Captain's Quarters -

So the Bush Administration has had something like 50 "ghost detainees" that the ICRC - which is little more than an anti-American propaganda machine these days - hasn't been able to visit.

FDR had at least 4,000.

What a surprise.

The problem with a lot of these old-timers, it seems, is that every day is still Groundhog Day 1945 for them.

They're like my dad: I love him dearly, but he's so end-stage BDS that he's now convinced there hasn't been a war worth fighting since we beat the Axis.

And Remember, FDR was a Democrat. Double standards once again apply!

Petula Dvorak, Washington Post: "During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone," said George Frenkel, 87, of Kensington. "We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I'm proud to say I never compromised my humanity."

I'm glad that Mr. Frenkel didn't, too. Our war with the nazis was tough and desperate, and both sides did some pretty horrible things, but I think both sides also tried to fight as "clean" a war as they could. The Germans did not (generally) abuse our POWs, and we (generally) did the same.

The same cannot be said of our enemy in this war.

I would also like to ask Mr. Frenkel if he'd "lay hands" on a German saboteur if he thought the villainous Hun had planted a bomb that would kill thousands of American civilians if it wasn't found and defused.

I don't like the idea of torture. The honor of our country means something to me, and I don't want to sully it by stooping to barbarity. However, if it is a choice between saving thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of American lives and being brutal... I'd take a terrorist's two month old daughter apart with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch if I thought it would get him to talk. I won't say, "God forgive me", because I'm pretty sure that He wouldn't for something so horrible, and anyway I think I'd deserve to go to hell for such a thing. I will say that I hope that neither I nor any other American is ever faced with such an awful choice.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to look at myself in the mirror... and vomit.

docjim505 ~ when you consider Honor Killings, women stoned to death for the sin of being raped, children being raised on 'Death to the Jews' while learning how to operate bomb belts... I really do not think a terrorist would care much what you did to his kids. He'd just see it as proof he is doing the Right thing.

I agree with Ayan Hirsi Ali- islam Must Be Defeated, before it will become anything close to benign. It must suffer humiliation world-wide, and lasting for decades.

In its way, this proves the theorem of America's founders. People want control over their government as close as possible. The farther power moves from the people, the more the people agitate to return it.

"When you have to torture a man, it costs nothing to be polite”
Winston Churchill
Or was it "kill a man"?

This my favorite: "Oderint, dum metuant — Let them hate, so long as they fear." Cicero

Last One "I fear the world will jump to the wrong conclusion that because I am in Atlanta the work is done. Far from it. We must kill three hundred thousand I have told you of so often and the further they run the harder for us to get them."
-- Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, 1864

Kill torture what's the difference? At the beginning I believed torture the SOBs. Now after long thought it doesn't make sense considering our civilization.

There are great drugs that will vacuum a brain. It's not complicated. You won't even remember. And afterwards life on a South Atlantic island playing soccer.

Many of them -- indeed, most of them -- oppose the Iraq war and especially the interrogation techniques applied by the Bush administration.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't this the Washington Post? The Post was quite careful to insert attestations from two men of this group who oppose the war. Zero quotations from anyone who might not oppose the war. I doubt I could find a random sample even here in California with that particular distribution. I think we are seeing yet another propaganda story.

I can see their opposition to the published interrogation techniques (I don't like them either), but if they interviewed 4,000 and never laid a hand on anyone, they are far more civilized than any interrogation unit I've ever read about.

Sounds like the same argument made yesterday- except now the New York Times is to blame for all the problems in Iraq instead of Democrats in Congress?

The primary reason that the US has found itself mired in an unpopulare war in Iraq is Geroge Bush. Our problems in Iraq were never caused by Democrats in Congress who express opposition to the war and the way it has been conducted (and in doing so apparently come close to committing treason).

Neither the New York Times or John McCain responsible for the rise of the insurgency and failure of Bush to execute an effective plan to stabilize Iraq.

The fact remains that Iraq is a relatively small country that the US could have easily invaded and controlled with 400k troops. No one, especially those on the right, should underestimate the power of the US military and our capacity to conquer enemy states in the future. Let's not pretend that Bush's tragic mismanagement of this war should be overlooked while trying to fix blame elsewhere.

Hey, I'm Jewish. And, I don't give a rat's patooti.

Because? Well, the current Pope joined the Nazi party.

One reason for this? You either joined, or you had no hope. (For instance, Jews weren't allowed to join.)

Despots are ugly characters. Yes, Hitler got to be on top. Lasted about a dozen years. And, germany shot through the tubes, in a downward spiral.

Still, for europeans, there was a sense that german's were more successful than Poles. That there was a "talent" to be had. And, "going to Berlin," was a sign of "arriving." Germany had more wealth, too. It's intellectual achievements were there.

But hitler, to grab power, used thugs. Brown shirts. And, these dudes were given fancy uniforms. Where nobody else had night sticks. Or guns. And, bullying became a way of life.

General Patton had some run-in's with Eisenhower. Eisenhower, fer shur, was no friend of the germans! (If he was? General Patton would have been given the honor of reaching Berlin first.)

Instead, Eisenhower "manuevered" in a favor to stalin; that eastern europe paid for. In spades.

So, while eastern europe got to pay the piper; we had, in America, a system to obain "something" from germany's best. And, brightest.

You think lots of those folks were demented enough to get hooked on zieg heil salutes? Oh, please. Stop pulling my leg.

Even on America's campuses, today. Run by the loony left; its in the departments where math is crucial, that the "banana republic" has much less of a grip.

Imagine if we "re-invent the wheel." After the university system collapses; you wouldn't like to see a sorting process? Where we DON'T reject the scientists; as we give the communists the boot?

It's gonna happen, anyway.

Where the goons, in America, took over our campuses, they tossed out all the old stuff. So they could credential themselves on their "new" garbage.

For the next round?

Expect house-cleaning.

Nah. No one needs to be water-boarded.

But it will be a good idea to build teams that can function.

By the way, russia beat us to "space" with Sputnik.

Again, the KGB are thugs. But the russians actually have a strong genetic component towards science and math.

Yes. So, too, do the Israelis.

Lots of people, today, would love to know how the Israelis got into and out of syria, "unnoticed."

Want my guess? COSTUMES.

A whole production, like a broadway show. Of "grocers" ... donkey carts. And, costumes. That worked "locally." Pulling the plug out of the wall. (Maybe, doing this to run a vacuum cleaner?)

While the russians can't figure out "theater."

They're looking to solve the mystery; without knowing how to get to first base on owning human skills.

Not that care.

As long as putin's in charge; russia remainbs a stinking pile of horse manure.

Ya know, I'm proud to be an American. Proud that when wars end, surrenders are possible.

Proud that WW2 saw some amazing generals. Even while truman was a political hack.

As to german's, before you call anyone, NOW, a Nazi; take a look at the Pope. He's had to deal with it.

I'm sorry but you can't claim to be "honorable" when you've broken the rules. The PO Box vets needed to skirt Geneva rules to accomplish what they did. No doubt they served honorably - but when they broke the rules they also diminished their right to point out the errors of others attempting to do the same.

"It must be said, however, that they faced a different enemy in a different war. The Germans fought to expand territory through traditional warfare, at least as arrayed against the US and the West."

Captain, sorry but that argument is lame. Are you saying that the nature of someone'e beliefs affects their ability to withstand interrogation. So is it the 72 virgins that make a difference? Is it that Allah is spelled with 2 As and 2Ls. Are Buddhists in Burma any less determined? They are resisting without even bombs or guns. Are Navy Seals more vulnerable because they don't get 72 virgins?

There were strong-willed Nazis just as there are strong-willed terrorists. They were devoted to a cause every bit as fervently suicide bombers. The 3rd Riech was their religion.

Just because a guy is Islamic does not make a difference. Very, very, very shoddy thinking.

The men you laud got what they needed without waterboarding. Who's the better interrogator? Who is the more skilled?

I wish the GOP would stop watching "24" long enough to think for a change. If the administration had spent more time reading history, heck, even Seven Pillars of Wisdom and some Kipling, we would still be engaged in Iraq, but at least we have managed it better, with less breakage.

