Why does America need Secret Prisons?
 

Why does America need Secret Prisons?

Seriously, why?

I don't see how this can be positive, or even a net positive. Why "Secret"? Ok, the "secret" is out, for the ones we know about [/cynic - realist]. The only reason I can come up with is so that the operations of such a prison are carried out beyond the easy reach of American law. What the Fuck? We have American citizens, soldiers, government officials setup for the express purpose of doing things that would be illegal in our own country. Are you kidding me?

I've thought long and hard about this. I have not been able to resolve this conflict. I see circumstances where it appears to be justifiable--we need the information they have and the only way to get that information is to use techniques that aren't legal inside the US.

But doesn't that make us less? Are we not a nation of laws? And now the newest detainee bill is designed to codify, to make legal what was not legal before. Nyah nyah, you can't sue me, the prez says so.

So somebody explain to me why we need these secret prisons in foreign lands, please. And why do we need this detainee bill protecting interrogators from legal action if this all happens outside of our legal sphere anyway? The whole tautalogical mess stinks. Either make the actions legal and move them *here*. What's to fear? Or, keep the actions *there* and remain unrestricted by the bounds of American laws.

*crickets chirping*

or the feds are just sick of the ACLU ..
big brother doesn't tell whiney little brother what he's doing on saturday night, thus avoiding the crying and tantrums

Where else do you keep dissenters before you openly declare it a police state?

Hey, lots of great nations have or have had secret prisons. Look at Nazi Germany, for example, or the way Argentina "disappeared" all those people. What about the "killing fields" of Cambodia, and let's not forget Soviet Russia's Gulags.

Jeez, who's side are you on, anyhow? Don't you know that questions like yours just give aid and comfort to the enemy and demoralize our troops in Iraq?

Maybe you should be rounded up next, comrade.:eyebrow:

I'm generally suspicious of anyone who pre-emptively avoids scrutiny.

So that kidnapping and torture can occur without judicial review. The administration fears American laws and other fundamental American principles. Overseas prisons (such as Abu Ghriad, Guantanamo, and other secret locations) are where activities in direct violation of the US Constitution were hidden from honest, non-extremist, and politically independent Americans.

Just as scary are some in The Cellar who approve of laws and secret overseas torture chambers that violate American principles. We even discovered how the Ford Foundation has no credibility - and that George Jr is an honest man. Scary was political propaganda that even justified the 'Pearl Harboring' of Iraq. I make no excuses for seeing through those lies even five years ago, here, in the Cellar. I make no apologies for bluntly and openly challenging others here who still approve of torture and promote lies about 'unlawful enemy combatants'.

Why do we need secret prisons? Some in America are little different from Nazi Germans, ethnic cleansers, or the KKK. Justifications for those prisons are that scary. Also scary are how some politicians such as PA’s Rick Santorum approve and then get relected. Some even in the Cellar approved of wiretapping without judicial review - as if enemies where hiding all among us as Joseph McCarthy proclaimed.

I said years ago in the Cellar, "Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition". Still this president hypes lies about a war on terrorism - and so many blindly believe. A "Spanish Inquisition" is why America needs secret prisions, laws to make torture legal, and laws so that the Supreme Court cannot protect basic human rights. All this even done in the name of god - as in post 15th Century Spain.

Wasn't that created to protect them from the hague? You know, World Court...war crimes?
Would that infer they are planning some? :whip:

So because others do it that makes it ok?

Hmmmm...I think I might go blow up a building...just cause someone else did it first.

This school of thought is incredibly dangerous and until people start to really realize this is a fact, there's no hope of ending these conflicts we're all in.

I feel your conflictedness, if that's a word.

If we apply American laws while we're in other countries, I wouldn't be able to go to Amsterdam and smoke weed with my hookers. ;)

As the "good guys", we shouldn't break the Golden Rule - just goes to show you how Christian W actually is. We should LEAD the world as a role model. We should be able to respond with righteous indignation when our military personnel are mistreated. Instead, we lower ourselves and invite enemies to torture our people.

Experts in information collection have said that information gathered through torture is unreliable. I guess this administration disagrees. They seem to have their own expert opinions about so many things. Just as they were dead-on with their assessment that Iraqis would welcome us as liberators, they may be just as accurate when it comes to the information tortured out of people.

So, why secret prisons in other countries?

To hide the facts from the American people. Oops. The W administration knew that this behavior would be opposed by most Americans, and considered to be outside the law, but they wanted to do it anyway.

