Detainee's Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots

[Facial_King]

That's the Washington Post's headline.

What I'd like to know is why a newspaper that is supposedly so liberally-biased would use the same lingual framing of the whole subject that is used by most of the old Bush partisans - He's a "detainee" (not a prisoner) and he experienced "harsh treatment" (not torture). F***, I've experienced "harsh treatment" before - most everyone has - but never torture.

Anyway, apparently with this guy it didn't help us at all.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html

Excerpt:
"When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.

The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

Moreover, within weeks of his capture, U.S. officials had gained evidence that made clear they had misjudged Abu Zubaida. President George W. Bush had publicly described him as "al-Qaeda's chief of operations," and other top officials called him a "trusted associate" of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and a major figure in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed."

 

[Friday on my mind]

That's the Washington Post's headline.

What I'd like to know is why a newspaper that is supposedly so liberally-biased would use the same lingual framing of the whole subject that is used by most of the old Bush partisans - He's a "detainee" (not a prisoner) and he experienced "harsh treatment" (not torture). F***, I've experienced "harsh treatment" before - most everyone has - but never torture.

Anyway, apparently with this guy it didn't help us at all.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html

Excerpt:
"When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.

The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

Moreover, within weeks of his capture, U.S. officials had gained evidence that made clear they had misjudged Abu Zubaida. President George W. Bush had publicly described him as "al-Qaeda's chief of operations," and other top officials called him a "trusted associate" of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and a major figure in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed."

This is not your fathers Washington Post lol of the days of exposing watergate etc,they moved to the right although they never were very leftist anyway just did their jobs as journalists back in watergate days.As to the leads obtained by torture being almost worthless this is what most of the professionals in the field of interrogation have said all along.That those methods only get people to say whatever it is they think their interrogators want to hear to make the torture stop and more times then not is not reliable info.

 

[Facial_King]

...yet the right-wingers never cease to keep hammering the Washington Post and other media like it as quasi-Communist (idiot Glenn Beck probably thinks that Kruschev is still alive and running it secretly from the Soviet Union!)...

 

[Boothbabe]

those methods only get people to say whatever it is they think their interrogators want to hear to make the torture stop

And that's exactly what some people in the US government still don't understand. Mabe they just like inflicting pain on others and use national security or whatever as an excuse to fullfill their sick fantasies.

 

[BlueBalls]

And that's exactly what some people in the US government still don't understand. Mabe they just like inflicting pain on others and use national security or whatever as an excuse to fullfill their sick fantasies.

I'm increasingly coming to that same conclusion, everyone knows that torture does not get you results. All that happens is the "detainee" says whatever you want them to say just to make it stop. Even they know that and if they dont they're bigger idiots than I thought.

 

[Philbert]

Now, now children...this is obviously a subject not in your purview to understand.
Actually, Khalid, the 911 mastermind, was directly captured from info obtained from someone who went through the waterboard experience, and Walid was actively planning attacks when he was caught.
Now, think about it...
Say you were going to be seriously interrogated; you know these people are serious about getting their info, and wouldn't think twice about killing you. This is what you are led to believe...
After being put through the usual routines over days and weeks, you give up some facts to end the strain and fear.
So...these are people who know what is going on, and have a lot of experience. You may decide to give false info, but if you know that the intel you give to their questions will be verified, in many ways, and more bad times will follow unless they are satisfied you are giving true info, what would you do? I would not give false info if I wanted the shit to be over, and I would be terrified you wouldn't believe me.
That is how it works, and those who mislead are not treated well. Some things go south, but some key info on structure is obtained.
I don't have an opinion on these procedures, I have no real experience. But I do know that I wouldn't underestimate those who take this part of intel seriously, they are good at what they do.
It's a shitstorm out there, the enemy is dedicated to our complete destruction with no limits; close enough is good enough for them. Killing your Mom and sisters/brothers are just as good as killing you, and the more civilians killed in a bombing the more the enemy (us) loses heart for the fight.
So those trying to get at the heart of the enemy's infrastructure aren't first timers, and have many other military's experiences to draw upon, as well as generations of first hand intel gathering. And they know how serious a failure can be.
They aren't gonna take any info obtained as gospel, so the old saw of false info doesn't really exist.
And they make sure the interrogatee knows it.