Be honest, I want to torture the heck out of those guys too. But don't kid yourselves why, it's because you want to punish, not because the information is any better.

Our own military has been studying this since WW2, and they didn't buy the idea that torture was more effective, but the policy changed because they were overridden by a bunch of Bush groupees who thought the biggest problem in invading Iraq was that we would run out of handcuffs when Saddam's army surrendered.

It's difficult to make the case that we don't torture when there are Americans who relish in re-enacting torture as a means of pleasure.

"But that's different" they'll say because it's 'consensual' and about 'building trust'. Not it's not, it's about domination and submission which is what torture is all about.

Just because it's consensual doesn't justify the glorification of torture, ie binding, taping, electrocuting genitila, hanging from the rafter then giving lashes, suffocation to near death, put collars on then make them get on the knees forcing them to eat fecal matter, shoving baseball bats and/ or fists up the anus etc etc you get the point.

I grew up during the 60's in a neighborhood, Collingwood, about 1 or 2 miles from Ft. Hunt. I have fond memories of exploring the fortifications. This was long before the NPS fixed the place up. We always thought it was just one of the many fortifications in the metropolitan area to protect Washington from a Soviet bomber attack.

I noticed this intel group apparently only dealt with Nazi captives, no mention of Japanese. I know it was probably a bit more difficult to catch them alive but there must have been a few captured who might have had some valuable intel for us. I wonder if there was a similar secret group that we still know nothing about which was detailed with extracting intel from the Japanese. And if so, I wonder - given the rather different treatment that Japanese -Americans received from the Democratic FDR administration compared to German-Americans - whether more forceful techniques might have been employed by their interrogators. After all no one can accuse the Japanese of showing the least compunction of following the Geneva Convention towards our POWs or even civilians.

Carole incorrectly said

Because? Well, the current Pope joined the Nazi party.

No pope (the current one included) ever joined the Nazi Party. He was required on his 14th birthday in 1941 to join the Hitler Youth, because, as of 1936, membership was compulsory for all children aged 10 and above (children between 10 and 14 were "informal members").

Carole is right about despotic laws. The law requiring membership was given teeth.

A new law was issued on March 25, 1939, conscripting any remaining holdouts into the organization amid warnings to parents that their children would be taken from them and placed in orphanages unless they enrolled.

The timeline of the above are important. Ratzinger did not join until he could legally be taken from his parents if he did not join. According to several sources (including the atheist coordinator on about.com [I can't put more anchor tags in without the Captain canning my most]), Ratzinger's family was forced to move four times due to their anti-Nazi beliefs. In fact, several commentators indicate that the young Ratzinger's witnessing of the Catholic Church's ill-treatment by the Nazis is the reason Pope Benedict is so strong in his defense of Catholic moral doctrine.

docjim505 writes: "I'd take a terrorist's two month old daughter apart with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch if I thought it would get him to talk." First, there is lots of evidence that under severe torture, people say anything and everything that they think that their torturers (or their children's torturers) will want to hear. Kahlid Sheik Mohammad apparently volunteered all manner of crap that turned out to be false or unverifiable while under "aggressive interrogation". Second, what docjim505 so gracefully supresses is the fact that what he would most likely be doing is taking apart a SUSPECTED terrorist's two month old daughter. Consider how many innnocent people have wound up on death row or executed before their innocence was determined. And those errors were made when there was no time pressure and when there was an open debate about the facts (ie. a jury trial open to the public). Finally, consider the impact of torture on the torturer. Unless we only employ sociopaths as torturers, folks who already are incapable of empathy with others, we almost guarantee that the people we obligate/permit to torture will be damaged for life. Whether or not your God consigns you to your Hell after your death, the odds are that you will need years of treatment to overcome the flashbacks and PTSD common to torturers. In short, whatever will come, you will have already experienced your share of hell here.

a book detailing the entire Ft Hunt operation was published awhile back. can anyone help me find it again? thanks.

i thought that the geneva convention was a post WWII thing.

C

Torture? During the Korean Conflict we interrogated captured Korean's. After letting them sit in the compound a while, we'd belt them into a chair and hook them up to one of those old fashioned polygraph machines with pens using red ink, printing their body responses to our questions as the tape rolled past. They could see the pens wiggle. They'd heard "whispers" in the compound that it was their blood coming out of the pens.
Was that torture? I still don't know but it often shortened the time they sat in the chair.

I see, the Nazis were civilized cuz they're white, amirite?

What? WWII vets don't approve of Bush? Gotta find a logical twisteroo to remain in denial! Maybe the WWII vets don't understand that the Nazis were pussies? Nothing to do with the dangerous armada of 20 guys with box cutters who are infiltratting our society.

All those Republican homos playing footsie in the bathroom? Yep, Muslim spies!

Six months? Try six hours.

We can't question the patriotism of the NYT's editorial board. We can't question something that does not exist.

If we treated them the way they truly deserve, they'd be facing a firing squad.

I've seen no significant use of the Geneva Convention except as a tool by Communists to tie American hands behind their backs while the brutal dictators of the world hammer us to death at their whim, with ANYTHING that comes to hand.

If it is a question of America's survival, do it.

We have the right to defend ourselves, and when it comes time to do that, I remember what John Wayne said in one of the movies he made. He told the other guy not to let an apology between them bother him any as far as what they did to settle their differences later, after the battle they were allies together to fight, because when HE decided to go after someone, it wasn't going to be the Marquis of Queensbury Rules. He didn't care if it was from behind or below the belt or anything else - just whatever it took to get the job done.

If you are fighting in a contest - rules are great.

If you are fighting for something worth saving, do what it takes - your enemy certainly is.

Because if you think it is better to die with a false sense of honor, having lost the family and community you were supposedly fighting to save, than to fight dirty and save the community, and maybe live over with with some things on your conscience the rest of your lives, you aren't ready to live on this planet, anyway.

If you expect those fighting FOR YOU, WITHOUT YOUR ASSISTANCE, to play pattycake with their hands tied behind their backs, so the ones trying to cut your family to pieces with ball bearings, or piano wire in rape rooms, can always remember you as "NICE PEOPLE", then the guys fighting for you with their lives have made a stupid bloody blunder.

Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved. - Niccolo Machiavelli

If nothing in America of who she really is, is worth retaining, then by all means, hoist thyself upon thine own petard with all due haste. Let her mortal enemies have their way in destroying her.

As far as I am concerned, the Press and Media that leak stories whether small portions of American citizens deem them "appropriate" or not, but still UNDERMINE OUR EFFORTS TO WIN THIS WAR AS QUICKLY AND CLEANLY AND EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE with the least damage to America, they are committing WAR-TIME TREASON, and if the Liberals are going to continue barking about it, it NEEDS A VOTE ACROSS THE NATION to settle the issue and establish CLEAR GUIDELINES to the MEDIA.

I think about 3 different sides should be able to put various different wordings to the policy and let THE PEOPLE vote on it.

But for my bucks, when the Defense Department and White House don't make a JOINT APPROVED STATEMENT, it is ILLEGITIMATE INFORMATION for the Press - short of armed insurgency by the Military.

But SLANDEROUS INSURGENCY by the MEDIA AND LIBERALS AND LIBERAL POLITICIANS is also TREASON, TOO!

These squawking Liberals are the same folks who throw marbles under police horse hooves at their demonstrations. They will throw acid or urine inthe eyes of police at their protests. They will make death threats on GUEST SPEAKERS until a speaking engagement is shut down. They spit on our military, our police, our citizens who are not in agreement with them, aqnd hurl filthy invectives at them, and other objects, as well - unless they are physically outnumbered. They will find the AIDS-INFECTED among them to bite the police and the EMS and firemen. They will set fires. They desecrate our monuments. They break windows and spray threatening grafitti at the homes and business of their political opponents. They spray nazi symbols in the yards and on the homes of military spouses when they read that the person has died in combat.
They think free speech is BURNING THE AMERICAN FLAG and flying other nations' flags, and registering felons and cemetaries and illegal aliens to vote, and registering all who are willing for multiple voting cards.

