nerdgirl

It is true that Mitchell, Jessen, and Associates (the CIA contractors) were not amateur psychologists. They were neither trained nor experienced interrogators, however. What did/do the experienced interrogation operators assert regarding use of waterboarding, 'enhanced interogation' methods, or other euphemisms for torture? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, die in training - is that murder? No, Soldiers, sailors, airmen, & Marines are exposed to live chemical agents at the CDTF at Ft Leonard Wood - are they the same as the victims at Halabjah? No, of course not. The use of waterboarding in SERE training was based on torture methods used by the North Korean Communists (& others) against US service members to elicit false confessions. The US military uses waterboarding as part of SERE training to resist torture, i.e., tacitly acknowledging it is *torture.* It's training to resist torture. It was not intended as an instructional manual for interrogation. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Naw, they're sent to Svalbard with only a battle axe and flagon of mead to battle polar bears for the remainder of their days. It’s an old Norse law from the Viking days that remained. (Honestly, I have no idea what modern Norwegian law does in the case of unemployed drunk drivers; somehow I doubt that the notional scenario suggested: "when I am unemployed, can I drive as fast as I want and not pay a fine," is any more likely than exile to Svalbard.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Go the other way. Do you think that if someone that reports zero or negative income should be paid to break the law? Since this is policy not physics, there doesn't inherantly have to be an inverse vector. (Actually doesn't have to be in some physics either.) We can set artificial boundary conditions, i.e., income must be greater than zero or other something else applies. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

complete and absolute bs... Why? If one sees a fine as punishment for drunk driving and equality is the goal then perhaps, yes. If one sees a fine as a mechanism for deterrence to prevent additional drunking driving, then perhaps not, eh? Consequences, in order to have a deterrent value, have to have metaphorical 'teeth.' For me, the risk associated with a $10,000 fine is very different than the risk of a $10 fine. But that's just me - a single data point. And if one looks at sentencing and results over statistically significant numbers of criminals, the correlation is not robust. The harder variable to test is deterrence of those who weren't convicted. I.e., need to see decrease in incidence. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Apologize if it came across as playing your words. You asked a few questions, and I provided responses to those questions. Did you intend your original questions to be only rhetorical? Again, as I'm reading it, you’re asserting some authority but since were not on SIPR or JWICS … or even AKO … I have the option to ask “Why?” and “How do you come to those conclusions?” Especially when the conclusions you’re asserting are counter to those of 60+ years of operational interrogation experience across multiple agencies. (You or anyone else doesn’t have to answer, of course.) If you work with IC analysts – & I have no reason to doubt that – you know that analysis is not interrogation is not defensive training is not HUMINT (or any other –INT to include OSINT, open-source.) If the argument is that of the FBI Agent who first interrogated Abu Zubaydah and obtained actionable intelligence; the USAF officer who obtained the information using traditional interrogation methods that led to the location and killing of al-Zarqawi in Iraq in 2006; FBI Special Agent Jack Cloonan who averted a real-ticking time bombing situation with a radical Islamist terrorists; FBI Special Dennis Formel, who obtained the identity of Ramzi bin al Shibh (the “20th hijacker”); LTC James Corum, USA (ret) who was in the ‘sandbox’ doing MI; and the active duty and retired Marines interrogators are all part of massive government cover-up? (I recognize that's a somewhat loaded word choice; I don’t know of a better one; "conspiracy" is probably worse. And it is a variant of the words you used in the quotation below.) That assumes a lot better discipline and efficiency across decades of time; multiple agencies; between federal, State, and local systems; and multiple electronic systems than most seem to usually credit the federal government. From a deterrence perspective, there is no benefit to “covering things up.” Are all the people and organizations who have commented that I cited hypocrites? (No, they aren’t.) Part of it, I think, is the entanglement of interrogation with defensive training. One doesn’t have to use a nuclear weapon to be an expert on nuclear weapons effects, operations, or health medicine. If use of a nuclear weapons is required to be able to speak authoritatively to then almost all of the world's nuclear expertise is quickly dying. And, if that is the standard, there is none among the Army’s FA-52s. They aren’t hypocrites either. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I'm reminded of something my favorite PhD historian said in his address to Army War College in April in response to a question from the audience. It was also, again imo, very much an unscripted moment of insight. Q.”As we study strategic leadership here, we’ve learned that many times a strategic leader makes decisions and policies that are often resisted by various stakeholders for political, financial and sometimes moral reasons. As a strategic leader, sir, what have been some of your greatest ethical challenges as a leader making decisions, and what recommendations do you have to us?” SEC. GATES:”… by the time a decision gets to the president, there are no good options. “If there was a good option, somebody at a lower level would have made the decision and taken credit for it. (Laughter.)” Nota bene: he started his response to the question by noting that “I would say I probably faced more ethical issues when I was director of CIA than as -- (laughter) -- the Secretary of Defense.” VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