They have little regard for laws and the US Constitution.

If found out, they thought they would have plausible deniability. Oops. I guess they miscalculated there, too.

I see that you're relatively new here. If you hang around and read some of my other posts, you'll discover that most folks on this board consider me liberal to the point of being a Commie. I was being sarcastic in my post that you responded to. ;)

Only from the misguided lefties, that feel everyone should be treated fairly as human beings and accorded the equal treatment that damn meddling constitution suggests. :right:

Torture makes enemies. Torture resulted in lies after lies about "Orange Alert" attacks even on Newark's Prudential Buildling and San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge. Professional interrogators say opposite of what 'big dics' insist. Useful intelligence is obtained by NOT using torture. Anyone with minimal intelligence instead of 'big dic' solution would know that.

A recent example of how 'no torture' does so much. Originally broadcast on 13 Sept 2006 on BBC 2 radio: They tortured to the point of killing people and still could not find those weapons of mass destruction. But the ignorant still insist that torture is good. Good for masterbation - where torture is justified. Bad for preventing future terrorist attacks.

Any idiot knows that torture and human rights violations don't do anything useful.

Seriously, there are legitimate tactical uses for secret prisons when they are used as an exception to the rule rather than as the rule. For example, say we capture a high value soft target and the enemy is unable to determine whether that person is dead or alive. We can toll the time limitations on the enemy's contingency plans for the loss of their operative. This may work to our advantage. Denying the enemy additional knowledge about the capture (e.g. who effected the capture, which government detains the captured, and where that person is detained) may help keep the enemy from identifying and taking hostages whom they believe would be useful in bartering for release of their operative. The same applies to other retaliatory measures. There are other open source examples for the legitimate use of secret prisons if you do the research; however, it would be inappropriate for me to go any further.

The current application for secret prisons likely stems from changes in the nature of warfare which essentially renders the conventions we've entered into moot. How many people actually believe that, when push comes to shove, those conventions will be observed by anyone including the signatories? Do we really have anything significant to loose (i.e. how many American lives is your self respect worth)? Certainly, the current Administration has opted for the lowest common denominator. This has negatively impacted our worldwide credibility; but, that damage has been weighed against the potential damage resulting from not availing ourselves of strategic opportunities. Until now, civilian employees of our government have operated in a gray area. The "Laws of Land Warfare" were written for combatants (who are well defined). Non-combatants (i.e. spies, e.g. CIA) are not protected by those conventions. If they are not protected, what do they have to lose by not abiding by those conventions? That's one way of looking at it.

Another way is to have everyone abide by the conventions that we've entered into. All military personnel are taught [mandatory training] that those conventions have the same legal affect, wherever they are, as Amendments to the Constitution. That's why military personnel can be prosecuted for violating those conventions even if they are ordered to do so. For the Armed Forces, it's pretty much cut and dry. Now, Congress has defined the responsibilities of all government service organizations.

Secret prisons have applications beyond engaging in torture. In the case of torture that shocks the conscience, I concur with tw's statement:

"VIOLENCE, THE LAST REFUGE OF THE UNINTELLIGENT."

Not sure I'm in favor of it, but it does appear to actually work and work well, violating the Cellar's notion that torture is ineffective.
The Case for Waterboarding

If waterboarding leaves no discernible damage, it can't be proven it was used.
How does anyone know they haven't passed legislation to improve national image and still use it behind closed doors?
There doesn't seem to be a lot of equipment, space or personnel needed, so denial is plausible.

Just saying, ya know. :confused:

Of course what happens when you use waterboarding on someone who really doesn't know anything, and at what point do you believe them and stop it?

I think a lot of people who travel abroad in countries with below par civil rights have at some point thought about what would happen if they were falsely accused of a serious crime there. Movies from Midnight Express to Red Square have played up this scenario (yes in Midnight Express the guy was guility). We have already executed Mexican citizens in the US without allowing them to contact their consulate.

If we allow waterboarding of prisoners, we are stating that for certain heinous crimes it is allowable. We might limit it to unlawful combatants, but by allowing it we are declaring it a legitimate interrogation tool.

What they forget to mention (lies by telling half truths) is that he told so many myths and lies as to make the intelligence useless. All those Orange alerts did what? Nothing but prove how much useless information comes from torture.

