Woo! Way to go soldiers! I hope we get valuable intelligence out of this bugger, so we can stop more of his ilk.

But let's make sure we tell this guy exactly how we caught him, and who gave us information, so his henchmen can make sure our informants are captured, probably tortured, and certainly killed in thanks for their trouble.

Because that is exactly what treating this coward as an American criminal will do.

Would that have a negative impact on our ability to get information from other sources? Do ya think? After all, every law enforcement agency in the world knows that informants just love to be revealed as such, with names and addresses made public.

But the goal is not to find these people before they kill, and stop them from killing, and destroy their cells, and make the world a safer place, is it? Of course not.

The goal is to grandstand in front of the world and a bunch of naive feel-gooders and a passel of radical Libs whose only purpose is to gain power. It is to get elected, and let the chips fall where they may. Or bodies, as the case may be.

And when the next big plot goes undiscovered till it's way too late, they can take the higher moral ground and say "At least we didn't make anyone UNCOMFORTABLE!!"

Let's also make sure that what he tells us is the truth.
That's the trouble with "questioning" - questioners don't usually stop questioning until they get the answers they want, no matter what the truth is.
If he said "I don't know who else is involved in my organization.", would you stop, or would you continue questioning? Keep in mind that the "cell" system, designed so that captured agents cannot give away too much information, has been in use for decades.

Getting someone to talk has limited usefulness in the War on Terror, I'm afraid. Good to get him off the street, though.

Mark, I went over today NYC today and visited the site of the World Trade Center. Although I live in NJ, this was the first time I went over to see the site in person. If anyone gets the chance to see the site of the World Trade Center, I strongly recommend it. There were alot of people there. I also went to St. Pauls Church, which is a very old church right across the street. It was used for firefighters, police and others to rest and eat during shifts. I also went to the fire house called Ladder 10, which is also right across from the World Trade Center. Six firefighters from this house died on 9/11. There was one firefighter there talking to many passersby. His name is John Morabito. He had been in the first tower that collapsed and had survived. Ladder 10 has their own website and accounts what happened that day in all detail. I wish all americans could go to the WTC site, especially our liberal friends. It would help them to remember what occurred on that day and the nature of the evil that we must fight. I also wish John McCain and Lindsey Graham would go. They would then know that there is no moral acquivalancy between us and al queda and that we must win this war. And we must do more to obtain information from these son of a bitches, in order to save AMERICAN LIVES, than to say to them that we will not supersize their fries.

Hick - good talking point post. But incorrect. Unfortunately, torture works VERY well for getting good information. I understand why some people may not want to do it. And actually, I'm torn. But getting bad information is not one of the reasons. If anything, it's that allure to the very good information the easy route can get you that's the problem.

Sheik Mohamuud (excuse my spelling) was the toughest of the Al Queada bosses caught. He lasted 2 and a half minutes to water boarding. This is an enormous amount of time and the old guy was really tough to last that long. Most people go thirty seconds. And yes, like the others he provided detailed and accurate information.

If you're going to argue against torture - then do it. But understand your argument. Torture works. Thats why people do it.

Is there not something to be said for the moral argument against torture? Much of our disdain for Saddam Hussein came from the fact that he had torture chambers where he brought supposed enemies of his rule and tortured them either for confession or for sadistic pleasure. Do we not subject ourselves to the same dilemma if, say, we capture somebody we think to be a terrorist and torture them into talking only to realize later that he is innocent? We risk torturing and punishing innocent people. I am against torture in essence because I believe it to be barbaric and I think we will accidentally stoop to the low level of our enemies if we adopt the tactics that they use.

Is there not something to be said for the moral argument against torture?

Yes, Liberal, there is. That's why we don't engage in torture. We need a tough interrogation policy, but we can do this without resorting to torture.
Much of our disdain for Saddam Hussein came from the fact that he had torture chambers where he brought supposed enemies of his rule and tortured them either for confession or for sadistic pleasure.

Wow, a liberal who acknowledges that there was more than one reason we liberated Iraq. Careful, your contemporaries will disown you for straying from the party line.

Do we not subject ourselves to the same dilemma if, say, we capture somebody we think to be a terrorist and torture them into talking only to realize later that he is innocent?

Yes, that's why we don't torture them at all. Actually, our enemies in this war don't care how humanely we treat captured terrorists--they behead us and drag our soldiers behind trucks regardless.

We risk torturing and punishing innocent people.

It's a small risk, since our tactics are mild compared to a beheading/setting on fire/dragging.