They will smash and burn and destroy and loot as a "legitimate part" of their protests, even if it kills people.

Knowing what all such as Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein have done to innocnet civilians, they will go over there and be HUMAN SHIELDS for them, and travel to foreign lands to kiss their brutal dictators on the mouth for the international cameras.

And they are telling us not to even DETAIN our enemy combatants, much less hold them incommunicado and try to extract information from them?

And that what they are doing, themselves IS NOT TREASON???
They are certainly torturing Americans.

I say, put George Washington, Paul Revere, Nathan Hale, Patrick Henry, Francis Scott Key, James Otis, Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Benjamin Rush, et al, shall be the JURISTS for that definition of Treason!

Because these Liberals haven't proven themselves able to determine a single solitary CONSTRUCTIVE THING to help PRESERVE the NATION OR THE FLAG!

They have proven themselves capable of NOTHING but concocting pure ANARCHY!

Didn't James Risen mention that KSM was told that his wife and children were going to be killed if he didn't cooperate and he basically told them, "Go ahead, they'll be better off where they will be going then here." He called their bluff, and what did we get? The whole we're Nuclear and we torture thing has just inspired more rouge nations than deterred them. It's like OPEC and Scar Face put together. Who's going to tell Egypt, torture resort deluxe, they can't have the A-bomb? This one upmanship on brutal behavior just lowers the civility standard. If we firmly believe that our enemies want to return us all to the 1500s, do we really have to assume that era's morals to defeat their mission? Is this whole argument all about someone who has died while being interrogated? That's the problem with this administration they do what they want in the name of Nat'l security allowing the President unfettered power. So if you agree the President has this authority, can you all honestly say that you'd be willing to give the Mrs. this same authority?

It is not unusual for older people to appose almost any war on principle, but I am 56 years old and I grew up hearing stories about WW2 that would curl people's hair today.

Fire bombings, nukes, death camps, detentions of American citizens, bugging phones, shooting spies without any kind of trial, the execution of unarmed enemy soldiers, not taking prisoners, and that was our side.

But I am supposed to believe that because some old boy was able to get some German scientist to talk by buying him a steak that the Bush administration could do the same with stone cold terrorists trained to withstand interrogation techniques?

BTW, I hear they are reading Harry Potter novels to the guys at Gitmo. The report I read some time ago says that they get hooked on the stories and then want to hear more. Maybe that is what we do instead of buying them red meat.

I wonder what kind of interrogation police forces in this country were using back then in the days before they even had to read people their rights.

Nah, I don't believe it was a kinder gentler form of interrogation by authority.

Technically the never did violate the Geneva Convention. The one that get thrown around so much is the 2nd convetion of 1949 that we abide by today.

Are they really terrorists? Ah, now, there's there rub.

No one in Gitmo's ever been tried in a court o' law, now has he? Had the opportunity to face his accusers and question the evidence against him? Been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

No, I don't think so. And so, since you cannot know if any given individual in detention is a "terrorist," what you advocate is using torture against an innocent man.

"They did it," or "they do it," or "FDR did it," or "it was only a few" or any other equivocation does not change this one fact-- you advocate punishment for someone that you cannot know is guilty.

It would seem that conservatives would rather torture/execute/imprison a hundred innocent men than let one guilty one go free.

Renko

I don't buy your argument, Captain. Knowing the horrific atrocities the German and Japanese armies perpetrated and the completely open warfare that touched so much of the air, land, and seas, to say that this enemy is significantly different is hogwash. So there is a religious nut element this time and some fighters want to kill themselves and take out as many of the enemy as possible? Um, what the hell were kamakazis? How deified were Hitler and Hirohito? How mixed together was this cult-like worship of leaders and religious destiny of homeland that they sold to their soldiers and public? The whole argument is also weakened by interrogation experts who claim that persistent, well organized interrogation that aims to gain confidence produces far more accurate information. Which is what these WWII vets did. And they did it in a war where the stakes were global.

Renko:

That is so lame. Gitmo has got to be the most watched, talked about, studied, questioned, prison on the planet. If these guys had been hauled off to some jail in Yemen or someplace they could rot and no one would give a damn.

Now, we have had courts involved to decide exactly how to try them, where to try them, under what circumstances to try them, they have visitors, spiritual advisers, legal advisers and people like yourself all a twitter that their rights might have been violated.

I tell you what, let's send the ones from China back home. Oh but then the Chinese have made it pretty plain these guys will meet an untimely end if we do something like that. So what to do? We know after all that the Chinese could shoot them as soon as they get off a plane and folks like you would not make a peep.

You are a hypocrite.

There is no evidence that these people have been tortured.

And you know what? It seems liberals would rather see terrorists kill thousands of people than do a thing to protect the innocent.

Okon:

These old guys were talking about German scientists, not Kamikazes. Tell me, do you think offering a steak dinner to a guy trained to slam a plane into an aircraft carrier would have had any effect on him.

The Islamists we deal with here have been trained to withstand certain interrogation techniques and I will tell you the truth, I do not doubt that there were times when certain measures were used in the war that this particular group of men were not involved in.

The idea that the US is torturing everyone they pick up is a fantasy. There is no evidence of it at all.

It is just a meme that came about because of the liberals knew that with Abu Ghraib and Gitmo they could get a little mileage out of it. As for the government, it is like asking them when they stopped beating their wives, there is no way for them to defend against even the most bogus claims.

Time and again the NYT or some other media outfit will come out with some breathless tale of torture, only to find out later that it was exaggerated or an outright lie.

Now, I for one do not consider sleep deprivation or keeping the room at 50 to be torture.

Torture seldom produces the desired results.

However, fear of torture does produce desired results. Fear of pain, injury or death produces results.

A few decades ago, when dealing with Soviets captured by the Mujahadin in Afghanistan, we dealt with, in one case in particular, a small group of captured Soviet NCO's and junior officers. They mostly willingly gave a good bit of information right up front, being very happy to be out of Afghanistan and out of MUjahadinn hands, and in most cases out of Soviet Army hands, some going to the extent without prompting of producing extremely accurate drawings of Soviet faciltiies across Afghanistan [later verified through imagery and other means] and providing highly detailed OB and other unit specific information without prompting, but there was one of them who seemed to be the "leader" of the group who just didn't want to share anything with us.

From the others, we found that he was a spetznaz type, a warrant officer, and had been a Soviet Army careerist prior to his capture. They were all draftees, and disliked the Soviet Army and being in Afghanistan, so they were a more pliable group once they knew that we had them and they were not going back to the USSR or Afghanistan.

Rather than subject this warrant officer careeerist to any enhanced means, we tried something different.

We treated him better than the rest. [Everything they all received was well in accordance with Geneva and Hague.] But we gave him more cigarettes, coffee, tea, candy, even porn, escorted trips on the outside, and offered him other perks, made his life, compared to the rest, a lot better. We also made it clear to the others that he was being given far superior treatment.

One afternoon he showed up for an interview with fear in his eyes, and a deep willingness to be forthcoming in every question asked and more. Why the sudden change in his attitude?

His fellow Soviets had decided that he was doing "something" that got him special treatment, perhaps even making deals with us at their expense, since they received no similar special perks and goodies.

The others confronted him and threatened him. They were going to beat him to death unless he provided them a good reason for his better treatment. He could give no reason. We never gave him one. They made it clear that they believed the only reason they had not been granted asylum, or immediate movement to a friendly country, and freedom, was because of him. In their minds they beleived that he was doing something special to be given something special.

In fear of his fellows more than us, he "cracked" and started talking, talking a lot, and when given a legal pads, he proceeded to write down everything he knew, or had encountered, no matter how small or insignificant, from his entry into the Soviet Army, to his training in spetznaz to his deployment to Afghanistan, included bios on officers, commanders, details of equipment, morale, training, unit designations, locations, logistics and everything in the world he could remember. We never laid a hand on him. His only demand was that he be separated from the others and that the others be allowed the same sort of special treatment we had given him. [They were, and were also moved to a friendly country soonest, and freedom.]

His fear of being "taken care of" harshly by his compatriots was his motivation for cooperation. [In the long run, everything he provided was proved to be accurate and detailed.]