Why was Nasir Abbas so useful? He told accurate facts. He was not tortured. As professionals note, when they are not tortured, then they immediately suspect their 'leaders' were lying. After all, only satanists torture. Americans that do not torture? How can this be when our glorious leader told us Americans always torture? Notice what professionals have been saying in direct contradiction to a lying wacko president. George Jr said torture is good? That alone raises red flags everywhere.

It amazes me how many 'big dics' in the auto industry insisted more crappy products out an assembly line is also good. Did not matter how poor it was just as long as product flowed. Same 'big dic' reasoning applied to intelligence. More talk is important - usefulness is somebody else’s problem. As professional interrogators state - and what 'big dics' hope a head between legs does not learn - quality and accuracy of that intelligence saves lives. That head between legs does not care 'why'. It only cares about feelings - reality be damned. Torture is justified only by feelings.

'Big dics' repeatedly insist that lives are saved by getting them to talk. Same mentality justified more crap from assembly lines. No difference. Quality is Job #1 - if we want to save lives. Those who have anti-American and wacko extremist politics advocate torture only because they 'feel' that it must work. Reality and logic be damned.

Torture is advocated by same who strongly insisted Saddam had WMDs - even long after the lies had been exposed. A damming coincidence, or a question about political agendas replacing logic? Many who advocate torture also were quick to believe lies about Saddam and WMDs. Obvious and scary is why this statement is more than a Monty Python joke: "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition".

Call it morality if you like. I call it using intelligence – first learning from professionals. Torture is advocated in direct contradiction to facts. Extremist hope you don't learn how useless the intelligence was from torture. Are lessons from Abu Ghriad that quickly forgotten? Is the threat of Nazism (or Christian extremism) so real in America that some would even approve of torture? Torture only saves lives when 'big dic' rationalizations (ie Saddam's WMDs) are quickly accepted as fact. No different than what promoted Hitler to power. Hitler needed only those who never ask embarrassing questions (Brown Shirts) - and who also believed in torture. I've just ask another embarrassing question. Why are those who believed George Jr lies about WMDs also advocating torture? Why has America become this scary? 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management - and to people we will vote for on 7 November.

Wow...nice to meet a fellow communist. Would you like to come to the Karl Marx revival with me next week? ;)

UT:
The point of the bans on torture is NOT that it may or may not be effective. In most cases, it is not. People will tell you anything you want to hear so that the torture will end. The point of banning torture is so we maintain moral high ground (that whole 'Hearts and Minds' campaign that we are still losing). We will get more support from our allies and relatively-independents if we say, as a national position, "We don't do this. Ever."
Also, I'm going to call shenanigans on using FrontPage.com as a source as they're factuality is suspect (specifically: the very first article link I clicked on)

You're going to bring him back from the dead!? You'll have to let me know if zombie-Karl Marx says things like, "The workers should control the means of production of BRAIIIINNNSS." ;)

I realize that FrontPage is biased, but I'd never before seen a specific example that waterboarding was effective.

I remain unconvinced that it is effective or ineffective. The notion that someone will tell you "anything" in order to stop being waterboarded, seems to me to be proof it's useful. If enough people tell you "anything" you can clearly put their various "anythings" together to figure out which anythings are true and which are not. Perhaps the orange alerts are because there weren't enough people being waterboarded. I guess we will never know.

I severely doubt that the CIA set up the means to do this sort of thing to 14-16 individuals if it doesn't work. I bet they know a lot better about whether it is effective than we do. I do not believe they would set up such an infrastructure for the simple joy of torturing bad guys.

I share the basic lack of trust of the government and the entire situation and am as appalled as anyone that this happens. On the other hand, if there was another attack in the US more effective than 9/11, this debate would be immediately over, and our resolve would be to do whatever it takes with the certain knowledge that we are the good guys.

Should effectiveness even be part of the calculus? If we operate like bad guys aren't we by definition bad guys. It doesn't matter what we are reacting to. I think folks who see themselves as the good guys are capable of at least as much evil as those who recognize they've crossed moral boundaries. During the Crusades folks knew they were in the right so they got comfortable doing evil. In WWII cities were bombed and burned by the good guys and we still defend it. Bin Laden knows he's a good guy...

That's why we need this debate.

Let's suppose you personally know that a 100 megaton nuclear weapon is located in Central Park and is going to go off in 24 hours. You can't search the entire park, as it is over 800 acres. You have as prisoner, a man who knows where the bomb is because he placed it. He is not responding to feather tickling the bottom of his feet.

