OBL(UBL) Killed

[spence]

You guys are funny...and really missing the point.

The issue isn't if we ever got anything of value from EITs.

The issue is if getting Bin Laden proves that water boarding "works"...that was the entire point of the discussion. To "work" means that you get the intel that you wouldn't have gotten using less abusive means.

While there are certainly some who advocate torture, the expert opinions seems to be weighted the other way, that coercive and abusive methods are unreliable. If you'd like I can post dozens and dozens of quotes that reinforce this position.

Here's just one set of expert opinions from a few days ago...

Torture Did Not Lead the U.S. to bin Laden, It Almost Certainly Prolonged the Hunt


We are concerned about the suggestion by some that the use of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques led U.S. forces to Osama bin Laden's compound.

The use of waterboarding and other so-called "enhanced" interrogation techniques almost certainly prolonged the hunt for Bin Laden and complicated the jobs of professional U.S. interrogators who were trying to develop useful information from unwilling sources like Khalid Sheik Muhammed.

Reports say that Khalid Sheik Muhammed and Abu Faraq al-Libi did not divulge the nom de guerre of a courier during torture, but rather several months later, when they were questioned by interrogators who did not use abusive techniques.

This is not surprising. Our experience is that torture is a poor way to develop useful, accurate information.

We know from experience that it is very difficult to elicit information from a detainee who has been abused. The abuse often only strengthens their resolve and makes it that much harder for an interrogator to find a way to elicit useful information.

We believe that the U.S. would have learned more from Khalid Sheik Muhammed and other high value detainees if, from the beginning, professional interrogators had a chance to question them using the sophisticated, yet humane, approaches approved by U.S. law.

We are convinced that the record shows that abusive questioning techniques did not help, but only hindered, the United States' efforts to find bin Laden.

Bios

Matthew Alexander

Matthew Alexander (a pseudonym) has spent more than 18 years in the U.S. Air Force and Air Force Reserves. He personally conducted more than 300 interrogations in Iraq and supervised more than a thousand. Alexander was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for his achievements in Iraq, including leading the team of interrogators that located Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who was subsequently killed in an airstrike. Alexander has conducted missions in over 30 countries, has two advanced degrees, and speaks three languages. 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) and Kill or Capture: How a Special Operations Task Force Took Down a Notorious al Qaeda Terrorist (St. Martin's Press, 2011).

Colonel (Ret.) Stuart A. Herrington, U.S. Army

Stu Herrington served 30 years as an Army intelligence officer, specializing in human intelligence/counterintelligence. He has extensive interrogation experience from service in Vietnam, Panama, and Operation Desert Storm. He has traveled to Guantanamo and Iraq at the behest of the Army to evaluate detainee exploitation operations, and he taught a seminar on humane interrogation practices to the Army's 201st MI Battalion--Interrogation, during its activation at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.

Joe Navarro

For 25 years, Joe Navarro worked as an FBI special agent in the area of counterintelligence and behavioral assessment. A founding member of the National Security Division's Behavioral Analysis Program, he is on the adjunct faculty at Florida's Saint Leo University and the University of Tampa and remains a consultant to the intelligence community. Mr. Navarro is the author of a number of books about interviewing techniques and practice including Advanced Interviewing, which he co-wrote with Jack Schafer, and Hunting Terrorists: A Look at the Psychopathology of Terror. He currently teaches the Advanced Terrorism Interview course at the FBI.

Ken Robinson

Ken Robinson served a 20-year career in a variety of tactical, operational, and strategic assignments including Ranger, Special Forces, and clandestine special operations units. His experience includes service with the National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency. Ken has extensive experience in CIA and Israeli interrogation methods and is a member of the U.S. Military Intelligence Hall of Fame.

To put it quite simply...to assert that water boarding "works" based on this example, where intel gained by EIT's seems to have played such a small role in an operation spanning many years is simply misleading. To do so without a serious analysis of methods to determine the likeliness of similar lintel being gained via conventional means makes it quite disingenuous.

The idea that water boarding is only to break someone to get information later is laughable...I'm sure a multitude of techniques are being used simultaneously. If you can't measure, you have no idea if the methods are successful. Again, the experts seem to run counter to conventional tough guy wisdom.

As I said before, this seems to once again be more of a political issue than a professional or scientific one.

