average piece of collected intelligence. Sources and methods are gifts that keep on giving, until they are compromised. A piece of intelligence data has value, but it often loses it's value over time. For example, knowing that Osama bin Laden is sleeping in a house at 1321 Taliban Place, Tribal Areas Pakistan on the night of March 12, 2008 is VERY valuable before March 12 because you can arrange to take him out. It's somewhat valuable after that date because it might tell you something about the people who control that location, but the value diminishes when the opportunity to deal with OBL has passed. The source of that intel, in this case lets say it's a mole within the AQ organization, may well be more important than the data even before March 12 because the mole should be able to continue to give you intel about OBL's location, maybe about Zawahiri's location, maybe about AQ operations, and on and on. Often, the classification level of a document is driven by the fact that it's a clue as to the source/method more than it is by the value of the data in the document itself.

Well then, if what we are doing is "torture," then I have no problem with releasing it, so that it becomes even less effective.
Being right (in the sense of, "not stooping to tortuous levels") is very important to me.

[patteeu]

Well then, if what we are doing is "torture," then I have no problem with releasing it, so that it becomes even less effective.
Being right (in the sense of, "not stooping to tortuous levels") is very important to me.

You're losing the bead on the conversation. The source/method memos have already been released, whether you believe it's torture or not. Now we're talking about the resulting intel memos.

It sounds to me like you're looking for ways to defend Obama's decision (or change the subject) instead of assessing the situation without bias. It's like you're starting with the desired result and working back from there instead of analyzing the Cheney proposal and letting the chips fall where they may.

[VAChief]

The source/method memos have already been released, whether you believe it's torture or not. Now we're talking about the resulting intel memos.

I agree for the most part, the tricky part is without really knowing if there truly is something that should be kept secret or if it is embarrassing information. The dates they supposedly used waterboarding was interesting (right before the decision to invade Iraq and right before the invasion or thereabouts). I'm curious why they thought they needed that many times to get an answer, after awhile if something isn't working why would you keep doing it?

[Sully]

You're losing the bead on the conversation. The source/method memos have already been released, whether you believe it's torture or not. Now we're talking about the resulting intel memos.

It sounds to me like you're looking for ways to defend Obama's decision (or change the subject) instead of assessing the situation without bias. It's like you're starting with the desired result and working back from there instead of analyzing the Cheney proposal and letting the chips fall where they may.

I'm not defending Obama. As a matter of fact, you'll have a tough time finding me defending Obama more that 2 or 3 times since he's taken office. I'm not sure if releasing this info was a smart move, or not. I haven't made up my mind on that...yet.
I don't have any problem criticizing him or letting his actions that fail stand for themselves.

I did change the subject, because we simply won't agree. I disagree on the levels of importance you put on the two things (If I know ahead of time someone is going to use thumbscrews on me, it gives me no advantage in making it not excruciating when it actually happens), and I also disagree that using methods deemed "torture" by quite a few folks is useful, in the long run. So I made my smart-assed comment to move on. There's no point in playing the game with you.

[patteeu]

I'm not defending Obama. As a matter of fact, you'll have a tough time finding me defending Obama more that 2 or 3 times since he's taken office. I'm not sure if releasing this info was a smart move, or not. I haven't made up my mind on that...yet.
I don't have any problem criticizing him or letting his actions that fail stand for themselves.

I did change the subject, because we simply won't agree. I disagree on the levels of importance you put on the two things (If I know ahead of time someone is going to use thumbscrews on me, it gives me no advantage in making it not excruciating when it actually happens), and I also disagree that using methods deemed "torture" by quite a few folks is useful, in the long run. So I made my smart-assed comment to move on. There's no point in playing the game with you.

OK, I just wanted it to be clear that it was you playing games and not Dick Cheney.

[Sully]

OK, I just wanted it to be clear that it was you playing games and not Dick Cheney.

It's clear that both of us can play games at the same time.

[KC native]

OK, I just wanted it to be clear that it was you playing games and not Dick Cheney.

ROFL

Are you serious?

[Sully]

ROFL

Are you serious?

He is.