The point?

If a captee understands that he will not face anything other than the discomfort of being away from home, offered three hot meals a day, good living conditions, et al., he will most often design his interaction with the interogator accordingly. If he is going to talk, he will. If he is going to hold out and not be cooperative, he will.

In some cases simply being captured and removed from the harsh combat environment and total control of his leadership is sufficient to get the captee on board.

However, if he is hard core, and has the slightest idea that his lack of cooperation will result in nothing at all, he will react accordingly.

If he is of a mind initially to not cooperate, but in fear of his physical discomfort or worse, being tortured, for example, having his worst fears come true, he will likewise cooperate accordingly, usually in the form of solid cooperation. Or, as in the case of this Soviet spetznaz warrant officer, the fear of his compatriots taking matters in their own hands was sufficient to have him answer the Call to Jesus.

In most cases, a good interogator can disarm, charm, and cajole a captee into cooperation. Good interrogators are hard to find, but we have dozens and dozens of seasoned vets who know more about psychology than most who are working daily in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Gitmo, and elsewhere.

For a hard core captee however, the latent but pervasive fear of finding himself strapped to a board and being treated as his own security services would treat one of us can often lead to cooperation in full. The fear of physical pain or being beaten or torutred, even by his own kind, while we stand aside and let it happen, is a huge motivator.

Having a high value hard core captee know from the start that absolutely nothing will happen to him does no good at all, really, if he knows that his lack of cooperation will cost him nothing.

We don't have to torture, really, but having that bit of technique in our arsenal and made clearly known to a captee allows for the captee's own mind to work against him and work in favor of us.

Take the threat of torture out of the equation publicly, make it a matter of open discussion and its prohibition a matter of open public law...and we remove a vital tool from our arsenal.

In more recent years, in discussions with a few who recently or are presently involved in interviewing captees from the GWOT, most captees are cooperative for a pretty good reason. They are treated well, a lot better than they would treat us, and this destruction of their fundamental beliefs in who we are and how we act vis-a-vis the captee, shatters them to the core. If their leaders lied about something as simple as how we would treat them when captured...like being tortured or murdered as soon as they are captured...it shakes their beliefs in a lot more...their own cause. A few captees in recent years started talking as soon as they came out of anethesia, and having their wounds treated by our medical teams and field hospitals. That we would treat them so humanely in light of their trying to kill us was sufficient to break them.

But for the hard core? Allow us the opportunity to let their worst fears work against them and in favor of us. We don't have to lay a hand on them. They can do that in their own minds, and confront their own worst fears. That is where the nexus of "threat of torture" and firm cooperation happens.

I do not advocate the wholesale use of torture or enhanced techniques, not at all. I stand by the belief that torture simply does not provide the desired results. But for the complete removal of this item from our arsenal...well, it seems shortsighted. Fear is and has always been a simple motivator. Why remove our ability to use fear as a motivator?

What I think we should do is get the video tapes that Saddam susposedly made of torture sessions and make congress and the news media watch them. No cameras so there would be no way the media could broadcast it or any chance a child could see it.

I think that would clarify for congress and the media just exactly what torture is; and also, what it is not.

Of course, most would say that making someone watch somebody be put through a plastic shredder would be torture in and of itself.

That's okay, unclesmrgol, once General Patton crossed the Rhine, it became obious germany was no longer overrun with nazi's. Most people hid. And, some hid in shame.

With the biggest worry going to those that saw the russians coming! (This was something Eisenhower did!)

ANd the russians were known to be rapists and goons.

Heck, all you had to do was know that stalin ran short of issuing army equipment. SO every pair of boots, on every sets of feet, came from some dead body. Somewhere else.

And, then? Well, the germans really, really got it! Because half of germany, and all of eastern europe, became a "block" that lost freedom. Lost treasure. As moscow absconded with everything.

And, ya know what?

My sympathy button just isn't there.

I figured, for Patton? It was just gonna be a parade. SO, he missed it.

But for the goons who really like to "do wars?" It beat Versaille by miles and miles. ANd, it left a boot print that's still pretty obvious on the europeans.

Probably why so many have thrown in with the musselmen. Because they got robbed blind by the "big, bad, bear."

Sometimes, when I read THE BIG PHARAOH, he comments about what the russians did to Cairo. Hard to believe that once is was a beautiful city. But now? People live in something worse than "track homes!" They live in the prisons, built out of cement. Without much character. Plopped their by the russians.

And, ya know what? This crap actually teaches lessons!

While the bullshit from the fascists in the elite media ... are growing old.

One day? They fall down and they can't get up.

While the Internet makes a solid case for itself.

WHere the bullshit from the media doesn't really stick. We've "out"spun their stinking news cycles.

And, we're doing it 24/7.

Nobody's ever gonna get the milk to go back into the broken bottle.

And, wherever you look at wars, in general, it's when the "plans" fall out that the "other side," benefits.

Don't remember where. Or when. But I have a feeling that in the bleak days of the Civil War; Robert E. Lee wrapped some plans around a cigar. Alas, that cigar (found), is no longer as famous as the one clinton used ... or Monica found? While the Oval Office got a "little bit stained.

I remind you of this, only so that you can "compare." You're safely at home. But still? It happened.

OH. And, just to sail off topic. I want to repeat. When Larry Craig's left hand ALSO made it to the wall of the stall ... HE WAS ABOUT TO CRAWL THROUGH!

See? When you're trained ... as the police are ... to stop the "traffic" into men's toilets ... you can know what's gonna follow ... Once the signalling has begun.

Put two and two together. You rarely get a duck.

Andrew Sullivan had a great quote from George Washington on his site today:

"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner] ... I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause... for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country," - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775.

Teresa the actual quote reads:

"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any CANADIAN or INDIAN in his person or property... I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause... for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country,"

renko - with a few exceptions the gitmo detainees have been captured during military operations engaged in combat against U.S. forces. they have no legal right to access the U.S. justice system.

I should have added Washington's comments pertained to non-combatants..

Not those found on battlefields etc..

Remember too... Just as the Geneva convention allows those found out of uniform can be tried and executed as spies... the same applied during Washington's time... and if we wanted to use the letter of the law as provided by the GC we could have sought to execute everyone one found on the field of battle out of uniform..

And we didn't and haven't

Coldwarrior 415

That was a good post.

Thanks
Kim

RE: Teresa (October 6, 2007 6:45 PM)

"Andrew Sullivan had a great quote from George Washington on his site today..."

With the caveats addressed by theblacksheepwasright and all reverent respect to Washington, we aren't talking about the acquisition of knowledge to prevent some gunpowder from going off. We're talking about extreme exceptions of urgency whereby the payload is up to and including nuclear or biological catastrophe. That naive quote is void of the context of the firepower available to destroy states, something no one could have envisioned way back when.

You'd think Sullivan could work some of that kind of subtlety into the debate... if he was being honest. Perhaps he did.

AnonymousDrivel says, " We're talking about extreme exceptions of urgency whereby the payload is up to and including nuclear or biological catastrophe."
------------------------
It would be really nice if y'all would realize that "24" is fictional and not a documentary.

I don't put much stock in the old geezers 'memory'. After all MIT is located in the state known for producing the biggest liars in the world.

So the end is justified by the means - the more extreme the threat - the more like our enemies we are allowed to become.

Morals don't matter. There's no right and wrong, just our team and theirs. (end of sarcasm)

At any rate:

I have had 2 beefs with the Administration on this all along:

1- Coldwarrior has excellent analysis of effective use of fear to break people. I question whether it is necessary (is it the only way that works?), but OK, we can differ.

My first problem (call it the "policy" argument) was that the carefully defined standards our troops knew to obey were tossed away without a clear standard to replace them. Some enlisted folks got caught up in the Abu Ghraib deal because no one told them where the lines were that they weren't supposed to cross. All they knew was that "the book" didn't apply and there were new rules. What were the rules? They found them 'cause they broke them.

"Policy" argues that was a disservice to the troops - it sets them up as sacrificial goats when indictment time rolls around, because all the way up the chain no one authorized the troops to behave that way. Didn't anyone notice the only reason it stopped was that some pictures went public?