You are missing the basic form of chauvinism; us verses them. The fact that Iraqis are brown has fuck all to do with it. The real reason these situations are different in people's minds is because they are not Americans. If I recall my history the Japanese were not the only people put to death for their treatment of white people during WWII. The Germans (can't get much more white than a Nazi) were as well. Concur on the first order analysis, aka being the beaten enemy is the primary variable. At the same time, there are, imo, secondary variables. Have you read or heard of Edwars Said's Orientalism? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

We've heard a few folks comment on why they see it as a strength, if sometimes complicated or less than perfect in practice. Are either of the two folks who clicked that it is a weakness willing to share why/how they reached that conclusion? If you'd like to remain anonymous to the wider SC, I'd still be interested in hearing your explanation via PM.

For me, it depends on the size of the fine. And my upper boundary for is personally acceptable has changed, e.g., when in grad school, it was much lower than today. Largely concur there. If a speeding ticket was an order of magnitude or two larger would that be a significant deterrent? For me, I have a mental alogorithm that when the fine approaches some deleterious amount in my calculation, my behavior changes. Altho' currently I live less than 3 miles from my office, and in a couple months will be moving (hopefully) to a new place from which I should be able to return to commuting by bicycle. Concur. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That's an excellent question for which I don't know the answer. Confident it's out there; it's not something I'm looking for at the moment. It does appear that in the US harsher sentencing does not deter criminal activity overall or w/r/t illegal drug use. We've been doing that experiment for the last 25+ years. It might be different w/r/t drunk driving. Otoh, one can look to Mayor Giuliani's “broken windows” strategy – aggressive policing of lower-level crimes and fixing broken windows, dilapidated infrastructure, etc. along with aggressive arrest of felony crime offenders and enforcement of laws, i.e., “get tough on crime” approach. There were also increases in the minimum wage (10%) that correlated to reduction in robberies (3.4-3.7%) and murders (6.3-6.9%). Minimum wage increase. *All* three aspects (plus other policies, in all liklihood) were important in that situation. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Do you shape-shift, too? More Jean Grey. Altho' shape-shifting would be a cool super-power. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Underlying your argument, I reading that you assert some experiential expertise that has given you greater insight than “the average American.” I.e., you know something that the makes the “rest of us” less knowledgeable, therefore we should listen to your expertise. Is that correct? One thing I’ve learned both here on SC & in real life is to be careful with assuming what people do and don’t know; sometimes they surprise you.

Don't have a good answer to that one. One can only speculate. Personally, I'd submit to waterboarding for $1000 per second. I think it would suck pretty bad while it was happening, but knowing that there's no permanent impairment, I'd take the cash. Heck, at those rates, I'd probably spend a month trying to rack up a score like KSM, and take home the big money. If it was [Amazon] doing the waterboarding in a controlled US facility, I would too (probably). If I was captured in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan by AQ in Iraq, the Afghani Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban, or (Big) al Qa'eda, I would not. Although, as a female, they would probably not consider me valuable/human and just set me on fire. Those are 2 very different scenarios. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

