Text 11267, 113 rader
Skriven 2009-05-19 05:37:04 av Bob Ackley (1:300/3)
  Kommentar till text 11252 av JOHN FITZGERALD (1:123/140)
Ärende: (1/2) Re-examining PR Ploys
===================================
Replying to a message of JOHN FITZGERALD to BOB ACKLEY:

 DD>>   A couple months ago we had a fairly spirited discussion on 
 DD>>   interrogation techniques after I posted an article by 
 DD>>   actual people from the field who did not think that 
 DD>>   torture to get information works well. 

 JF>>   You mean that public relations piece where they claim none of the  
 JF>> gov's techniques have been "scientifically tested" but in the same  
 JF>> breath they turn around and claim what does work?  

 DC>>>  Torture has long been discredited as a reliable 
 DC>>>  interrogation technique.

 JF>>   Nope, only claims have been made by a few hand picked people.

 BA>>   The 'few handpicked people' are the ones *supporting* 
 BA>>   torture as a legitimate interrogation tactic.  

 JF>    Baloney.  It wasn't until Obama took office that a few select
 JF> individuals 'came forward' to provide propaganda to make Bush and co
 JF> the scapegoat in an obvious PR ploy to support Obama and placate
 JF> terrorists lying in wait here and elsewhere.

Actually a whole lot of individuals objected to the 'enhanced interrogation'
tactics from the gitgo.  Some officers 'got religion' after they retired
because
their pensions and benefits were safe - and they were no longer subject to
military discipline for saying anything.  Rumsfeld did not tolerate any
dissension
in those under him, especially any *public* dissension; to do so was not
'career
enhancing,' particularly if one was in uniform (remember, Rumsfeld fired
General
Shinseki because he testified to Congress that the conquest of Iraq would take
about
300,000 troops and that half that number could not do the job properly).  Now
that a
new administration is in office people apparently don't feel as 'constrained'
as they
did under Rumsfeld and Cheney.

When the photos of Abu Ghraib became public Rumsfeld wasn't mad because
the events depicted happened, he was mad because the pictures got out.  "How
do we keep secrets when everybody over there has a digital camera" is almost
a direct quote of what he said.

 BA>>   Experienced, professional interrogators don't 
 BA>>   support the practice.

 JF>      Oh I see.   All those who 'chat' with prisoners are
 JF> experienced... those who use harsher methods are not experienced.  
 JF> Bullshit, Bob. If a simple chat or interview produced the positive
 JF> results PR people claim, they wouldn't have to resort to harsher
 JF> methods.   Wake up.

I'm wide awake, John.  Experienced interrogators, both military and FBI,
objected
to this administration's handling of its victims from the gitgo.  The demands
for
'enhanced interrogation' did not come from the people doing the interrogations,
they
came down from Cheney's office.  In point of fact once the torturing began the
FBI
*removed* its investigators from the process, as did the US Navy, both on
advice of
their legal teams.  In point of fact, *all* of the military JAGs opposed the
administration's 'enhanced interrogation' tactics on both legal and
Constitutional grounds and *all* of the
military JAGs were intentionally kept 'out of the loop' WRT to the legalities
of those
tactics.

 BA>>   In point of fact the *logs* of the torture interrogation of
 BA>>  'Detainee 063' at Guantanamo reveal that he didn't give 
 BA>>   them much of anything...

 JF>     Last I heard, this sort of thing was classified.  Where are you
 JF> getting your information from?

"Torture Team", by Philippe Sands, 2008.  According to the book the logs of
that detainee's interrogations were published on the Internet and parts of them
are included in the book.

 DC>>   You are either going to get false answers or, at best,
 DC>>   the false answers that you want.

 JF>>   They say a person will tell you what you want to hear 
 JF>>   under torture,  so if that person knows the truth, they 
 JF>>   will tell you, because that is what you want to hear.
 JF>>   Easy math, Dan.

 BA>>   That person may or may not know the truth...

 JF>    And in the event they don't know no method will produce it,
 JF> including you 'chat' approach to interrogation.

Which isn't going to stop anybody from beating the stuffing out of the
victim, is it?

 BA>>    ...and in any case that person is going to tell the 
 BA>>   sadistic psychopath...

 JF>    You're reverting to prejudice and name calling and have no idea
 JF> what sort of people you are referring to.   Of course, at this point
 JF> that's your only option.  If you can't argue your points, throw mud
 JF> at our guys.  Thanks, Bob.

Someone who inflicts pain on another is a sadist and someone who enjoys
doing that is a psychopath.  It seems readily apparent that at least some if

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
 * Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)