I am against torture in essence because I believe it to be barbaric and I think we will accidentally stoop to the low level of our enemies if we adopt the tactics that they use.

Everyone in this blog, and everyone I know, is against torture, and we all agree with you. However, most of us do believe that tough interrogation techniques are necessary, and that denying these animals a Twinkie after their meal just won't get the desired information we need to protect American and allie's lives.

Liberal, you've posed some interesting points here, and I hope I've given you some food for thought.

Note to Nate: You see how easy it is to get along with me? All you have to do is act as though you have some sense, and you don't get called silly names. Hope you enjoyed the mountains--where'd you go, to the Poconos?

They're opening up a new maximum security block at Git'mo, to house particularly violent Islamofascists. I guess we're not closing it just yet...

"questioners don't usually stop questioning until they get the answers they want, no matter what the truth is." s.t. hick

And this gem of wisdom is based on what?...your years of experience debriefing interrogators or your years of unquestioningly believing everything you read or hear from our left wing media?

It may interest you lefties to know that the interrogators as well as some miltary personnel are exposed to water boarding and other non-torture techniques during training. The purpose of this is to demonstrate how easily a captive may be broken.

So I guess your assertion is that we can't use the same techniques on terrorists.

Brilliant!

keefer, well said. I think I made some mistakes in the wording of my previous post.

Truth is, there is a whole spectrum of treatment to use with prisoners. Different people are going to point to different places on that spectrum and declare "mistreatment starts here" or "torture starts here".

There is also the question of the status of the prisoner.
1. A uniformed member of a nations armed forces?
2. An un-uniformed guerilla, who otherwise conducts himself as a soldier?
3. An un-uniformed guerilla who acts like a soldier, but also purposefully fires from civilian areas and uses churches, mosques, and hospitals to fight from and to store weapons in.
4. A “terrorist” who purposefully targets civilians without regard to sex or age.

Do ALL of these people deserve the same rights and treatment standards? Again, a spectrum. Different people will point at this list and impose different standards.

Currently, we are fighting people in categories 2, 3, and 4. Some Taliban clearly fit into category 2. Some into the other two. Here, I think is where the arguments are fuzziest.

Category 4, a terrorist and especially a terrorist leader seem to me to be the least deserving of gentle treatment. Since getting information from them WILL save the lives of innocent men, women, and children I would be using to point towards the harsher end of the treatment spectrum – to get information. I would not support some treatment, and I would not support harsh treatment as a form of punishment.

I believe that this is a legitimate debate. But, I’m intolerant of the positioning chants I’m seeing from some people. For example, these false claims that harsh interrogation tactics don’t work.

That's why we don't engage in torture. We need a tough interrogation policy, but we can do this without resorting to torture. -Keefer

Keefer,
I fear we may be arguing semantics if we just claim that our behavior will always be stenuous interrogation or harsh interrogation instead of the T word. Kahn states that we used a technique called water boarding on Khalid Sheik Mohammed. This was the first I heard of this but Kahn insinuates that this was likely a painful treatment. My fear is that we will use techniques usually associated with torture but just use more euphonious language to describe them in order to claim that it is ok.

I feel very stongly that we should avoid such behavior because the War on Terrorism is a war of ideologies that cannot be won through guns or bombs. The way we will win is if we can convince the entire world of our moral superiority and discourage those who islamist zealots recruit to fight the US from joining. The vast majority of people who join islamist terrorist groups (the peons not the leaders) believe that the US is evil and must be fought for the sake of good. I think that news of torturing or 'harsh interrogation' amidst the Middle-Eastern community only adds fuel to the fire.

Since 9/11 I've seen the government achieve greater power and the people less liberties. I've seen our government shove aside many of our very old allies who disagree with their approach on the WOT and turn world opinion very negatively against us. I've seen images of torture from Abu Gharib, and tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians. Is this not what terrorists want; to see America turn into the nation that the rest of the world fears instead of loves?

Many people often claim that the goal of the terrorists is to destroy the democracy of the United States although they have never elaborated on how they could ever succeed in doing this. Is not the only way for a terrorist to destoy our freedom by scaring us into taking it away from ourselves believing we must do so in order to fight them? I believe that we are losing this war becuase I see us turing into the America that they want: one that is divided aginst itself, one that gives up freedoms in order to fight them, and one that enters into conflicts that turns world opinion against us. News of what some consider torture being revealed to the Islamic community simply adds to the enemy's morale despite the tactical losses they may incur from it.
Also, even if you believe that torture or harsh interrogation is an effective means of information gathering, you cannot assume that it will always or often be effective. A terrorist or supposed terrorist may simply speak false information or just simply tell the interrogators what they want to hear which may result in the US making a very grave mistake.

