Text 11296, 127 rader
Skriven 2009-05-21 08:26:00 av Dave Drum (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av John Fitzgerald
Ärende: Re-examining Torture ...
================================
-=> JOHN FITZGERALD wrote to DAVE DRUM <=-

 DD>   You claim it's "public relations".

 JF>    Yes, here are some excerpts from that PR piece that make it sort of
 JF> obvious.

 JF>     "The ban on torture is a major step toward reclaiming
 JF>     our heritage as a nation of laws and a people of character."
 JF>     ...
 JF>     "The president's new panel has a fresh opportunity to solve
 JF>     these problems. The group should include experienced interrogators
 JF>     and policymakers who recognize the need to examine longstanding
 JF>     interrogation methods objectively."

And you have what sort of a problem with that??? Sounds reasonable to me.

Oh, wait. You don't believe in being reasonable, do you?

 DD>  In fact it was a well-reasoned article containing observations
 DD>  by people who have actually "been there and done that".
 DD>  Which you have not.

 JF>   Nor have you.  You left that part out.  Why did you do that, Dave?

Never said I had. I left the "what to do" parts to people who have actually
"been there and done that". A practice you could do well to emulate.

 DD>   I submit that you do not know what the hell
 DD>   you are talking about.

 JF>   This begs the question...why would they continue to use
 JF>   waterboarding, etc, all of these years if it didn't work??
 JF>   I mean, if all they have to do is sit down and be 'clever'
 JF>   with these prisoners  WHY would they abandon that approach
 JF>   for something that they claim doesn't work?

 DD>   Apparently you did not read the testimony of
 DD>   Ali Soufan, one of the FBI's lead interrogators.

 JF>   Quote the part of his testimony that explains why they would abandon
 JF> what works for something that doesn't.  Again, if a chat with a
 JF> prisoner yields the results you claim, why would they resort to harsher
 JF> methods?

 JF>       'Hey guys... we decided to abandon our successful methods
 JF>       so we can employ those that don't work.  After all, we have
 JF>       a bunch of "sadistic bastards" who need something to do, and
 JF>       to hell with getting good info."

 JF>   Wake up someday.

Oh, I'm wide awake - which means you don't get to just make some wild-ass
claims about torturing people without getting called to task on it. 
 
Do you mean the part where the FBI pulled their interrogators because the CIA
contractors were already into "borderline torture" and sliding further toward
the other side of that border.

 DD>   Ex-FBI Interrogator Calls Harsh Tactics 'Ineffective'
 DD>   by Scott Neuman
 DD>   NPR.org, May 13, 2009 · A former senior FBI agent involved
 DD>   in the interrogation of captured al-Qaida operative Abu Zubaydah
 DD>   told a Senate panel Wednesday that the use of harsh techniques
 DD>   to extract information was "slow, ineffective and unreliable."

 JF>   One man's (bought and paid for?) opinion against many
 JF>   others who have claimed otherwise.  Notice he didn't
 JF>   say it never works.  Notice also, he offers no alternative
 JF>   which provides better results.

Bought and paid for as a top FBI investigator - is that what you mean? And,
yes, he did offer an alternative - standard interrogation techniques - which,
while not perfect certainly seem to work better than the coercive shit that the
CIA contractors used.
 
 DD>   So, you think that an FBI agent's testimony was bought
 DD>   and paid for, do you?  What planet was that you
 DD>   come from, again?

 JF>   Gotta wonder what planet you come from if you don't think government
 JF> agencies around the world don't put a lot of effort into placating the
 JF> masses so they can avoid criticism.

 JF> The man testified, under oath, to the Senate committee that the FBI was
 JF> getting good, useful, actionable intelligence from Abu Zubaydah using
 JF> standard interrogation techniques.

 JF>     No one said harsh interrogation methods always work.  No one said
 JF> 'friendly' methods never work.  I just have reservation about the
 JF> people who work in earnest to place these sorts of limits on the
 JF> options are people are allowed to use.  It must make our enemies very
 JF> comfortable knowing that if one of their people is captured, they have
 JF> nothing to worry about because we won't even take their blanket away.
 JF> In fact, you can bet that all of our enemies have been informed on our
 JF> milk-toast approach to interrogation.

 DD>   When CIA contractors took over the interrogation
 DD>   using harsh coercive (waterboarding, etc) techniques
 DD>   Zubaydah clammed up.

 JF>    Again, you are saying they abandoned a successful interrogation to
 JF> employ something that doesn't work.  That alone should tell you they're
 JF> just jerking you around by your partisan puppet strings.

No, I am telling you that the FBI abandoned the interrogation that was working
when the other parties in the interrogation began their illegal activities.

 DD>  Crawl back under your rock, dude.

 JF>     Sure, Dave.  Just as soon as you stick your head back where it
 JF> belongs.

I'm not the one here who needs a pane of glass installed in his navel to see
where he's going.


ENJOY!!!

From Uncle Dirty Dave's Kitchen
Home of YAHOOOOAHHHH Hot Sauce & Hardin Cider 

 

... A basic disconnect with reality which typifies the extreme right wing! DD
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)