If the bomb detonates it will kill 5M and sicken another 5M. It will also put the economy of the US and the entire world into immediate economic depression, thus leading to the indirect killing of millions of other people. Moreover, it threatens all of world-wide civilization and, militarily, absolutely requires a nuclear response so that some semblance of Mutually Assured Destruction remains a preventative threat.

What would be appropriate? Would you, personally, waterboard this gentleman just to see what comes out of him?

Would you do it even if you knew it might not work?

Would you do it if you knew you might be prosecuted?

Would you still wonder who was the bad guy?

Calls to mind Dirty Harry standing over the sniveling kidnapper, sticking the toe of his shoe in the kidnappers wounded knee.

We sit here in the light of day, with our wits about us, without anyone shooting at us, and we are discussing if torture is wrong. Of course it is. If we want to pretend that we are the good guys, then we need to outlaw torture. This should be self evident.

But the reality is that torture is just fine in a situation like the one UT describes, but only if it's secret. Only if nobody finds out. We have bad guys working for our country to fight the bad guys working for the enemy. But we need to keep our hands clean. We need to be able to deny that we are associated with our bad guys. We need to be able to prosecute them if they mess up and get caught torturing someone.

Torture is wrong. I am absolutely against torture. I don't want us to torture anyone. But war is also wrong, and we are at war. Terrorism is wrong, and we are the target of terrorists. It's messy out there. Once you unleash the dogs of war, you need to do what it takes to win, and you can't have a weak stomach about it.

But if the discussion is about the "rules," then clearly you can't allow torture as part of the rules. Only bad guys torture, and we aren't the bad guys.

You treat your enemy the way you want to be treated... end of story.

Simple does not mean easy. Doing the right thing is always harder.

As I have said before, if you adopt the tactics of evil/the enemy you are evil/the enemy, there is no difference.

The first thing is to be a nation that doesn't get into wars. We should be fair and honest when dealing with other nations - after all, we're the good guys.

In the case of Iraq, "doing what it takes" meant that we should have had 450,000 troops on the ground. What we've done is not what it takes.

I don't think we should have invaded Iraq at all. But managing the aftermath is showing a weak stomach. It's allowing our troops to be killed and costing us too much, while we undo what our troops accomplished during the invasion. It also sends the message that you can get your country modernized by the Americans by insinuating that you have WMD. You'd think the supposed hard-asses in this administration would be tougher than that. ;)

If torture is considered a minor infraction, it becomes routine. If torture is legalized, it becomes routine. If torture is championed by leadership as a good and effective tool against terrorism, it becomes rampant. Abu Ghraib and the Stanford Prison Experiments prove this. Torture should be considered a major crime, with extreme penalties, and that should figure into Jack Bauer's decision process whenever he ends up in UT's example situation. You can come up with extreme examples to justify breaking any law, and you should have to for this one.

What about high gasoline prices? I can't afford to spend as much on beef jerky and grape soda at the gas station anymore...

It may seem like it, but high gasoline prices aren't a law. ;)

As a number of folks have mentioned, in this extremely unlikely case someone will have to break the law to get the job done. This is not, however, the day to day WOT and sounds a little too tv to me. We need to be seen grinding this out day by day following rule of law because that is what we claim we want for them. Compromising principles seems to be the touch-stone of this "adult" administration.

um sorry Flint but I did say it more efficiently

Ask tw. :p

If your interrogator is feather tickling, then you did not use a professional. You are therefore responsible for an intelligence failure. Meanwhile, sit the prisoner in Central Park. If he will not talk, he was not going to talk under torture. Torture him and he will tell you it is in Jersey City and San Francisco - and then relish his little victory. Torture him and he will say anything to be harmful because he hates you even more.

Meanwhile, professional interrogators are furious that you have so muddied the waters - made it virtually impossible to get accurate facts - because you tortured him.

Amount of talk is akin to an assembly line of junk. Credibility - not lots of words - is essential. Even if he said something truthful, the intelligence is useless because it is just another lie as he continues to lie just to hate you. Torture him and you can kiss the city goodbye. By torturing, you are making him only hate more. That is the last thing you want if you want to save the city.

In reading detailed accounts of what prisoners said, accurate facts arise because the prisoner is relaxed, can be observed as honest or deceitful, and often assumed his interrogator already knew this stuff. Again, credibility. Again, this is how professionals get accurate facts.