Wow, a liberal who acknowledges that there was more than one reason we liberated Iraq. Careful, your contemporaries will disown you for straying from the party line. -Keefer

Keefer,
I know you likely speak in jest, but my comtemporaries will not disown me for that statement, just as I hope yours do not disown you if you disagree with them. Everybody recognizes that Saddam was a brutal dictator but also one that we supported when we believed that doing so was beneficial to us. There are brutal dictators all over the world and we are in partnership with many of them.

I know what President Bush's rhetoric is when it comes to Iraq: Ruled by dictator, has/had WMD's, and terrorists within its borders. But the same is true of Pakistan but they are considered one of our greatest allies in the WOT in all of Asia. North Korea also fits the criteria and perhaps China too, but there is no talk of invading either of them.

Note to Nate: You see how easy it is to get along with me? All you have to do is act as though you have some sense, and you don't get called silly names. Hope you enjoyed the mountains--where'd you go, to the Poconos? -Keefer

I have browsed this site off and on for over a year, yet this is the first time I've posted, and the ratio of level-headed debate to merciless character assassination is about 1:10. Neither side is innocent in this regard. I have seen insults thrown by almost every regular on this board. This is not helpful to a civilized exchange of ideas between political lines which is crucial to the survival of our country. I understand that partisanship and political division is at a high that it has not been in a long time, but that does mean that we fellow Americans must stoop to the childish antics of some of our leaders.

That being said, I must point out that the content of some of the starter posts by the editors is very offensive to people on the other side of the political spectrum. I see just as much bashing of Democrats/Liberals as I do support of Bush and many of the editors' starter posts that are supportive in nature towards the President rarely do not contain at least one jab at Democrats. I understand that this is a site dedicated to the President but it is also a blog which is meant as a platform for the exchange of ideas amongst its users. Much of the content on this site does nothing to encourage those who do not currently support Bush to change their ways and such talk merely widens the gap between us. Sites such as the Democratic Underground use the same methods and are equally wrong.

As I stated in my first post in the Army Recruitment 2006 Blog on this site, I am very critical of President Bush. I believe that he is very damaging to our country and his contoversial actions should be stifled via an opposition Congress.

I am a liberal and a very proud one and a supporter of the Democrats but I recognize the value that a multitude of opinions has towards making our country great. If I had my way the President of the US would always be a moderate Independent, Congress would be 1/3 Republican, 1/3 Democrat, and 1/3 Independent and there would be a healthy spread of liberals, conservatives, and moderates in all parties. However my way is only a 1/300000000th of what decides what form the govt takes.

I think we all need to cool down and admit that conservatives and liberals and moderates have all been equally instrumental to the development of the greatness that is America and that we all love our country and only want what is best for it. Liberals do not hate America, I for one love this country to death and would die for it if I believed she was truly in grave danger as I know most everyone here would.

Unfortunately, torture works VERY well for getting good information.

You must know something intelligence agents and actual, you know, interrogators don't know because they don't agree with you.

"...the men who will convince others to blow themselves up are rarely found fighting to the last breath."

And some how an old man in Washington telling the children of America to blow themselves up is different?

USA,

Uh, yeah - the men who are commanded by the President to go in to battle are professional warriors who, using their skill and weapons, hope to come out of battle victorious and alive...the men commanded by the terrorists to blow themselves up are dupes who are throwing away their lives for an evil cause.

Sees,

Its not quite as simple as that.

If we have merely captured a man and start torturing him to find out if he's a terrorist, then we are likely to just get an admission - even if false - because the man just wants the torture to stop.

On the other hand, if we have a man we feel strongly is an actual terrorist, then we know what answers we are looking for, at least in the general sense, and we can compare what he says with what we already know and see if it matches up.

Given that we don't and won't torture, however, what we need to do is have the ability to apply strong pressure short of torture to convince captives we are reasonably sure of being terrorist to talk - they cannot be accorded a right to remain silent: to many lives are at stake.

Given that we don't and won't torture

I'm sure Maher Arar, among others, is relieved to hear that.

I also like your differentiation--"if we have a good feeling that we've got somebody important, then it's on!" You know, I recently heard a soldier who was in Afghanistan and worked at a field medical center tell a story. He was given a captive patient, a guy the officers who brought him in swore up and down was Al Qaeda--and not just a foot soldier, but an important guy. He had been hung from a tree by his hands for three days. Naturally, both hands became gangrenous and needed to be amputated. After a week, the same people who brought him in released him. Why? He was the wrong guy. Whoopsie-daisy! So off scampers this guy, minus two hands and full of wonderful feelings about America, no doubt.

Kinda shoots down both your "if we have them in custody, then they're terrorists" argument and your "we don't torture" argument. Reality, meet Mark Noonan. You two don't seem to be acquainted.

But the same is true of Pakistan but they are considered one of our greatest allies in the WOT in all of Asia.

Musharrif has not made an attempt to attack us. And yes, there are cells in Pakistan-up in the mountains, protected by warlords. While I may agree with you some about Pakistan, I contend that they are our ally.

North Korea also fits the criteria and perhaps China too, but there is no talk of invading either of them.

Once again, we haven't been attacked by either. And the comparison between Pakistan and NK/China is apples and oranges.

That being said, I must point out that the content of some of the starter posts by the editors is very offensive to people on the other side of the political spectrum.

I'm very close to losing my patience with you, Liberal. This is Blogs for Bush, Not Blogs for Bush and a Forum for our Liberal Friends. Go to some of the kook lefty blogs, and see if you don't find the same of what you're bitching about here, if not more.

We can have lively debate without you and your troll friends--now move on...

Kinda shoots down both your "if we have them in custody, then they're terrorists" argument and your "we don't torture" argument. Reality, meet Mark Noonan. You two don't seem to be acquainted.

Posted by: SeesThroughIt at September 24, 2006 08:45 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Got a link to that story sees? Not some lunatic fringe lefty place please, I want to be able to trust the source!

seethroughit, actually, they do agree with me. Thats why they use those techniques. Think about it for just a second OK?

I'm not saying they're good. But they do work and you can tie NO information to someone outside an agenda organization to dispell it. The evidence is in the fact that it's done and that it has produced results.

See’s - Oh, and I just don't believe you on the hanging from a tree thing. Water boarding baby. No physical harm, EXTREME fear and discomfort, a couple of minutes tops. It breaks EVERYONE.

It works. And, it HAS led to enormous amounts of information that has helped us capture or kill dozens of Al-Quaeda.

I now, officially, publicly, call you a liar. And a stupid one at that.

I, I, I know this guy who knows this guy who has a cousin who says his barber knows a guy who knows a girl who told him that big foot is a CIA experiment…..

I would like to ask a question.

Now, Mr. Liberal seems to think that we are here to denigrate and attack him and all liberals.

Well, Here's how I see that, Mr. Liberal, We make the thread and you are welcome any time to comment that you wish, Ok, We DO NOT, I repeat - WE DO NOT want to attack in any way ANYONES stance on the issue. EVERY TIME that a thread is made it's always you guys THE LIBERALS who start the attacks, and then on top of everything, you EXPECT us to not fight back, IS THAT FAIR??????

I want to be fair balanced and reasonable with EVERYONE that I discuss anything with here, but how can I when some rabid liberal comes along attacking me for it?

IF THE THREAD COMMENT OFFENDS YOU, DON'T COMMENT ON IT, PERIOD, JUST COMMON SENSE!

Like the old saying, "If you don't have anything GOOD to say, DON'T SAY ANYTHING AT ALL"

So Listen here, Dude!! If you guys want to debate?? FINE. But DON'T BRING THE FOOLISH ATTACKS, Hear??

Always debate within the bounds of the comment policy, Understood???...

Jeremiah

Keefer,

I find your response to my post troubling. The point of my post was that both sides need to cool their anger towards eachother and try to come together and reach common ground. As you could see from my post I said that the blogs from the left are just as guilty. I wanted to have a civilized debate with you but when I brought up my side of the issue you told me to get lost and head over to other blogs that I am equally critical of. I chose a very non-offensive way of explaining my thoughts to you and I am rewarded with demands that I leave. The thing is that I do not believe that American politics is at the point where both sides are incapable of rationally explaining eachothers' thoughts.

Jeremiah,

I think perhaps many people misinterpreted the point that I was trying to make and if it is the result of poor writing then I suppose I am to blame. First of all, I stated that the blame for offensiveness was equal on both sides and that both are guilty of such things. I did not accuse the you all of being mostly responsible for it.

As for my point on the offensive content of the starter threads; I was merely explaining why you get so many liberals coming in here and attacking you. It does not matter to me what you say in them but I was pointing out if posts are that heated you have to expect people to become angry and reply in kind.

Also, I don't believe I attacked anybody. I think that I merely pointed out that there is a level of tension between all of us that should not be there. I have no ill will towards anybody here; whether liberal or conservative or moderate.

Oooooh Liberal, did someone hurt your feelings? Let me call an ambulance.

Conservative posters here are generally unsimpathetic to poorly reasoned posts and unsubstantiated claims. You see, it is hard -very very hard to educate liberals every day over and over on the basic facts of how things work so as to properly argue with them. So many liberals just pop in with the chant-of-the-day with no idea what they are really talking about and an almost complete inability to defend their views once challenged.

Seesthroughit and Third Eye Blind sound like they could be identical twins.

Well put, almiranta ... as usual.

There is a MAJOR difference between the "torture" we subject terrorists to and the torture Saddam put his people through. Deprevation of sleep vs being put through a wood chipper while still alive or having your entire family disappear. Hmmmm.

Kahn,

I can understand you have a high level of tension towards liberals, however there is no need for unwarranted rudeness.

No, my feelings were not hurt by either Keefer's or Jeremiah's posts. I simply wanted to make sure that they understand that I am not here to make any enemies. Rather the opposite. I am here to broaden my understanding of your way of thinking as it is important for everyone to be tolerant of eachothers' viewpoints.

Liberal,

Could you just PLEASE STOP!!

We are mostly all adults and know how to handle our own affairs in a responsible manner, Now your beginning to be an annoyance with the jibber jabber!! If it were your site it would be different, but it's not, clear?...

Jeremiah

Jeremiah,

I think I missed the point of your post. Stop what?

Liberal,

Stop telling people about how they should or should not respond to you, that is entirely up to them, and like I said, If it were your site it would be different, but it is NOT! clear???...

Jeremiah

Jeremiah,

If someone wants to respond to me in a certain way it is their right to do so, you are correct. However, I was merely puzzled at what brought about a harsh response from them when I was being as polite as possible towards them. Also, I find it odd that you would tell me to stop telling others how to respond to my posts by telling me how to respond to theirs.

Liberal,

I just want you to show a little respect for their response, in either case, whether their response be directed in an angry manner or polite whatever the case may be, It's not that confusing!
If you understand?

Jeremiah

One more thing...Pissing match OFF..

If you ask a man if he robbed ABC bank and subject him to intense pain until he finally says yes, he did, then there is merit to the claim that torture does not always produce accurate information.

But if you subject a suspect to different forms of pressure, mostly fear of potential pain, and phrase your questions so he does not know what you really want from him, you can, and do, get some very significant information.

One of the most effective techniques, according to an experienced interrogator, is to let the prisoner hear screams and sounds indicating severe physical torture, and then have someone come in to announce that the interrogation room will be available in a couple of minutes. Letting the prisoner realize that he will soon be taken into the room where the horrible sounds were coming from, and maybe letting him see the "blood" being hosed out first, can be immensely focusing.

Torture? Maybe, in a wimpy McCainish sort of way. But not really.

And if the prisoner volunteers information, that information can be checked against that gotten from other prisoners. You Libs act like the answers given by one man are just taken to the bank. That is simply silly.

But if one man says the code is "The black dove flies at dawn" and another says it is "at midnight" those two pieces of information can be played off against each other, or played in the questioning of a third terrorist.

Also, much of what is learned is learned not from what is said but from what is not said, from reactions, from subtle signs of relief or fear. If you come back at a guy and say "I thought the black dove was supposed to fly at dawn" a good interrogator can tell a lot from the reaction of the prisoner to that statement. He doesn't need a verbal agreement. He can see dismay that the true code is known, or relief that the wrong one is believed.

This gross oversimplification of facts seems to work well with some, who really just want to be told what to think---and, more to the point, what to say they think. You absolutely have to believe that the interrogators are stupid brutes who just love to hurt people to make your silly arguments even halfway reasonable-sounding. Or you have to be either stupid or terminally gullible to believe them yourselves.

But you just keep parroting those Airhead talking points, because, you know, like, no one ever tells the truth under torture, and, you know, like no one ever lies on exit polls and they are, you know, like 99.9% accurate, and you know, like you can reprogram a mainframe from a touch screen in a voting booth because you know, like, everyone knows that, and Valerie was, you know. like SO covert, and Prescott Bush did business, you know, like DIRECTLY with Hitler, and the Petagon was, you know, hit with a rocket because the hole didn'thave those little, you know, slit things that wings would have made....................

To prove they are cowards they always wear masks during their videos. which means they must hide who they are. Why? because they know that even the Iraqi majority are ashamed of what they are doing.