 

[CunningStunts]

Fuck the detainees. There's a reason they were picked up. The only mistake the US made was bringing them to Gitmo. They should have let the Saudis, Egyptians or Israelis torture them over there and buried them in the desert when they were finished.

 

[Philbert]

Captured battlefield detainees are one thing...but along with obvious insurgents and outright terrorists there are "captured" cell members from info and locals who turn in said perps...and there are always those who pissed off Achmad and he gets even by falsely accusing Mohammed Abdul of active terrorism...when it may not be true. Those are mostly the "innocent" detainees, very few to be sure, but most "innocent" detainees are usually non-verifiable combatants who aren't found to be direct cell members...and often turn up active in terrorism down the road in Yemen or Iraq. No one just gets bent outa shape in Gitmo and suddenly gets given a command of significant size in AlQ'ada , as some have suggested; but some get through the net.
I like the thought, leave no enemy alive to fight another day, but it isn't possible given the Western proclivity to laws and rules.
We do go overboard, since the military is still not autonomous but is overseen by the civilian branch of our government. I hope we can deal with an enemy who has no restrictions, without losing some of the moral high ground we have. More SEALS, Rangers, SAS, etc; less Army and Marine troops in harms way would work.

 

[D-rock]

I hope we can deal with an enemy who has no restrictions, without losing some of the moral high ground we have.

Oh, don't worry. Over the last eight years we have lost pretty much all of the moral high ground are country has ever built up over the last 233 years and most of it's goodwill while we were at it, and all it took was the worst administration our country has ever seen, too many people that let themselves be ruled by fear, and throwing our most highly held beliefs in the trash to do it. Of course all those soldiers that might lose their lives will be happy to know they are now fighting for one of the biggest hypocrites among the world's counties instead of the champion of human liberties and freedoms and the one that ushered those beliefs into the modern age. There isn't too much more to loose.

 

[ChefChiTown]

I'm increasingly coming to that same conclusion, everyone knows that torture does not get you results. All that happens is the "detainee" says whatever you want them to say just to make it stop. Even they know that and if they dont they're bigger idiots than I thought.

Torture gets results.

You just don't hear about it because the resuts that are gotten are usually a huge matter of national security and need to be kept top secret. They're not going to publicly advertise top secret information by plastering it on the front page of the NY Times, you know?

My dad works for The Department Of Homeland Security. He has access to classified information in which he is forbidden to share with anybody. He knows things that you and I (as regular Joes) can not. With that being said, my father doesn't have top secret clearance. He knows things that you and I can't, but he still doesn't know everything.

Believe what you may about the CIA and every other department that is involved with international affairs, but they know a lot more than you can even imagine and they do a lot more than you can even imagine. Just because their success isn't made public, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

 

[Philbert]

Oh, don't worry. Over the last eight years we have lost pretty much all of the moral high ground are country has ever built up over the last 233 years and most of it's goodwill while we were at it, and all it took was the worst administration our country has ever seen, too many people that let themselves be ruled by fear, and throwing our most highly held beliefs in the trash to do it. Of course all those soldiers that might lose their lives will be happy to know they are now fighting for one of the biggest hypocrites among the world's counties instead of the champion of human liberties and freedoms and the one that ushered those beliefs into the modern age. There isn't too much more to loose.

