Why does America need Secret Prisons?

[headsplice]

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 )

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Don't only listen to the sources you agree with.

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

[Undertoad]

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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

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.

[Undertoad]

You think Ross is lying?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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?

[Undertoad]

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

[headsplice]

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!).

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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

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.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
How much is training and how much did you figured out yourself?

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:

Originally Posted by Undertoad
O'REILLY: So in all 14 cases, coerced interrogation methods, being debated in the Senate right now, were used. And in all 14 cases, according to your report, they gave it up.

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)?

[Undertoad]

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

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

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

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

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

Well UT, it's not often one gets to participate in a forum and get insulted by the host! 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]! Sorry if I disappointed you buddy.

[Undertoad]

My day is not complete until I've insulted several Cellarites. 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.

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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'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.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

My day is not complete until I've insulted several Cellarites.

And you do a mighty fine job of it, too!