That is an effing idiotic irresponsible and way to run something as important as intelligence gathering. It's disloyal to the troops. Moreover, it was counterproductive - some petty thieves were turned into suicide bombers, and we created a lot of ill will and added instability in-country. Plus, if there are effective and ineffective methods to interrogate people, then don't we want to limit who does that sort of thing to people who know what they are doing?

2- My other beef is related to morals but is not a moral issue (call it "right makes might"). We are engaged in nation building - with the goal of a stable strategic ally.

To do that, we have to destroy the culture that has been breeding terrorism. To do that, we have to present an appealing alternative.

"Right makes might" says that the long term path to stability is getting Arabs and Persians alike to adopt Western values. The more we adopt brutal methods, the less difference they can see between our culture and theirs.

Practical example of this in action: all Iraqis in trouble prefer to go to Americans for help. Why? Because the Americans will be fair and won't be corrupt, and THEY AREN'T AFRAID TO TRUST US. A clear sign of trust in a foreign culture - a door opening for change.

They have plenty of reasons to fear and mistrust us already (not to mention a deep-seated inferiority complex - how many battles against the West have they won since the Crusades ended?).

Is being perceived as cruel or bestial or malevolent so effective as to be worth the long term cost of extending this war?

To paraphrase Heinlein: don't frighten little people, because they will try to kill you. People who are afraid act to remove the source of the fear.

Summing up: Brutality begets brutality. Torture Adib today and Son of Adib will do something evil tomorrow. So long as they hate and fear us we are targets and the war on terror will go on.

Or would you rather we adopt a final solution?

After all, we know genocide will work.

RE: Teresa (ctober 6, 2007 8:09 PM)

"It would be really nice if y'all would realize that "24" is fictional and not a documentary."

Never seen the show.

Of course, some might have written a script about a handful of terrorists taking down skyscrapers and the world's most consequential military structure with boxcutters before 9/11 and we'd have scoffed at its inconceivability. Only it was so inconceivable that the creative minds of Hollywood couldn't even envision that.

Yes, preposterous. What was I thinking?

OldDeadMeat and ColdWarrior make some very good points.

This post reminds me of the initial response coming from ex-military officers interviewed immediately after 9/11. Their assessment was that the new war against global terrorism would not be won through conventional military forces- the same forces arrayed against the USSR during the Cold War. Instead, US military men believed that this war would be won by winning the hearts and minds of civilians- those who gave material, recruits, and other support to the terrorist networks.

In fact, this vision played out in Anbar Province. There was no sign that the military could ever have turned the situation around in that area, if not for the transformation in the hearts and minds of local Iraqis.

Isn't a valid question to ask- how does torture affect the larger war against terrorism and our ability to win over the populations of Muslim countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia?

Unlike the Waffen SS and our Japenese enemies, many terrorist recruits have been brainwashed. Pakistani and other intelligence sources tell us this, and some Muslim countries have been very successful by not torturing captives, but instead de-programming them. Turning a terrorist to your side yields far better intelligence than any kind of torture.

That is so lame. Gitmo has got to be the most watched, talked about, studied, questioned, prison on the planet. If these guys had been hauled off to some jail in Yemen or someplace they could rot and no one would give a damn.

And so you reinforce my point.

"The Yemenis do it!" "The Chinese do it!"

Spasiba.

with a few exceptions the gitmo detainees have been captured during military operations engaged in combat against U.S. forces. they have no legal right to access the U.S. justice system.

1. And how many "exceptions" is acceptable?

2. No right to the US justice system, nor to the Geneva Convention, nor to any other form of redress, it would appear.

So, how many innocent men are you ready to sacrifice to the Gulag, comrade?

Renko

RE: bayam (October 6, 2007 8:49 PM)

"Isn't a valid question to ask- how does torture affect the larger war against terrorism and our ability to win over the populations of Muslim countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia?"

Absolutely, it's wholly responsible, and I agree. The question, however, ultimately proceeds down the slippery slope to the extreme, namely, exactly how far is one willing to go under those exceptional cases. Surely we all abhor real torture as a routine measure, but that's really not what we're talking about, is it?

I'm for whatever works to whatever degree necessary. If whispering sweet nothings will work to improve intel gathering, I'm for it. If something, if up to and almost anything, more extreme is required, I'm for it. And as coldwarrior415 so insightfully expressed, one never reveals to the nth degree what you will or will not do to extract that information. Its release can only aid our enemies as their fear is ameliorated by knowledge. Fear of the unknown is a powerful motivator, so making everything known is counterproductive, too. Surely that's important in our ethical calculus of the larger war.

One last comment and to bed:

It has been good to see some commenters thinking before writing. Would that everyone would do so.

Regards to all,
ODM

renko, such an uninformed reply!! gulag?? you are likening gitmo to a gulag?? better do some reading. it shows just how un-serious the left side is when you compare gitmo to a gulag. you arent based in reality when you say things like that.

im not sure how many, KSM is the only one i know for sure. and yes, no right to U.S. legal system, if you disagree explain jurisdiction? as for geneva, read what it allows for unlawful combatants. and the tribunals have cleared plenty but they cant be released cause their home countries nor any other will accept them. so they stay in what you seem to think is a gulag for the time being

My apologies -- I read about 30-something of the comments but not all.

Ed, I don't really see how this post is about 'interrogation history.' You point to an article that was current on memeorandum, but then your own writing is nothing new. Is that what you meant by 'history'?

Off the top of my head, I would recommend Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People by John Conroy and/or A Question of Torture by Alfred W. McCoy. While you may disagree with their politics or orientation wrt the usefulness of torture or continue to claim that ours is a unique situation in history, I'd posit that what these two writers have documented that it is clear you are on unstable, if not completely non-existant logical ground here. The threat you perceive as unique differs little from the unique threat in other situations. The long history of torture and threat makes it clear that each threatened group believes its circumstances are monumental.

The men of PO Box 1142 at the very least were able to live their lives knowing that they were humane to their enemies. That has not been the case for our men and women in Iraq. They live with overwhelming regret and guilt or commit suicide. (Links are redily available with a simple search, but I will gladly look them up if there is any question.)

An alternative has not been tried in this conflict. Why not?

How many witches did they find at the Salem Witch Trials? None as far as I know.

How many people confessed under torture? Dozens

Why? Because under torture, people implicate innocent bystanders. And prosecutors encourage this to further their careers or for personal profit.

Most people tortured are innocent, and wholesale death follows.

So to say that torture is OK is to also say that we are willing to abduct and murder large numbers of innocent people.

It would seem that conservatives would rather torture/execute/imprison a hundred innocent men than let one guilty one go free.

Renko

****************

And are you aware of just what is the count, now, of GITMO prisoners set free who have bee n RECAUGHT or killed ON THE BATTLEFIELD, since they were released according to DIM demands???

I think you should look up those facts before you spout off a lot if ill-informed nonsense.

For all the talk about torture, what "torture" was actuallly done at Guantanamo. Even if youstate that waterboarding is in fact torture, which I disagree with, were all prisoners routinely waterboarded in interrogations in Guantanamo or was it reserved for the most egregious or extreme cases, ie. the Khaleid Sheik Muhhameds etc.
and how many times was it done and under what circumstances?

Also lets please define torture. Is harsh language torture, is making someone uncomfortorable torture, is using a female interrogator on a jihadist torture. Andrew Sullivan in particular is guilty of equating everything to torture which amounts to a blanket smear, as in a war zone it will be required to interrogate prisoners and if every interrogation method employed is akin to torture, then those who even interrogate will always be gulty of torture.

Also, if we're going to talk about WWII, and the conduct of the war, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the war that we interned the japanese, isn't that the war that we actually nuked Hiroshima? And we dind't lose our souls then did we? So can't get that worked up that someone got a panty on their head of slapped in the face, or even waterboarded, considering what other courses of actions could be taken and have been taken in war time and which haven't been employed in this war.