It is a 'big dic' assumption that only action - torture - will get results. Best results are obtained from inaction or less action - simply letting him talk. You want to save Central Park? Torturing him guarantees the city's destruction. 'Big dics' restort to their knowledge base - their feelings. 'Big dics' can be saved. They get educated by professional interrogators. Useful information comes from caring or from accidental disclosures. Neither can happen with torture. To a 'big dic' mentality, that is inaction. 'Big dices' assume only action gets results which is why 'big dics' assume torture is useful. Unfortunately you do same. Implied in your post is this assumption that only physical action will get results when reality says the complete opposite.

How many Orange Alerts did it take before you realized why this administration had no facts? Torture causes lots of talk - and it was all lies and more Orange Alerts.

UT, if you torture that bomber, you have guaranteed the city's destruction. It should be obvious. Scary is when that is not obvious. The term 'big dic' is obscene, belittling, and accurately depicts those who somehow magically assume torture must work. Don't be a 'big dic'. A 'big dic' attitude - this need for action in direct contradiction to intelligence - would absolutely condemn the city. You want smart interrogators. You don't want muddied waters. That means no torture.

But we're working on it. The situation should be under our control again after the first week in Nov.


Then we'll have it up to $6 or so

If a case like UT's scenario were to occur, there's always a Presidential pardon to free the interrogator, as long as they are tried in this country.
That leaves the law against torture, for normal situations, and an out for the extraordinary. :cool:

War involves moral choices. It's ironic that while we have people screaming about 'moral relativity' here in the states, everyone ignores the moral compromises made in Iraq and Afghanistan.

From here.

Having to run down a child to save your comrades is a difficult choice, and I'm not going to condemn anyone in that situation for the choice they made. So would I want to see a law enacted giving soldiers the right to run over children? No. Some things have to be done in war, but they are the exceptions to the rules of human decency.

Noone has answered the question as to what we do with people we torture (or strenously question) and who turn out to be innocent. What compensation will there be for making people feel as if they are drowning over and over again? What if we set the price at a million dollars? If we receive howls of outrage over such a great sum of money we could ask this question? How sure will you be before you start the torture that you have the right guy? Because if you aren't willing to be a million dollars that you're wrong, you shouldn't be torturing the guy.

Of course, this will not happen. The US will find a way to duck responsibility, just like we did in the Arar case.

Of course, anyone who knows our administration knows that once they decide on a course of action, finding out that they are acting on bad information will not stop them, bless their dedicated little hearts.

UT, allow me to redirect you through another thought process. Let's take off our intelligence thinking caps and put on our counterintelligence thinking caps. Even "If enough people tell you anything", can you really determine the facts from that? There certainly exists cover stories and if the interrogators aren't sure about the cover stories; then, an interrogation subject can present a cover within a cover: nearly everyone interrogated may present the same information. What if many of those subjects have been given disinformation from their leaders by design? Don't think it could happen? What if at the onset of the war in Iraq, many Americans were tortured to find out whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? What do you think "enough people" would have said? Disinformation needn't come from just the enemy. Corroborating evidence, not just personal testimonies, is key to determining the facts surrounding major threats. This is somewhat analogous to the unreliability of eyewitness accounts in civilian court cases where the veracity of those testifying is in question and the case is largely made on circumstantial evidence. Generally, when pain compliance; or, panic (fear of death) compliance techniques are used, interrogation subjects are more likely to respond with less verifiable information. Other techniques, which break down resistance more gradually, not only allow for behavior comparisons with other interrogated subjects; also, comparisons of the subject's own behavior over time and the discovery of corroborating evidence.

I submit for your consideration that the CIA is subject to political pressures that far exceed those experienced by the Armed Forces. The clandestine nature of it's operations means that it's boss and it's oversight are, for all practical purposes, one and the same in the Commander in Chief. The CIA will train for and execute a specialized operation against a single individual if directed to do so by the President. They do NOT enjoy torturing people anymore than soldiers enjoy killing people; but, both will follow orders rather than be tried for treason. Look at how many thousands of soldiers were willing to kill based upon the false premise of WMD and terrorist sponsorship in Iraq. Do you really find it so hard to believe that a few CIA agents would torture interrogation subjects whether the results were reliable or not?