That's just silly...we don't trash entire city blocks like Russia in Chechnya, or like AlQ'ada did at the Twin Towers. We try to hit specific targets at great economic cost, and provide aid while fighting the same people we give aid to.
Bush was not your favorite, but he wasn't nearly as bad or guilty of nearly as much as you and others claim over and over.
By and large, soldiers know who and what they are fighting for, and have little problem with being in the military.
Carter was by far a worse Prez and the country had a much worse economic time under the peanut farmer...but you have tunnel vision when it comes to Democrats fucking up.
Teddy Roosevelt kicked a lot of butt as Prez, and other Presidents have acted harshly in purely American interests. How did we loose all that "goodwill" ? No one really cares...
People don't love the govt, they love the country and find every excuse to come here, and try to stay as long as possible. No one has ever said no thanks to the billions the American people and the American govt give to others in aid every year since God knows when...a long time, for sure. Who came to the aid of the Muslim population in Bosnia? Not Iran, or Saudi, or any Islamic country...it was the US and allies that saved millions of Muslims from genocide...and we do that kinda thing 'cause that's who we are.
The fact that there is even a debate over what is allowed in interrogation is such loud and obvious proof of how moral our actions are overall, that you have to really ignore the truth and stretch reality, to fit this contrived scorn only a free and pampered, naive American or European could express and get away with.
Ya know what...if they can't deal with us, fuck'em...the world needs us more than we need the rest of the world. The US and it's hard-by allies can deal with any other country's hissy fit ; and the only reason the other countries that hate us so vocally don't get on our case in a meaningful way is 'cause they don't have much they can really do.
If the US and friends cut a country loose completely they stagnate and end up like Cuba.
Cuba is the ADD poster child of stagnant society, and N Korea is coming fast behind Cuba.

 

[Namreg]

the world needs us more than we need the rest of the world

the entire rest of the world begs to differ. we'd be fine without you.

 

[Philbert]

the entire rest of the world begs to differ. we'd be fine without you.

Easy for you to say, you're no one. And probably a bit touched, judging from most of your posts.
But...go ahead.
Start a movement to refuse American aid, and accept no further American military support (like NATO in Germany), then get all the African nations to refuse American aid, and then get the Russians to provide all the fuel and markets for Germany and the rest of the Euro gang. Ya'll did so well with Russia in the past, that would be great to see.
:rofl:

Although Europe is in the group I was referring to as "allies", I'm sure you want to become the spokesman for Saudi, Yemen, Nigeria, Taiwan, China, Venezuala, Brazil, South Africa, and all the rest of the non Euro non- and allies we do for.
I'm sure they look up to you, a legend in your own mind.:rofl2:


We'll keep Australia...

 

[Namreg]

you make no sense, as usual.

 

[Philbert]

you make no sense, as usual.

I see your point. How can I deal with such deep insight and clarity, to wit:

the entire rest of the world begs to differ. we'd be fine without you.

The only thing you left out is a raspberry and "naaa na na naaaaaaa na!"
What a clown...!:yahoo:

 

[Namreg]

it must be difficult, living in denial and then being faced with the reality that there are others out there, whose opinions differ from your own. some of us can accept that, some of us get frustrated to the point where they must resort to personal insults because they run out of valid arguments immediately.

i would pity them if i cared. that's a big if, though.

 

[Wainkerr99]

China is pumping billions of, well, dollars of aid into Africa, even the U.S. (Cough splutter).

The problem is, does it come with a price? I mean, well you know what I mean.

On topic:

It frightens me to think that people go home every night to hearth and home knowing they have tortured someone. Whom do you torture? Who do you not?

One has to draw a line. Who draws the line? Is it the American public? Is it the Chief of Operations CIA? The CIA man?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqX52K9fosU

Violence breeds violence. If the 'detainees' are not going to volunteer info, who is to say the CIA cannot get that intel anyway?

Why the torture? I really don't think it is to draw 'plots' out of their captives by now. By now they seem to have lost the plot themselves.

 

[ChefChiTown]

it must be difficult, living in denial and then being faced with the reality that there are others out there, whose opinions differ from your own. some of us can accept that, some of us get frustrated to the point where they must resort to personal insults because they run out of valid arguments immediately.

i would pity them if i cared. that's a big if, though.

What valid argument have you made? At least he made arguments for his side of the story.

The United States, even though it butts into other people's business a lot, has helped impact the world (in a positive way) probably more than any other country. We hand out BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars to countries who need help. We feed and provide medicine and medical care for a countless number of people all over the world. We also provide military support more than any other country does. No other country can compare to that.

You'd be fine without us? YOU might be, but millions upon millions upon millions upon millions of other people wouldn't be.