If it comes out that we're torturing people in the fashion of Al Qaeda tortures people, or even in the fashion of how Sadaam tortured his prisoners (ie chopping out tongues, throwing off buildings, chopping off hands,throwing in shredders) I will certainly stand with the anti torture crowd and condemn such acts.
But I can't condemn interrogations, even harsh interrogations whose intent is to save lives, through the gathering of info. By the same token, I don't hold it against a doctor if he were to have to slice someone open to get at a tumor, but Iwould hold it against someone if they were to slice someone open simply to inflict pain (ie Jack the RIpper). Without context both are commiting the same exact act.

It's not exactly a fair comparison because though our soldiers are getting smeared with the torture label, they are not in fact torturing people, so its not equivalent. I direct anyone including Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy who suggested that Abu Ghraib was opened under new management or suggested that soldiers were acting in the same manner as Pol Pot, check out the readily available videos online that show the various means of torture used by Sadaam and believe me they make things like water boarding and a slap in the head look like a trip to the movies in comparison.

I'm for whatever works to whatever degree necessary. If whispering sweet nothings will work to improve intel gathering, I'm for it.

Something like this is what has been proven to work best. However, there is no evidence that the current administration has tried this technique.

If something, if up to and almost anything, more extreme is required, I'm for it.

In South Africa, the government had medical doctors onhand to revive those unfortunates that died during interrogation. Would that be ok with you?

And as coldwarrior415 so insightfully expressed, one never reveals to the nth degree what you will or will not do to extract that information.

This point also makes the 'We use it to train our Navy SEALs and other commando units' point nonsense. They know -- no matter how dramatic the senario -- that they will not die -- unless someone screws up. What are the odds of that? The enemy doesn't have that thought to support his/her will.

Its release can only aid our enemies as their fear is ameliorated by knowledge. Fear of the unknown is a powerful motivator, so making everything known is counterproductive, too.

That's not how it worked in South Africa, Algeria, Argentina, Chile, Peru, El Salvador, the former Soviet Union, shall I go on? Myanmar today?

Surely that's important in our ethical calculus of the larger war.

My response to this last point might get me booted off Ed's blog before I have even gotten started, so I will refrain for now.

And are you aware of just what is the count, now, of GITMO prisoners set free who have bee n RECAUGHT or killed ON THE BATTLEFIELD, since they were released according to DIM demands???

Under 20.

AnonymousDrivel -- ...a handful of terrorists taking down skyscrapers and the world's most consequential military structure with boxcutters before 9/11...
------------------------

Exactly my point. The hyperbole about some terrorist holding on to a ticking nuclear bomb is pretty unrealistic.

"It would be really nice if y'all would realize that "24" is fictional and not a documentary."

Never seen the show.

I have seen the show.

When Jack Bauer (oh, feel the power in that Name!) tortures someone, he's usually right. Right enough to put his ass on the line, because what he does, in a rational world, is. not. legal.

He does the illegal thing, then effectively turns himself in, with a complete after-action report.

I think it pretty obvious that since he's always right about who to torture, when to torture him, and always gets it done in time to defuse the ticking bomb-- well, Jack's pretty well assured of a Presidential pardon for all his heinous deeds.

They're still illegal.

So, to answer the ever-asked "ticking bomb" question, what do you do?

If you're the agent(Agent Bauer... whoooah, powerful) on the scene, and you decide that torturing someone is absolutely necessary to save the school from exploding, then do it.

But you'd bloody well better be right.

Because if you just tortured some poor sorry bastard because he had a hooked nose and an olive complexion, you should be sitting over there at the defendant's table.

But in this Year of Our Lord 2007, it is better to torture a hundred innocent men than for a single guilty man to go free; and the torturer is just another government employee.

Renko

actually the DoD thinks its 30. and thats just the ones they know of.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/d20070712formergtmo.pdf

Also lets please define torture.

It has been well defined for quite some time. The trouble now is that the Bush Administration has been fiddling with it these past few years. Ask Ed about that book he's going to read. Perhaps it will show how the CIA has gone all soft since Clinton. I don't know.

Also, those who have participated in the torture that the Bush Administration has allowed, have serious regrets, are in prison, or have commited suicide. Does that work for you? It's easy to advocate something, yet another to do it, and yet more to justify it after the fact.

So can't get that worked up that someone got a panty on their head of slapped in the face, or even waterboarded, considering what other courses of actions could be taken and have been taken in war time and which haven't been employed in this war.

You are conflating wrongs against groups of people with wrongs against individuals. Our government acts for all of us, whether we agree or not. I should stop here. You clearly cannot think beyond your self interest.

actually the DoD thinks its 30. and thats just the ones they know of.

So, I'm off by 10 and not 100. Good to know.

renko, such an uninformed reply!! gulag?? you are likening gitmo to a gulag?? better do some reading. it shows just how un-serious the left side is when you compare gitmo to a gulag. you arent based in reality when you say things like that.

Are you under the impression that the "gulag-ness" of a policy is determined by the size of the "gulag" in question?

Or is it determined by the fact that human beings are detained against their will, abused at the least and tortured or executed at worst all without any sort of recourse to any authority, unable to confront their accusers or even see the evidence against them?

Pray tell, how many prisoners must a gulag have to be a gulag?

Renko

So if you agree the President has this authority, can you all honestly say that you'd be willing to give the Mrs. this same authority?
***********************

Remembering CHINAGATE - HELL NO!

But then, given CHINAGATE - the LIBERALS are PROUD to run her or HANOI JOHN as a CANDIDATE for the highest office in the world, BECAUSE FOR THEM, CHARACTER DOES NOT MATTER.

Becasue, afterall, the Liberals are the party of NO INTEGRITY.

THEY are the ones who claim that PERSONAL INTEGRITY AND CHARACTER doesn't matter.

But we on the CONSERVATIVE SIDE want men of integrity in that office, so that in times of war, when things get tough, OURS WHO FIGHT FOR US can get plenty tougher. WITH NO IDIOT SEDITIONISTS TYING THEIR HANDS BEHIND THEIR BACKS with FALSE "MANNERS" and contrivances designed to give the advantage to our enemies.

* * * * *
How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
- Samuel Adams

Samuel Adams:
If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.

John Adams - Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.

**********************
Communist Goals (1963)
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
...
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
...
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
...
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
...

And are you aware of just what is the count, now, of GITMO prisoners set free who have bee n RECAUGHT or killed ON THE BATTLEFIELD, since they were released according to DIM demands???

I think you should look up those facts before you spout off a lot if ill-informed nonsense.

Easily done.

A very credible reference, your Vice President. Tell me, how is that nice fellow he shot in the face? Oh, and by the way-- where is that pesky WMD?

Renko

Rose, are you worried over 30 people?

Wait -- I have the answer to my own question!

Wow Ed -- you let this into your comments? Whodathunkit?

Communist Goals (1963)
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963

Rose, sweetie, that dribble was read into the record. Do you know what that means, sweetie? It's not law; it's not fact; it's not the rule. It's just one person paying one member of congress enough money to allow someone to read something into the record. Rose, had you enough money and personal panache, you could get your local congressperson to read the following into the Congressional record:

I am Rose. Hear me roar!

I question the quality.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

May I presume then, that it is the conservative position that civil rights weaken basic American institutions?

Renko

Posted by OPeck | October 6, 2007 6:02 PM

What I think we should do is get the video tapes that Saddam susposedly made of torture sessions and make congress and the news media watch them. No cameras so there would be no way the media could broadcast it or any chance a child could see it.

I think that would clarify for congress and the media just exactly what torture is; and also, what it is not.

Of course, most would say that making someone watch somebody be put through a plastic shredder would be torture in and of itself.

******************

Be careful, the Liberals among them will think you are merely hosting an S&M Festival, like Folson Street Parade sponsored by Miller Beer. (ref: Michelle Malkin)

i dont know where size entered into the equation. remember, size doesnt matter!!

do you really believe these detainees are experienceing gulag like conditions? they are receiving more medical treatment and food then at any time in their lives. and the respect given to their religious beleifs borders on absurd! ask solzhenitsyn if he thinks gitmo compares to a gulag. bottom line is gitmo aint no gulag and aint nowhere close.

Be careful, the Liberals among them will think you are merely hosting an S&M Festival, like Folson Street Parade sponsored by Miller Beer. (ref: Michelle Malkin)

Rose, can I ask you one question?

Are you a regular commenter here?

Seriously, I'm just asking.

RE: incontralados (October 6, 2007 9:39 PM)

"Something like this [sweet nothings] is what has been proven to work best. However, there is no evidence that the current administration has tried this technique."

Nice contradiction. Intel has been gathered yet you are sure that it has all been acquired by torture all of a nasty sort? Since nasty doesn't work, or at least doesn't work well, and the administration hasn't tried softer methods, how is progress being made? Let's just say I don't trust your perception of what has been or what has not been tried.

"In South Africa, the government had medical doctors onhand to revive those unfortunates that died during interrogation. Would that be ok with you?"

Well I wouldn't be doing cartwheels during the process but, yes, with the right person and the right circumstances, an exceptional method is OK with me if it can avert catastrophe. Interesting your moral equivalence of South Africa's situation with our own. Were the South Africans interrogating known mass assassins like Khalid SM or Al-Zarqawi?

"This point also makes the 'We use it to train our Navy SEALs and other commando units' point nonsense. They know -- no matter how dramatic the senario -- that they will not die -- unless someone screws up. What are the odds of that? The enemy doesn't have that thought to support his/her will."

As I understand it, waterboarding works on both captives (see KSM) and SEALs regardless of preparation, so knowing (even after practice) one won't suffocate/drown is not enough of a pacifier to ward off physiological response. The mind cannot overcome the body's endocrinology/biology. However, why declare the upper limit of what one will or won't do, which was my main point from coldwarrior415? The threat of something else unknown, whether practiced or not, may be enough of a motivator.

"That's not how it worked in South Africa, Algeria, Argentina, Chile, Peru, El Salvador, the former Soviet Union, shall I go on?..."

Yes, elaborate please.

c'mo renko, work on the reading comprehension. first you somehow think i believe a gulag is defined by size and now you post this?

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

May I presume then, that it is the conservative position that civil rights weaken basic American institutions?

Renko

notice the word "claim"? meaning no civil rights were violated

Posted by incontralados | October 6, 2007 9:41 PM

And are you aware of just what is the count, now, of GITMO prisoners set free who have bee n RECAUGHT or killed ON THE BATTLEFIELD, since they were released according to DIM demands???

Under 20.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Then you are wrong, aren't you? and additional American troops and allies and innocent civilians died because of the hammering of the Left for the sake of Gitmo terrorists.

Just watched a CNN clip of the men of PO Box 1142.

These men of PO Box 1142 were NOT primary interrogators. They were offered placated willing foreign captees in a benign environment to engage in indepth technical interviews. There is NO comparison between the men of PO Box 1142 and current front line or operational field interrogators dealing with AQ or other hostile Islamists captees in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Gitmo. There PO Box 1142 interviews do not even compare to the interrogations of Soviet Afghanistan captees, nor those primary interrogations of the myriad Soviet defectors and lines crossers and third country captees during the Cold War. Apples and oranges.

If we developed information from a captee or a defector that warranted further indepth interviews, we sent out an adviso to any number of US government entitites or allied NATO organizations and they responded with written questionaires or, in rare cases, sending one of their own to conduct indepth interviews. By the time these pro's from Dover arrived on scene, or had the captees or defectors delivered to a meeting point further down the line, the captees or defectors had already had their bona fides established, were already in a willing state of mind, and had no perishable information of critical importance to impart. Thus the German scientists at Fort Hunt had already passed through a chain of custody before reaching Fort HUnt and the men of PO Box 1142.

This is a major operational difference neither the WaPo article nor CNN portrayed with any attempt at accuracy.

do you really believe these detainees are experienceing gulag like conditions? they are receiving more medical treatment and food then at any time in their lives. and the respect given to their religious beleifs borders on absurd! ask solzhenitsyn if he thinks gitmo compares to a gulag. bottom line is gitmo aint no gulag and aint nowhere close.

Perhaps it is a comfortable gulag, comrade. This does not change the fact that they are held against their will, with no recourse to any other authority, unable to confront their accusers nor to examine the evidence against them.

This, mind, ignores allegation of torture (or "harsh interrogation methods" for those convinced of the rightness fo their cause).

Once again, comrade-- how many innocent men are you prepared to sacrifice to the Gulag?

Renko

Posted by incontralados | October 6, 2007 9:51 PM

actually the DoD thinks its 30. and thats just the ones they know of.

So, I'm off by 10 and not 100. Good to know.

**********************

Meanwhile, the Liberals have sacrificed MORE THAN ONE INNOCENT for the sake of the GUILTY.

So your contention is shown for what it is.

You have chosen sides.

This is War. Not a parlor room tea party.

Posted by incontralados | October 6, 2007 9:49 PM

Also lets please define torture.

It has been well defined for quite some time.
***************************

No, no, no.

Let's have a NATIONAL VOTE on it.

THAT is the Constitutional thing to do with a great controversy of this magnitude, when so many use that DEFINITION as an excuse to undermine the miltary during a time of war.

Let's have a vote on the definition of TREASON, while we are at it.

it aint gulag no matter how much you want it to be. and as for being held against their will, guess they shouldnt have taken arms against the U.S. huh? their own fault. keep trying to conflate gitmo to a gulag, you just look ignorant when you do.

Like Kim said, COldwarrior 415, that was an excellent post!

It also reminds me of WHY Israel likes to return Palestinian prisoners. Because they are not tortured. They have access to their prayers when they want this. To other books, if they'd like. Even classes. And, an education. Plus, of course, cigarettes. Etc.

There's no question you do well when the treatment from the police, or army personnel, meets high standards. We call this training.

And, we've had to train our own police, nearly across the board.

So going back in time? Not just to George Washington. But to the reality that in plenty of boonie towns in the USA, life was unpleasant. This was first discovered by people "passing through."

And, of course, down south, by Blacks. Because of the ways in which slaves were mistreated.

Can't compare any of that stuff to "now."

Does "terror" have its uses? It all depends on the information you need. And, how fast you need to obain it.

I think in police work, this developed into "good cop, bad cop," routines. Since you'd reach your objective. And, you also didn't work "alone."

Also, from what you described about this particular "spaznaz" Russian; it's called the Prisoner's Dilemma. And, it's a studied approach where the bad guys don't know what each one is telling the authorities. (Yes. Silence is best.) But trust isn't usually your strong point ... with prisoners. Bad guys in general are approaching you through the eyesight of "seeing their enemy."

By the way, the NY Times is the last place to go to study what 's going on, now, in Iraq. They've got no one there. Their information isn't even second hand.

And, lots of it is printed in order to hurt our military. As a matter of fact, all the elites know they learned in Vietnam. And, NOBODY here was torturing them!

Heck, you think John Kerry ever got tortured? He just made things up because he wanted the headlines. He got them!

He also thought he'd be president. And, he didn't even come close.

Doesn't mean we don't have problems coming from both sides of the aisle, now. Where both sides have idiots who feel threatened. (In case you didn't know? John Murtha feels very threatened!)

And, those who can will use every action they can so that they can win, even by cheating.

As long as they're still in the game, you should suspect that. At least.

You can get a bunch of russians to change their minds; if part of the promise is they don't have to go back to russia!

What can you "promise" John Murtha to get him to turn? Hmm?

Then you are wrong, aren't you? and additional American troops and allies and innocent civilians died because of the hammering of the Left for the sake of Gitmo terrorists.

And is that just because you say so?

Rose, have you had you name read into the recaord of Congress yet?

c'mo renko, work on the reading comprehension. first you somehow think i believe a gulag is defined by size and now you post this? 16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

May I presume then, that it is the conservative position that civil rights weaken basic American institutions?

Renko

notice the word "claim"? meaning no civil rights were violated

The question was not whether civil rights were violated-- even the most cursory review of the history of the US in the 1950s and before clearly shows this.

The question was whether conservatives believe that the pursuit of civil rights for all would weaken basic American institutions.

Again, history would indicate that they do.

But of course, the ways of American conservatives are inscrutable to those who aren't white American straight men. Perhaps you would elucidate?

Renko

A very credible reference, your Vice President. Tell me, how is that nice fellow he shot in the face? Oh, and by the way-- where is that pesky WMD?

Renko

*******************

General George Sada has the details and permission to tell, and he does.
It will take a war on Syria to prove it, do you want the evidence badly enough to let our guys go get it?

The reason it will take a war on Syria to prove it NOW is because of DIMS that made a millstone of themselves around our military, until the Dim Liberals were SURE their allies the terrorists had time to get it all well hidden.

Then you are wrong, aren't you? and additional American troops and allies and innocent civilians died because of the hammering of the Left for the sake of Gitmo terrorists.

And is that just because you say so?

Rose, have you had you name read into the record of Congress yet?

well the ones who have re-joined the jihadis are least trying to kill American soldiers. does it only count if they are successful?

RE: Teresa (October 6, 2007 9:42 PM)

"Exactly my point. The hyperbole about some terrorist holding on to a ticking nuclear bomb is pretty unrealistic."

And you're missing mine. Some of the most creative minds in the world could not write the script Washington and New York lived on 9/11. We don't know all the angles of what may or may not come our way, so dismissing the "impossible" is foolish despite your assertion that it is the expecting of the "impossible" that is so. But let's move the battlefield away from home a bit.

Let's say there's a mass of soldiers in a somewhat vulnerable theater surrounded by pockets of industrious antagonists nearby. I'm thinking Green Zone, Iraq, with a neighboring Iran or nearby Pakistan. Some of these jihadis get some radioactive material from allies or profiteers and weaponize that material via a dirty bomb... not some sophisticated missile or Fat Man but simple high-explosives trucked around and upwind of Baghdad. Do you see a possibility of such an impossible threat? Say a random capture nets a guy who is tripping densitometers and who has some Al Qods paperwork at a checkpoint in the Sunni triangle. Other curious findings add up to a suspected assault and research indicates you've caught a big fish.

What do you do? What if it is your father/brother/sister who is assigned to the Green Zone installation? Do you then change your perspective? Or do you shrug your shoulders because s/he knew what s/he was getting into and that you should throw caution to the wind? From what I'd gather, you'd laugh it off because it's pure fantasy and give the guy lawyers and months of 3-hots and a cot.

I wouldn't and would sleep comfortably knowing that I wouldn't - that I don't have all the opponents' angles figured out. Further, I'd try to give the tools needed to those who must get grain from chaff before polonium poisons the fields. I'll let you snicker during "24."

Posted by incontralados | October 6, 2007 10:24 PM

Be careful, the Liberals among them will think you are merely hosting an S&M Festival, like Folson Street Parade sponsored by Miller Beer. (ref: Michelle Malkin)

Rose, can I ask you one question?

Are you a regular commenter here?

Seriously, I'm just asking.

***************************

Somewhat regular.

Wow Rose. You are deep in the weeds.

Back to the topic.

Ed, do you not participate in your comment threads? This is my first time here. It seems odd that you don't. Writing this blog and blog related activities (speaking engagements, whatever) is all you do, no?

Why don't you participate in these comments? Clearly they have gone off track. Is that how things are done around here?

Disappointing to say the least.

The weekend is no excuse, you know, Ed.

[Why don't you read the comment policy before making assumptions? You've been commenting here for what, an hour? For your information, I don't edit out people's comments for accuracy, but if you'd bothered to read the policy, you'd already know that. For your information, I was asleep in the 45 minutes or so that you demanded I rescue your butt in the comments section. I guess that's no excuse, either.

If someone's factually incorrect, feel free to point it out. Other than that, quit your whining or go somewhere else. Does "incontralados" mean "incontinent"? -- Ed]

To clarify, Teresa used "unrealistic". I'm using "impossible". For all intents and purposes, they're interchangeable.

Posted by incontralados | October 6, 2007 10:49 PM

Then you are wrong, aren't you? and additional American troops and allies and innocent civilians died because of the hammering of the Left for the sake of Gitmo terrorists.

And is that just because you say so?

Rose, have you had you name read into the recaord of Congress yet?
***********************************

Just because "I" say so???????????????

Excuse me - they were caught AGAIN on the BATTLEFIELD???????????????????????????

Can you please REGISTER THAT FACT and compute, before you ask if that is "just because "I" say so"??????????????????????????

No, I'm not in the record of Congress, yet.

You find it objectionable that I like nice neat VOTES on some of this controversial SOCIAL ENGINEERING with a WRECKING BALL that is so popular with the Liberals?

it aint gulag no matter how much you want it to be. and as for being held against their will, guess they shouldnt have taken arms against the U.S. huh? their own fault. keep trying to conflate gitmo to a gulag, you just look ignorant when you do.

Did they take arms against the U.S.? Did they indeed? How do you know this? Were the facts laid out before an impartial court? Was the evidence against them evaluated by any independent authority? Were they determined to have been guilty beyone a reasonable doubt?

You do not know that they took up arms against your United States. You do not know because the facts of the case for each of the "detainees" has not been presented in open court, as any free and open society would insist.

How many innocent men are you prepared to sacrifice to the Gulag, comrade?

the facts werent presented in open court? you mean the way we did in ww2 when we captured japs or germans? you are going way off the reservation here pal. i know they took up arms against the US cause they were caught doing just that. and they have appeared before a military tribunal and many have been freed, others are set to go but no one wants them, shows what wonderful citizens they make huh?
once again, what would be the grounds for jurisdiction any U.S. court would have for this anyway? they werent arrested they were captured. not U.S. citizens, werent captured in the U.S. either. so why would any court have jurisdiction?

hey, here's an example of just how terrible that gitmo gulag is.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/10/gitmo.detainee/index.html?eref=rss_law

i got no more to say about it, maybe you can remind how bush=hitler or whatever stupidity the libs are throwing around these days.

The question was not whether civil rights were violated-- even the most cursory review of the history of the US in the 1950s and before clearly shows this.

The question was whether conservatives believe that the pursuit of civil rights for all would weaken basic American institutions.

Again, history would indicate that they do.

But of course, the ways of American conservatives are inscrutable to those who aren't white American straight men. Perhaps you would elucidate?

Renko

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

No, Renko, the issue is that by people working off Joseph Stalin's Agenda for the destruction of America, they have perverted the plain meaning of words to institute lawsuits with such convoluted arguments, that they make it appear they are fighting FOR civil RIGHTS, when in FACT they are attacking basic, healthy community institutions for their own purposes, TO THE DETRIMENT of the Community, for the sake of promoting ANARCHY. They attack institution s that the PEOPLE OF COMMUNITIES H AVE THE BASIC RIGHT TO STRUCTURE for the benefit of hte people in the community - which decide what burdens they are willing to bear, the whole has a right to decide to REJECT SOME BURDENS, if they so please, THEY DO NOT OWE THE TOTAL ABUSE OF LIBERTY TO A LICENSE TO DESTROY - ANARCHY - TO ANYONE.

If you feel some things are your right, and your community AS A WHOLE DOES NOT AGREE, then you have a right to go somewhere else - BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO IMPOSE THE BURDEN of your DESTRUCTIVE CONDUCT on the community if THEY have REJECTED ACCEPTING THAT RESPONSIBILITY.

You have no CIVIL RIGHTS to promote ANARCHY or to pervert the plain meaning of ordinary words.

It's called RUNNING A CONFIDENCE GAME when it is done by a few people on one naive sucker.

That is a FELONY - NOT A CIVIL RIGHT.

If Liberals were fighting for CIVIL RIGHTS, they'd do it through community leaders and VOTES by The People. THROUGH THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS MADE AVAILABLE FOR THAT PURPOSE.

But they avoid THAT at all costs and work through OLIGARCHIAL BUREAUCRATIC CLIQUES, instead.
EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL, abuse of power.

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127

"The people have a right to petition, but not to use that right to cover calumniating insinuations." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1808. ME 12:166

How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
- Samuel Adams

Samuel Adams - The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence wi