The answer to your question lies in the concept embodied by the words "that shocks the conscience." It is, albeit, highly subjective. Nontheless, humanity weighs the shock value of "using any means necessary" against the shock value of potential losses entailed by the perpetrator's actions. The individual making the hands-on decision is a product of the world community [i.e. it takes a community] and acts in consonance with their own level of understanding and conscience. If the situation has been allowed to deteriorated to the point where the outcome rests with a single individual, whatever the world gets is appropriate.

As for this product of the world community (me), even though I know that the odds are astronomical against gaining useful information in your scenario, I find that the stakes are so high that the needs of the oppressed (i.e. those threatened with destruction) clearly outweigh the needs of the few (i.e. conscientious objectors to the use of any means necessary under all circumstances); or, the needs of the one (i.e. rights and life of perpetrator). I would use all of my interrogation skills to extract as much information as possible while I used all of my medical skills to keep the perpetrator from dying during the interrogation. Rationale: A long shot is better than no shot. Of course, I would conduct the interrogation at ground zero and perish with the perpetrator if unsuccessful. If successful, I would submit myself for adjudication by the world community.

UT, what other questions do you have pertaining to the ethics of interrogation? I certainly don't have all the answers; however, I do have some insights. :eyeball:

Straight 40 hours, then time-and-a-half for overtime, doubletime on Sunday. Even if they're Jews, time-and-a-half Saturday and Double time Sunday.

Rich, we can only prove them guilty, we can never prove them innocent. If they are released for lack of evidence, they have the smug satisfaction of knowing they beat the system. No monetary compensation. :headshake
If you set fees, you'll have lots of scammers acting suspiciously.

NoBoxes, you make a lot of sense.
How much is training and how much did you figured out yourself?

ABC News' Brian Ross interviewed a number of CIA, some of whom were against waterboarding, but all of whom agreed that it worked? (Sorry it's via O'Reilly)

Video: http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/2...rture-tactics/

Partial transcript: http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...Q5MTUzYmNlY2Q=

* Al-Qaedist Abu Zubaydah was captured in March 2002.
* Zubaydah's captors discovered he was mentally ill and charged with minor logistical matters, such as arranging travel for wives and children.
* The President was informed of that judgment by the CIA.
* Two weeks later, the President described Zubaydah as "one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction on the United States."
* Later, Bush told George Tenet, "I said he was important. You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" and asked Tenet if "some of these harsh methods really work?"
* The methods -- torture -- were applied.
* Then, according to Gellman, "Under that duress, he began to speak of plots of every variety -- against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty."
* At which point, according to Suskind, "thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each . . . target."

As Francis Fukuyama observes in the context of WMD intelligence in his book, the big problem in intelligence isn't the need to find more information it's the difficulty of figuring out which information is true. Simply pumping every person who falls into your hands for everything he "knows" doesn't help.

Sorry, but I'm gonna call shenanigans again, UT. If Ross were presenting info that O'Reilly disagreed with, he wouldn't be on the show. That isn't to say that all info from the Right that I disagree with is not accurate (that would be convenient, though). However, O'Reilly has too long a history of bullying guests that he disagrees with and flat-out lying for me to consider him or his show a credible source.

Don't only listen to the sources you agree with. It's not O'Reilly telling you the information. It's Ross.

I know it's Ross, but O'Reilly doesn't invite guests onto his show that disagree with him (which is what I should have said earlier, but at least now I get another post to my count...schveet :) )

My God, can you really get people to do that in ten words or less?

Not so splice, he is an ass but O'Reilly invites just about everyone on his show. Al Franken even has a standing invite if I recall.

Peter Lynch made the same complaint about going on business shows such as Wall Street Week with Louis Rukeyser. What was broadcast was nothing that Peter Lynch intended to say. Broadcasters with a political objective can reframe almost anything. Did Musharraf endorse pediphilia on Comedy Central? Amazing how we can spin anything if framed for a political agenda (or comedy).

If Brian Ross intended to say what UT claims, then Brian Ross with almost unlimited speaking and with a job that requires more and more reports, would have then said it on ABC News. Where does Brian Ross on ABC News - and he has reams of reports - say what UT implies? If not, then why not?

Torture gets them to talk. And talk is not different than what that assembly line manager wants. More output. Crap. Does not matter. More output.

The most critical function of intelligence is credibility. Torture means no reliable information as demonstrates by so many Orange Alerts for terrorist attacks that never existed. So many lies that eventually Tom Ridge and Ashcroft ended up in open confrontation. Ridge was tired of so much information from torture that was routinely wrong. Eventually the conflict was followed by Ridge quitting as Fatherland Security Czar.