-spence

[Sea Dangles]

Spence, sometimes it is better to remain silent and let them call you a fool. Unfortunately, you keep getting sucked in to prove them right.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Spence, sometimes it is better to remain silent and let them call you a fool. Unfortunately, you keep getting sucked in to prove them right.

The classic non post. Perhaps just a trite ad hominem attack...

You should deconstruct my line of reasoning which has been made very clear in this thread. That would impress me. So far the usual suspects don't seem to be getting it...as usual.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You guys are funny...and really missing the point.

The issue isn't if we ever got anything of value from EITs.

The issue is if getting Bin Laden proves that water boarding "works"...that was the entire point of the discussion. To "work" means that you get the intel that you wouldn't have gotten using less abusive means.

While there are certainly some who advocate torture, the expert opinions seems to be weighted the other way, that coercive and abusive methods are unreliable. If you'd like I can post dozens and dozens of quotes that reinforce this position.

Here's just one set of expert opinions from a few days ago...



To put it quite simply...to assert that water boarding "works" based on this example, where intel gained by EIT's seems to have played such a small role in an operation spanning many years is simply misleading. To do so without a serious analysis of methods to determine the likeliness of similar lintel being gained via conventional means makes it quite disingenuous.

The idea that water boarding is only to break someone to get information later is laughable...I'm sure a multitude of techniques are being used simultaneously. If you can't measure, you have no idea if the methods are successful. Again, the experts seem to run counter to conventional tough guy wisdom.

As I said before, this seems to once again be more of a political issue than a professional or scientific one.

-spence

"To "work" means that you get the intel that you wouldn't have gotten using less abusive means. "

No, it doesn't. "Work" means that it provided something useful. No one can possibly know what would have happened if we did things differently. What we do know is, in this case, waterboarding gave us actionable intelligence that we didn't get from any other sources. We know that for a fact. Spence, you have descended into the darkness where the "birthers" live, you are simply unable to process irrefutable facts that do not serve your agenda.

Spence, at least once a week, I threathen my kids with severe punishment to get them to behave. Guess what? It works. Sometimes dangling the carrot gets you what you want, sometimes you have to swing the stick. A 5 year-old grasps this concept, but not you or your liberal ilk.

"The idea that water boarding is only to break someone to get information later is laughable"

Maybe it's laughable to you, but it's still fact. Hard, irrefutable fact. KSM started singing like a canary after he was broken. They didn't need to continue waterboarding him after he was "broken"...

"the experts seem to run counter to conventional tough guy wisdom."

WRONG. Not "the" experts, just the ones you choose to listen to. Is Leon Panetta (Obama's CIA chief) not an expert? He says waterboarding gave us actionable intelligence that helped kill Bin Laden.

Sometimes you need tough guys Spence. How would you have pushed the Nazis out of western Europe in 1944? Would you have stormed the beaches at Normandy with a sign that said "Visualize Peace"?

Being strong of will does not mean one lacks reason...

"As I said before, this seems to once again be more of a political issue than a professional or scientific one."

Of course it's a political issue! Because only a brainwashed, unthinking, liberal, Kool Aid-drinking zealot could possibly suggest that torture could NEVER get a terrorist to reveal something that could save lives.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You guys are funny...and really missing the point.

To "work" means that you get the intel that you wouldn't have gotten using less abusive means.


-spence

I cannot get past the utter absurdity of this statement. So if something does what you hoped it would do, you can't say it "worked" unless you can prove that the result could not have been achieved any other way??

Spence, using your logic (or lack thereof)...there was a house fire in my neighborhood last year. The fire department came and put out the fire. USING YOUR LOGIC, I cannot say that calling the fire department "worked", because it might have started raining and that might have put out the fire anyway...There's no way to prove that calling the fire department was the only conceivable way to put out the fire, so Spence would not say that calling the F.D. "worked".

Is that about right, Spence? Do I have that right? You sticking by that?

No one can say for sure what would have happened if things unfolded differently. But I do know 2 things in the "here and now"...the fire department put out that fire, and enhanced interrogation (according to the current and two previous CIA chiefs) produced actionable intelligence. Spence, I am sorry if that fact spits in the face of one of the more asinine platforms of the liberal agenda...but it's still a fact.

How do we ever come together as a nation...we have crazy conservatives who still insist Obama wasn't born here, and we have liberals still saying that waterboarding never works...what do you say to people who won't concede irrefutable facts?