To some extent you are correct, we don’t do formal scientific studies on torturing people. We also don’t infect people with smallpox or intentionally expose them to nerve agents (beyond those folks who are trained at the CDTF at Ft Leonard Wood). We do, nonetheless have a lot of information on what works and doesn’t regarding interrogation, development of new vaccines against smallpox, and treatments against nerve agents. And it is a reasonable question, which I’ve answered before, i.e., fairly easy to cut-n-paste. What we do have is 60+ years of collected information on what works on what doesn’t work, which is reflected in: The US Army Field Manual 2-22.3 Human Intelligence Collector Operations (warning large pdf file). The US Army FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation (another large pdf file), which states in Chapter 1, under the heading “Prohibition Against Use of Force” “Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.” “The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.” Unilateral, non-ambiguous statement with further detailing what not to do, i.e., don't use torture because it's not effective. FM 35-42 also warns: “Revelation of use of torture by U.S. personnel will bring discredit upon the U.S. and its armed forces while undermining domestic and international support for the war effort.” The experience of the active duty and retired Marines who are members of the United States Marine Corps Interrogator Translator Teams Association, whose journal masthead reflects their experience and opinion: “…despite the complexities and difficulties of dealing with an enemy from such a hostile and alien culture, some American interrogators consistently managed to extract useful information from prisoners. The successful interrogators all had one thing in common in the way they approached their subject. They were nice to them.” Maj Sherwood Moran, USMCR - Guadalcanal 1942” Maj Moran’s direct experience and advice, which include recommendations like know their language, know their culture, and treat the captured enemy as a human being, was written up in this June 2005 article largely inspired by Marines discussing it on their version of Speakers Corner. Over & over again the psychology behind coercion and cooperation has been shown to be the critical element in effective interrogation techniques. Whether it was Maj Moran in Guadalcanal or USAF officer who obtained the information using traditional interrogation methods that led to the location and killing of al-Zarqawi in Iraq in 2006, effective interrogators have excelled at extracting information from the enemy by appealing to their humanity, rather than by shocking, oppressing, or torturing. Folks like LTC James Corum, USA (ret), formerly Army Command and General Staff College, who has stated “The torture of suspects [at Abu Ghraib] did not lead to any useful intelligence information being extracted." GEN Colin Powell, USA (ret), and the 42 other retired generals and admirals and 18 national security experts, including former secretaries of state and national security advisers, who supported “HR 2082, the "Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008” (the bill that would have required the CIA to essentially use the Army FM 2-22.3 as guidance – & that’s ‘guidance’ in military speak not popular vernacular – w/r/t interrogation operations, which President Bush vetoed. His veto is actually more complicated and reflects large executive branch privilege disagreements, imo). Folks like: Ray McGovern 27-year veteran of the CIA and was responsible for preparing & delivering PDB’s to President Reagan and President HW Bush. David Becker, DIA John Berglund, DHS Brian Boetig, FBI Michael Gelles, NCIS Michael Kremlacek U.S. Army Intelligence Robert McFadden, CounterIntelligence Field Activity (CIFA) [it’s a now-defunct OSD agency] C.A. Morgan III, Intelligence Technology Innovation Center (aka ITIC, part of CIA, unless they’re ‘officially’ ODNI now) Kenneth Rollins, Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (another DoD agency) Scott Shumate, CIFA Andre Simons, FBI John Wahlquist, National Defense Intelligence College (part of DIA) have all made statements to the ineffectiveness of torture for interogation. And the Intelligence Studies Board (ISB) review “Educing Information: Interrogation: Science and Art: Foundations for the Future” from 2006, which was co-chaired by Dr. Paulette Otis, USMC Center for Irregular Warfare and Operational Culture, concluded: “(1) pain does not elicit intelligence known to prevent greater harm; (2) the use of pain is counterproductive both in a tactical and strategic sense; (3) chemical and biological methods are unreliable; (4) research tends to indicate that ‘educing’ information without the use of harsh interrogation is more valuable.” Beyond the arguments & evidence, demonstrating the ineffectiveness of torture, the fallacy of the Hollywood ”24” scenarios, the increased risk to US uniformed service members and other US civilians abroad, torture has produced bad/faulty intel that has been passed on to US policymakers the unequivocal repudiation of use of torture by the US Army and by the USMC, and the moral and ethical arguments against torture… there’s another reason: Use of torture and Orwellian-"enhanced interrogation" has been the “greatest recruiting tool” for al Qa’eda, al Qa’eda in Iraq, and other insurgents targeting US soldiers, airmen, sailors, Marines, deployed civilians, and US nationals abroad. “… a year and a half ago, Senator Lindsey Graham and I were in Iraq. We were in the prison. The general, our U.S. general in charge of prison had us in a secluded area and met a former high-ranking member of Al Qaida, one of the toughest guys I've ever seen. I said, how did you succeed so well after the initial American victory? He said, ‘Two things’ -- he said, ‘One’ -- he said, ‘there was no control by your troops. It was total lawlessness. There was rape, looting, pillage, murder, settling of old scores. So there was lawlessness.’ ‘Second, the greatest recruiting tool we [al Qa'eda in Iraq] had -- we were able to recruit thousands of young men,’ he said, ‘was Abu Ghraib.’ “So you can't underestimate the damage that our treatment of prisoners, both at Abu Ghraib and other [facilities, has] ... harmed our national security interests.” “What I am interested in and committed to is making sure we don't do it again. We're in this long twilight struggle here, and so America's prestige and image, as we all know, was damaged by these stories of mistreatment. And we've got to make sure the world knows that that's not the United States of America that they knew and appreciated for centuries.” Supporting the troops means opposing all use of torture. All. By all. Against all. We -- America -- are better … or we claim to be. Don’t lower the standards to radical Islamists. If it’s wrong for them to do, it’s wrong for us – anything less is the perhaps the ultimate moral relativism. The information is out there. Heck, it’s been delivered directly to you .... no need for personal responsibility to find it yourself. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

In some cases, it appears yes. In some cases, no. Many of the detainees are very, very, very bad men. From a purely hard-core realist perspective (i.e., ignore normatives of morals, ethics, and "the American way"), the objections to waterboarding, 'enhanced interogation' or other euphemism for torture is that other methods have proven to be more effective. Do what works. From a purely hard-core realist perspective (i.e., ignore normatives of morals, ethics, and "the American way"), the use of waterboarding, 'enhanced interogation' or other euphemism for torture, and outright torture is ineffective, is not needed for a 'ticking time bomb' scenarios, i.e., the fallacy of the Hollywood ”24” scenarios increases the risk to US uniformed service members and other US civilians deployed abroad, has produced bad/faulty intel that has been passed on to US policymakers, serves as a recruiting tool for al Qa'eda Don't have a good answer to that one. One can only speculate. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

To Marc’s credit, he did follow up and he did send me that link yesterday via PM. His reference was to an April Fox News interview with GEN Hayden that I had already seen. Unfortunately it’s not new data. He (neither Marc nor GEN Hayden) are not really citing anything new. It’s GEN Hayden repeating what he has said before. (Think I actually referenced the interview ). No new evidence. Here’s the most concise summary available with references to primary documents and experienced operators, as far as I know, of what was the results of the 3 detainees who were waterboarded, 183 times in one case & 83 times in another. Basically, a mess of confessions to things that that would have had to warp the space time continuum to be true. OTOH, New evidence was presented yesterday, under oath, by the FBI agent, Ali Soufan, who personally investigated and supervised interrogations and investigations of international terrorists, including the East Africa bombings, the USS Cole bombing, events surrounding the attacks of 9/11, and the initial interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. Information obtain by Mr Soufan and another colleague from the FBI *using traditional interrogation methods* led directly to identification of Khalid Sheik Mohamed, other al Qa’eda operatives, other Jamaah Islamayah (JI) operatives, and actionable information that saved lives. Soufan is it. He’s been there. Done it. Got critical information out of very bad people. He's an operator. He's not a “desk-jockey” or DC-inside-the-Beltway-politician. He’s among the “Arizona Airspeed” of interrogators. For those who don’t radical Islamist terrorism or defense issues clsoely: Soufan speaks to the detention and interrogation of two specific al Qa’eda terrorists: (1) Nasser Ahmad Nasser al-Bahri, aka Abu Jandal and (2) Abu Zubaydah. His testimony starts at ~1:20 – they have to reconfigure the Senate chamber (including removing some cameras) so that he is outside camera view and behind a screen. What works: “There are many examples of successful interrogations of terrorists that have taken place before and after 9/11. Many of them are classified, but one that is already public and mirrors the other cases, is the interrogation of al Qaeda terrorist Nasser Ahmad Nasser al-Bahri, known as Abu Jandal. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, together with my partner Special Agent Robert McFadden, a first-class intelligence operative from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), (which, from my experience, is one of the classiest agencies I encountered in the intelligence community), I interrogated Abu Jandal. “Through our interrogation, which was done completely by the book (including advising him of his rights), we obtained a treasure trove of highly significant actionable intelligence. For example, Abu Jandal gave us extensive information on Osama Bin Laden's terror network, structure, leadership, membership, security details, facilities, family, communication methods, travels, training, ammunitions, and weaponry, including a breakdown of what machine guns, rifles, rocket launchers, and anti-tank missiles they used. He also provided explicit details of the 9/11 plot operatives, and identified many terrorists who we later successfully apprehended. [that’s specific and actionable intelligence, obtained quickly. It’s also an order of magnitude or two more specific than anything GEN Hayden has stated – nerdgirl] “The information was important for the preparation of the war in Afghanistan in 2001. It also provided an important background to the 9/11 Commission report; it provided a foundation for the trials so far held in Guantanamo Bay; and it also has been invaluable in helping to capture and identify top al Qaeda operatives and thus disrupt plots. “The approach used in these successful interrogations can be called the Informed Interrogation Approach. Until the introduction of the ‘enhanced’ technique, it was the sole approach used by our military, intelligence, and law enforcement community.” Countering the assertions that what some pejoratively dismiss as ‘soft’ techniques, i.e., the Army Field Manual, somehow are limiting: “The Army Field Manual is not about being nice or soft. It is a knowledge-based approach. It is about outwitting the detainee by using a combination of interpersonal, cognitive, and emotional strategies to get the information needed. If done