You think Ross is lying?

Did I also say Peter Lynch was lying? Obviously not. If Brian Ross said it on Charlie Rose or Ted Koppel, then your post has credibility. But again. Read it with intent to understand. Why did I post about Peter Lynch? Did I say Peter Lynch was lying? Of course not. Peter Lynch, in an environment intended to say something different, did not say on Wall Street Week what he wanted to say. AND - this is also important - you should be fully congnizant of how the environment can spin different what one intends to say. You know that Bill O'Reilly is about perverting facts for a poltical agenda.

Meanwhile, professional interrogators say torture does not work. And worse, torture only muddies the water making useful interrogation futile.

So who endorses torture? Same people who said Saddam was an ally of bin Laden and that Saddam had WMDs. Again, UT, is that word credibility.

Where does Brian Ross in his so many ABC News investigative reports says that torture is an effective interrogation tool? Why does he only say this on a show that has history of perverting and spinning facts?

Does it count if Mr Ross links the O'Reilly interview from the ABC News Brian Ross Investigative Team website?

I think Mr. Ross was fed a line by the Administration and swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. If, as this report says, we have foiled plots (a dozen?), why haven't we heard anything about them? And, I remind you, all of the horns that have been tooted re: the liquid bombers, the shoe bomber, et al, if you're going to say something about giving away sources and methods (pre-emptive strike! ha!).

If Ross cites that interview on a site of his own control and states that that is what he meant, then we can suspect Ross has some solid information. Especially because of Ross's credibility.

Remember what we are discussing. No one disputes that torture causes talk. But the integrity - accuracy - of that talk is everything.

Let's take the previous example. Typically they never would be interrogating because they knew the bomb was in Central Park and because they knew it would explode in 24 hours.

The realistic scenario is that interrogators need know what this guy knows. They don't know of a bomb (but may have other sources implying a bomb may exist somewhere). They don't know if he really knows anything about a bomb. They have someone who, if he has information, then they want it.

That latter scenario is typical of interrogation. They must get him to talk AND that talk must be in a manner that talk has credibility. Anyone can claim a bomb in Central Park. Again, more Orange Alerts.

Brian Ross's information gains credibility when posted on web sites / news sources without a political agenda. And again, its not about talking. Does torture get reliable information? Integrity of that information determines whether it is information. Even most all books in a library are fiction.

BTW, your Brian Ross reference raised my ear significantly. Brian Ross does have significant integrity.

Interrogation, like medicine, is an art. Initial training in both disciplines provides skill sets that enable extrapolation into developing situations. There's a lot of science behind these arts that carry on from the initial training and make it difficult to draw a line.

A doctor learns anatomy, physiology, and psychology.
An interrogator learns psychology, physiology, and anatomy.

A doctor learns how to diagnose and treat illness and injury.
An interrogator learns how to assess and manage vulnerability.

Then, a doctor goes into practice and finds that one patient with a broken arm was totally incapacitated and ambulanced away while another patient who's arm was broken the same way got into a car and drove it to the ER himself [pain thresholds]. The doctor also finds that despite all of the indications, contraindications, precautions and warnings that accompany medications, patients may react very differently to that same medication [genetics]. Then there are people with full blown symptoms of a given disease while others will only ever be carriers [circumstantial]. To top it all off, the doctor encounters multiply afflicted patients who's combinations of illnesses and/or injuries (not to mention new diseases) were never actually covered in class! The doctor's training in methodology takes over and a treatment regimen is developed for the individual patient's needs even though the situation may never have been addressed (or even foreseen) in medical school.

Interrogators face similar challenges and have similar skill sets to deal with them. I have both medical and intelligence (incl. interrogation) training. For me, "training" and "figured out yourself" aren't separate; rather, they're consolidated in methodology.
The methodologies of the aforementioned disciplines are similar, why don't we cross-reference them just for kicks? We'll try it with this statement:

Even if the statement is true, it's still only a whopping 14 cases they're talking about. If a new medication was introduced and we gave it to 14 test subjects and it worked, should the FDA approve it for use by everyone?! What is the actual significance of 14 cases in the worldwide interrogation industry? People are always looking for a miracle whether it's the next wonder drug; or, a magic bullet. Isn't it comforting to know that our government has found us a magic bullet? I'm sure the politicians know how many of their constituents want (or need) that magic bullet to bite on.

Let's examine the "coerced interrogation" method of waterboarding. Any physician can tell you that the most important part of a physical examination is the History. It seems that waterboarding and its predecessor techniques have a rather long history. If any of it's incarnations are so very reliable, why haven't we and other societies incorporated it into our social mores and codified codes by now? 1.) Terrorists have been around for quite some time! 2.) What about a captured psychopath (who isn't talking) that has buried a living child (who will die of dehydration in a few days) in a box with an air pipe to the surface? 3.) Wouldn't it nice to know that we can account for all of a convicted serial killer's victims (especially if execution is imminent anyway)? Why isn't this technique being used by all military and police? Why haven't we heard of many more success stories (at least from other governments, some of which aren't bashful about torture). WHY HAVEN'T WE HEARD ABOUT AMERICAN CAPTIVES BEING SUBJECTED TO WATERBOARDING if it's everything that the cited article on "coerced interrogation" implies.

I realize that this has been an exercise in apples and oranges; but, you can get my drift about methodology.

BTW: Have you found a good oral surgeon yet who can subdue your gag reflex (just in case the aforementioned becomes popular)? :lol:

You wrote seven paragraphs but failed to actually answer xoB's simple question. Are you sure your initials aren't t.w.?

It's interesting to note that he wrote nearly the exact opposite conclusion in a story a year ago.

Well UT, it's not often one gets to participate in a forum and get insulted by the host! :lol: Since you are the host; however, I'll explain:

I didn't want to be rude to xoB. The short answer to his question would simply have been: "Sorry, you don't have a need to know." Many people don't realize that much open source information is classified by the government. The government sometimes doesn't want it generally known that it retains and disseminates (e.g. teaches) controversial information; or, to what extent it does this. While in government service, people are not free to discuss the information outside of established protocols. When those people leave government service, they are free to discuss the information in an open source context; however, they may not yet be free to say that the government retains the information, disseminates it; or, reveal what specifically is taught [i.e. the "actual" field capability] at any given level (the latter being of concern here).

A hypothetical example would be if open sources reported that another government developed a new biological agent that could be used in WMD; so, our government decides to make it too. Even if it is developed here for the sole purpose of establishing its capabilities and deriving a defense strategy from it, sharing the knowledge that we have it could result in worldwide accusations that we developed it for offensive use in WMD. Even if the sole purpose for training our people (likewise their level of training) in the deployment of the agent is for them to understand how to defend against it, that information can be spun to support the accusations that we developed the agent for offensive purposes. ALL of our government's involvement may be initially classified. Perhaps later, information that we have the agent is leaked. Even if the government subsequently acknowledges that we have it, the conduct of training and level of training may remain classified. Even if the conduct of training is acknowledged, the level of the training may be classified. At this point of our hypothetical situation is where I'm at with xoB's question in reality.

UT, previously in this thread I said to you that "I certainly don't have all the answers; however, I do have some insights." I stated the obvious to downplay the "answers" part; because, I'm not always free to give them even if you could reasonably expect me to have them. OTOH, since I'm here to express and not to impress, when I can't be informative I at least try to be entertaining [hence the seven paragraphs]! :D Sorry if I disappointed you buddy.

My day is not complete until I've insulted several Cellarites. :D For purposes of the forums please treat me like any other person.

I'm not a "host" in that my job is not to ensure you have a good time. (However, if you do have a good time I will take complete credit for it.)

We can't tell the difference between you and any poser on the topic, so I'm not sure it's helpful just claiming that you have special knowledge and then rolling back to claim you can't say.

The idea that methodology tells us that 14 out of 14 successes isn't a large enough sample size to confirm success, I find sort of ridiculous. It's kind of hard to establish a control here.

I believe one could work out what was preplanned information. If there's a bomb in central park, ask them where the shotgun traps are in central park. If they demand bomb, they are giving up too much information for free.

I'm still going to contend that the '14 plots' are a bunch of hooey. Again, I don't think it's Ross that's lying, but that he's taking Administration facts at face value. My proof? Can you honestly imagine this Administration not crowing like mad if they had actually foiled plots?
More concretely, I'll turn your argument to NB back to you: the Administration is saying that they've foiled plots, but where's the proof? They don't get to say, "Well. Torture worked in these 14 cases, but I can't tell you about anything at all about them." That isn't proof, it's assertion.
And you do a mighty fine job of it, too! :thumb2: