idrankwhat

To compliment Marg's detailed posts on the subject: Torture’s Rendition by Matthew Alexander 04.23.2009 As a former senior military interrogator, it’s deeply troubling to me after reading the recently released torture memos that we doubted our ability to win the battle of wits in the interrogation booth and resorted to torturing and abusing prisoners. There is no profession that is successful 100 percent of the time. Doctors can’t cure all patients. When I was in Iraq leading an interrogation team hunting Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the former leader of al-Qaeda, we experienced failures. The highly skilled soldiers that my task force sent out to capture and kill terrorists based on my team’s information sometimes failed. And, occasionally, pilots missed their targets. We must accept that we can lose battles and still win the war. On the path to Zarqawi, my interrogations team encountered al-Qaeda leaders who never cooperated. Those sessions were opportunities to refine our skills. It made us better interrogators and we later used those refined skills to string together a series of successes that ultimately led to Zarqawi. Those who tout the successes of waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah are omitting at least one important fact. Neither man gave up Osama bin Laden. Every good interrogator knows that a detainee can give up information that sells out the men and operations below him. They need only protect their leader for the organization to survive. The fact that Osama bin Laden is still alive is proof that waterboarding does not work. The more important fact, however, is that our policy of torture and abuse has cost us American lives. As a senior interrogator in Iraq, I conducted more than three hundred interrogations and monitored more than one thousand. I heard numerous foreign fighters state that the reason they came to Iraq to fight was because of the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. Our policy of torture and abuse is Al-Qaeda’s number one recruiting tool. These same insurgents have killed hundreds, if not thousands, of our troops in Iraq, not to mention Iraqi civilians. Torture and abuse are counterproductive in the long term and, ultimately, cost us more lives than they save. The more important argument, however, is the moral one. One of al-Qaeda’s goals is to prove that America does not live up to its principles. They assert that we are a nation of hypocrites. By engaging in torture and abuse, we are playing into their hands. This war has two fronts—protecting our security by thwarting terrorist attacks and preserving American principles. We cannot become our enemy in seeking to defeat him. Americans are plenty smart enough to convince al-Qaeda members to cooperate. My interrogation team did it time and time again with the most hardened al-Qaeda terrorists, even when they were familiar with our methods. Criminal investigators face the same challenge every day in America with suspects who watch Law & Order or NYPD Blue and learn interrogation techniques. Yet, every day detectives elicit confessions, just as I did when I was working as a federal agent. I told my interrogators in Iraq, “The things that make you a great American are the same things that will make you a great interrogator. Leverage your culture—tolerance, cultural understanding, compassion, intellect and ingenuity.” Those are things that win wars. Matthew Alexander spent fourteen years in the U.S. Air Force. An “investigator turned interrogator,” he deployed to Iraq in 2006, where he led the interrogations team that located Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the former leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, who was killed by coalition forces. Alexander was awarded the Bronze Star for his achievements. He is the author of How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq (Free Press, 2008). http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=21354

Wasn't Marilyn Chambers the Ivory Snow girl?

Maybe for you but not for me. The three pirates who were shot were actively taking part in piracy and the life of the captain was in immediate danger. Take 'em out and toss them to the sharks for all I care. The people in Guantanamo were what? The minority were terrorists actively taking part in hostilities on the battlefield. The majority were unknowns. Many of them were picked up because someone dropped their name, either get them out of the way or simply for the ransom that we were offering. You don't shoot "suspects". And in either case, once they are prisoners then you treat the according to the laws set forth to deal with prisoners. The three pirates shot in the act of piracy played the game and lost. Now the one in custody doesn't deserve what his colleagues got. He gets his day in court, as the law provides.

Then you and I are on the same page. As a heads up, keep your eye open for the reborn (lower profile) version of the PNAC, FPI. I understand your point, and I agree to a certain extent. But it's not simply prosecuting people who lost an election. It's holding people accountable for illegal actions which have done serious harm to our security and our image as a nation. I think that these guys are criminals and I would love to see them thrown in jail. However I'm willing to accept that that may not be best for our country in the long run. I'm struggling with my demand for accountability and the smartest way to get this sad period in our history behind us. So far, I think that Obama is doing a pretty good job of beginning to repair the wounds cause to our international relations and seems to be heading in the right direction with regard to seeking peace with our enemies. He's got quite the tightrope to walk and I wish him well. I agree with the presence of the rift but I don't put the onus on Obama. I put it in the same place I always put it, with the ignorance peddlers in the media and their followers. The most recent example that I've seen of the cultivation of this divisive movement was their hijacking of the "tea party" movement. I agree with many of the points that the original party members were espousing. They lost me when they allowed FOX and the Hannitites to take ownership of the movement and turn it into an anti-Obama hate-a-thon. Obama's been pissing off both right and left extremes. I'd say he's playing the center pretty well so far.

Oh PLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASEOPLEASE tell us! The suspension is Killing me Like I said earlier, welcome to the party. Glad you could join us. I mean I think I'm gonna cry. Rush has come into the fold and will now join in our campaign against the negative influences of AIPAC, Pharma, Wall St and the banking industry, BIG OIL!!!!!! CHANGE ISN'T ON THE WAY! IT'S [B]HERE[/B] Oh THANK YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA!

Fortunately that seems to be changing. Palin and McCain might agree with me on this one. I hope the trend sticks. I agree wholeheartedly with you here.[Beer]

No. People have been screaming for years that Cheney and his followers of the strong unitary executive theory were acting illegally. When the Republicans held the responsibility of being the check to the executive branch they failed miserably. When the Democrats took over in 2006 they decided that they would put on the kid gloves while dealing with the issue while they dealt with the larger issue of removing the neo-cons from power. Now that they have achieved the high ground they're doing their job. IMO Cheney (the guy who lived in the Constitutional netherworld that had "executive privilege" but was not part of the executive branch) honestly seems to believe that he was justified in his behavior and is clawing back in desperation.

But it makes for very profitable radio and television.

Irony score = off the chart By the way, what exactly was the point or argument that you were trying to make with this thread? You haven't presented any viewpoint yet. Posts: #1 anybody see a common link? #2 I have not seen a wrong answer on this thread yet, have you? #3 I can say I love the passes being given by many here # 4 was quoted above. I'm just curious. I suppose I'll just continue to poke and prod sarcastically until I figure out what we're talking about

Perception is 9/10ths of the flaw.

That statement makes absolutely no sense at all. Tell me, no. Tell us all. How is torture "situational"? I think most people would read that statement as "it depends on who's doing it."

To me it is very situational and, I do not see waterboarding as tortue This is the attitude that makes people want to drive airplanes into buildings.

Kiss sucks. Mini Kiss is the best

This one's got to be up there on the epic post list

I don't know. There aren't many to choose from. What would a "wrong answer" look like? Who's doing the grading? Is there a curve?

Maybe he booked his overseas vacation before he consulted this map

You mean that lobbyists have undue influence on our government which, in turn, is detrimental to the taxpayer? Welcome to the party!

This is an interesting point however it doesn't take into consideration the inefficiency of the production of the "animal" in question. Fossil fuel energy input to protein output in the meat production industry ranges from 4:1 to 54:1 with chicken and turkey on the left side of the scale and lamb and beef on the right (grain production is closer to 3:1). In addition, each kilogram of beef produced requires about 100,000 liters of water. Now considering that that animal that you're "sequestering" has been raised on such an extraordinarily inefficient flow of energy I'm not sure that the potential energy recovered in the form of fossil fuel derived via their decomposition will prove sufficiently adequate to justify the energy necessary for production. Of course, in a few million years I'm sure that the engines will be much more efficient w/r/t output. Of course the shortened lifespan of the aforementioned critter may also need to be factored into the equation. The shortened lifespan would result in reduced consumption which should increase the net value of the resource. It's a mass balance nightmare that I just won't be able to solve this week.

I'm not sure how anyone can say that GS would have been fine without the second influx of bailout money. They got it, now they're doing ok and don't need it. Does that mean that the loan did its job? Or more importantly, is GS really ok or are they feeding people cooked figures in order to shake off any government influence? For example, how does GS's $1.3 billion dollar December loss figure into January's profit? Maybe if they figure out a way to restart their fiscal year every eleven months (dumping the losses in the twelfth) they'll be rich!

So, what you're saying is that after they got the $13 billion taxpayer dollars through AIG that they didn't need money from the taxpayer.

I see your point. Mine is that I don't think it's right to hold the field personnel accountable for illegal action when they've been told by lawyers that those actions are legal. I think that the lawyers who reinterpreted the law and the people who requested/demanded liberal interpretation of the laws should be the ones held accountable. I'll be unhappy if that doesn't happen.

I have to take exception to the thread title. He didn't "excuse" the torture. He's saving the asses of the field agents who followed orders. He is not however, exempting those who reinterpreted the definition of "torture". The Obama administration did not say that protection would extend to CIA agents who acted outside the boundaries laid out in the memos, or to those non-CIA staff involved in approving the interrogation limits. That leaves open the possibility that those lawyers who crafted the legal opinions authorising the techniques, one of whom is now a federal judge, could yet face legal action.

Which is a completely irrelevant analogy. The banks are paying back the money because they don't need it. They think their companies are fine and some are posting record gains. I would say it's completely relevant. We're talking about the risk to the "neighborhood" via the perilous activities of one "homeowner". If the banks simply want to shed the government intervention so that they can return to the good old days of unchecked "modernized commodities" trading, the I'd say it's a problem. They may be "posting record gains" but if those gains are based on financial instruments that, through failure, might bring down not only their company (which would be fine with me) but the entire financial backbone of our country (which would be/was very bad) then I vote for continued government interference until we can figure out the best way to deal the potential problems. I don't want government running the banks but I do want them regulating them. The current free market capitalist model rewards failure and I don't want to see my country collapsing because a few well heeled folks decided that the color of their multinational parachutes was more important than the US's.

I would consider that a reasonable request if the bank held notes on all of your neighbor's houses, your mercury painted furniture was full of termites and bedbugs, the woman you're living with has the bubonic plague and she's sharing her fleas with your rabid dog which you allow to run freely.

Bet they'll never take money from the Feds again. Unless, of course, it's laundered through another company. Are they going to give back the $13 billion that they got from the taxpayer via AIG?