correctly it's an approach that works quickly and effectively because it outwits the detainee using a method that he is not trained, or able, to resist.” What doesn’t work: “This Informed Interrogation Approach is in sharp contrast with the harsh interrogation approach introduced by outside contractors and forced upon CIA officials to use. “A major problem is that it is ineffective. Al Qaeda terrorists are trained to resist torture. As shocking as these techniques are to us, the al Qaeda training prepares them for much worse – the torture they would expect to receive if caught by dictatorships for example. “This is why, as we see from the recently released Department of Justice memos on interrogation, the contractors had to keep getting authorization to use harsher and harsher methods, until they reached waterboarding and then there was nothing they could do but use that technique again and again. Abu Zubaydah had to be waterboarded 83 times and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 183 times. “In addition the harsh techniques only serves to reinforce what the detainee has been prepared to expect if captured. This gives him a greater sense of control and predictability about his experience, and strengthens his will to resist. “A second major problem with this technique is that evidence gained from it is unreliable. There is no way to know whether the detainee is being truthful, or just speaking to either mitigate his discomfort or to deliberately provide false information. As the interrogator isn't an expert on the detainee or the subject matter, nor has he spent time going over the details of the case, the interrogator cannot easily know if the detainee is telling the truth. This unfortunately has happened and we have had problems ranging from agents chasing false leads to the disastrous case of Ibn Sheikh al-Libby who gave false information on Iraq, al Qaeda, and WMD. [i.e., it’s failed before.] “A third major problem with this technique is that it is slow. It takes place over a long period of time, for example preventing the detainee from sleeping for 180 hours as the memos detail, or waterboarding 183 times in the case of KSM. When we have an alleged "ticking timebomb" scenario and need to get information quickly, we can't afford to wait that long. “A fourth problem with this technique is that ignores the end game. In our country we have due process, which requires evidence to be collected in a certain way. The CIA, because of the sensitivity of its operations, by necessity, operates secretly. These two factors mean that by putting the CIA in charge of interrogations, either secrecy is sacrificed for justice and the CIA's operations are hampered, or justice is not served. Neither is a desirable outcome. [Anyone who has been following my postings can see the same arguments made by other operators and myself. More on why “enhanced interrogation” doesn’t work and is counter-productive: ”In addition, the FBI and the CIA officers on the ground during the Abu Zubaydah interrogation were working together closely and effectively, until the contractors' interferences. Because we in the FBI would not be a part of the harsh techniques, the agents who knew the most about the terrorists could have no part in the investigation. An FBI colleague of mine, for example, who had tracked KSM and knew more about him than anyone in the government, was not allowed to speak to him. “It is also important to realize that those behind this technique [waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogationmethods’] are outside contractors with no expertise in intelligence operations, investigations, terrorism, or al Qaeda. Nor did the contractors have any experience in the art of interview and interrogation. Mr. Soulan continued to describe, in some detail, how much information was obtained from Abu Zubaydah initially using traditional interrogation methods: “gave us important actionable intelligence.” And then, once what he calls CIA contractors arrived, there was no useful, actionable intelligence produced. --- -- -- -- --- To be explicit: it’s not about the prisoners/detainess. That’s a red herring that some (not all) folks seem to argue against. It’s about doing what is most effective for US interests. Taken in consideration with the other 3 arguments (reciprocity on US service members, impedance of US foreign policy and national defense goals, and morals/ethics), there is no strategic, operational, or tactical advantage to employing waterboarding or “enhanced interrogation” as a euphemism for torture as part of investigatory process. Quite to the contrary, one may argue that such a policy has (strongly) negative strategic, operational, and tactical repercussions. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

What are the boundary limits of that? /Marg Well, I've got a bunch of people on here believing you have a Cray / dedicated T3 data line... ... ... Yeah, it's just part of my mystique as (now-occasional) “the red-haired hottie of Corridor 3” ... -[at myself] Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Would it matter if a system of fines based on income was shown to be more effective in reducing incidence of drunk driving? I.e., should the outcome be the principal driver? (I honestly don't know off the top of my head if there is or isn't positive causality of adjustable fines or not.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

What are the boundary limits of that? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

No, and I understand the difference between the two. Understand the difference between live agent training and offensive use of CW? Or the difference between training to resist torture as done in the US military and the use of waterboarding as torture for interrogation? Now, I'm confused ... what's the data point? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

We could. For some reason though, people seem opposed to calling that "terrorism"... Really? Seriously? I've never heard that. I'm not doubting your observation ... it's just so foreign an observation to me. Because the actions of Klebold & Harris are seen as motivated by personal grudge rather than political, ideological, or religious means. While there is still discussion on the specific definitions, the ones I use are based on the DoD’s (JP 1-02): “terrorism -- The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. “terrorist -- An individual who commits an act or acts of violence or threatens violence in pursuit of political, religious, or ideological objectives. “terrorist group -- Any number of terrorists who assemble together, have a unifying relationship, or are organized for the purpose of committing an act or acts of violence or threatens violence in pursuit of their political, religious, or ideological objectives.” Preferable, imo, because (1) includes “threatened use” – terrorism is psychological – to force/cause change through non-traditional/asymmetric/unconventional means therefore threats, hoaxes, etc can be terrorizing to a populace. (2) includes reference to political, religious, or ideological objectives as motivation. (3) “unlawful” violence, whether one agrees or not, armed conflict between/among uniformed military can be lawful (lawful does not mean that it’s pleasant, easy, or anything less than a horrible, grave undertaking). While the majority of terrorist acts are committed by non-uniformed individuals (non-state actors), this definition does not, however, completely exclude the possibility that states & uniformed military can act as terrorists if they commit “unlawful violence.” (4) excludes criminal acts lacking ideological, religious, or potical motivation. One piece that the DoD definition is missing is acts of unlawful violence for political, religious or ideological motivations that are against property. The FBI definition includes acts against property, which is more a factor w/r/t environmental terrorists (e.g., ELF) than al Qa’eda. There are other definitions used by other agencies, in the PATRIOT ACT, and in the CFR. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Do you consider those members of the US military and NATO allies (& a few 'special' civilians) who have been trained in live chemical and biological warfare agent environments to be victims of chemical weapons attacks? The US military does live chemical warfare agent training at Ft Leonard Wood; does that mean that we should use chemical warfare agents (nerve agents, blister agents) offensively? Soldiers, sailors, airman, and Marines are trained in live agent environments to execute defensive countermeasures and to operate in a contaminated environment. It's not training to use CW or BW. I doubt any of them would compare themselves to victims of Halabja either. The use of waterboarding in SERE training was based on torture methods used by the North Korean Communist (& others) against US service members to elicit false confessions. The US military uses waterboarding as part of SERE training to resist torture, i.e., tacitly acknowledging it is *torture.* It's training to resist torture. It was not intended as an instructional manual for interrogation. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

This morning, NPR’s Morning Edition featured a story on Norway’s fines for drunk driving: “Norway's Drunken Driving Fines Based On Income.” When police stopped a 49-year-old businessman, they discovered his blood alcohol level to be well over Norway's legal limit. Citing the man's personal wealth of more than $30 million, a court ordered him to pay $109,000 as a drunken-driving penalty — almost his entire annual income. In Norway, fines are based on income and personal wealth. Norway has extremely strong laws against drunk driving. Anything over 0.02 blood alcohol level is illegal to operate a motor vehicle. In addition to the low BAL level, fines are high and consequences have impact, i.e., can lose driver’s license. Even for the first time offenses. Norway also has lower drunk driving rates. Do you think fines that progressively increase based on your income are more fair or less fair? Btw: some countries reportedly include death penalties for drunk driving, so it could be worse. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for writing about HeLa cells. I'm not sure if the value of HeLa cells can be underestimated (especially in comparison to how little they were initally valued). I think that's a really fascinating question. Until we had technology. it was comparatively easy -- screaming, crying being = human. How much DNA and what does that DNA need to be doing in order to qualify as "human"? As you point out, those cells are reproducing. They're immortal. That's sort of a question of what are the minimal requirements to be called human, because I would not consider HeLa cells "human." Otoh, if we start changing human DNA or augmenting our capabilities, by whatever means. And I'm mostly thinking brain-computer-interface & augmented prosthetics here, altho' one can imagine other technological means of varying technical robustness. How far to we go til we are no longer being "human"? Where does one become trans-human? aaah ... such things need powerpoint briefs and beer to truly be appreciated -- the former for pictures and the latter, for the heck of it. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying