Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 09/07/06 12:53 pm:

Hello again:

There’s a reason why our Constitution is short. From my perspective, it works BECAUSE it’s short.

The tax code is long. It doesn’t work. Everything is codified in there. It’s about 5’ wide. In fact, the more it’s codified, the more holes lawyers find. That’s what their job is. Hell, I could find a hole in a law 5’ wide.

But, I couldn’t find a hole in a law that says everybody pays 10%. Could you?

That’s why I suggest that people who call for more codifying don’t really want clarification – they want obfuscation.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 09/07/06 1:40 pm:
if not codified then what are you left with ? A military with no direction on interogation procedures . Does that make sense ?

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 09/07/06 1:52 pm:

Hello again, tom:

The direction IS clear - no degrading or inhumane treatment. I understand it perfectly well.

Aren't you the guy's who made fun of Clinton when he didn't understand what "is" is? So, how come you're having such a problem with English now?

Me thinks you fein ignorance.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 09/07/06 1:58 pm:
'FM 2-22.3 Human Intelligence Collector Operations 'is the updated manual . I have not read it but I am sure it is not written vague or subject to interpretation by the interrogator . The military tells personnel how to polish their shoes ;make their bed ;eat their meals and probably how to crap . They need clear directions with specifics .

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 09/07/06 2:26 pm:
Excon,

First, I'm not interested in revenge. I'm interested in INFORMATION. The revenge is just icing on the cake.

Second, can you show me where in the Contitution it says that "degrading" or "inhumane" treatment of prisoners is illegal? The Contitution says no such thing. What is prevents is "CRUEL AND UNUSUAL" punishment. Please explain how "cruel and unusual" became "degrading and inhumane".

Third, if you use the "I know it when I see it" standard, then you are opening up the possibility of insults being called "degading and inhumane". Unless you codify it with specifics of what is and what is not allowed during interrogations of POWs, we are at the mercy of the whim of judges and ACLU attorneys that have a different standard than others. Not only will that cause rediculous rulings to be rendered, it will cause uneven application of the law: one judge will interpret name-calling as "degrading and inhuman" while another accepts panties on the heads of POWs and forced nudity as par for the course. Unless it is codified, it cannot be applied evenly, or even logically.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 09/07/06 2:46 pm:
Hello again, tom:

I dunno why I understand that which you fail to understand. Maybe, it's my LACK of sophistication that allows me to see clearly. I dunno.

To me, here is the clear direction for military interogation:

Ask him a question. If he doesn't answer it, he doesn't answer it.

That's it. Nothing more. Pretty clear to me!

Is it satisfactory that he doesn't answer? No. Is that the desired result? No. Do you punish him for not answering? No.

Ahhh, now you're going to ask me what "punish" means. That's the problem with lists or codifying. It can go on forever, never clearing a damn thing up.

Of course, if you want to hit him, that's a good thing.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 09/07/06 2:51 pm:
>>>Ask him a question. If he doesn't answer it, he doesn't answer it.<<<

And do you, with your expertise in military intelligence gathering, truly believe that this is an effective method of obtaining information from an enemy we are at war with? Is this the way you fight a war?

No wonder you lost Vietnam, if this is how you fight a war. You would tie your own hands behind your back, leave your best weapons behind, and then go out into the field and fight a battle. Brilliant.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 09/07/06 2:51 pm:
you do realize that 'inhumane and degrading' is not as cut and dry as you make it sound to be . Give you an example . These jihadists we have in detention due to their culture and religious beliefs clearly think that interrogation by a women is "degrading " .You on the other hand may get off by it. So by whose standards are swe to determine iif in fact a female questioning them is degrading ? The possibility exists because of the idiots in the Supreme Court that our female interrogators are violating their article 3 Geneva rights and by extention are guilty of war crimes.

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 09/07/06 3:56 pm:

Hello Elliot:

Oh, I got it. I understand clearly what you want to do. After we've gotten a blank stare to our inquiry, I would walk away. You want to use some form of physical persuasion. You just don't know how much. But, of course, once you've stepped over the line, there is no "how much is too much?". That's just flat out the wrong question to ask.

Let's take another approach. IF I agreed with you, that we need to get whatever information these bad guys have in any manner we can, and even IF I agreed that it was LEGAL to do so, I would still say we shouldn't do it, because I don't want them to treat our boys like that. AND I want the moral high ground to complain about it - LIKE WE'VE ALWAYS HAD.

And, while we're talking about clarifications, let's clarify our usage of words here. I haven't used the word "effective. My arguments have nothing to do with effectiveness. Yours do. My arguments are about "legal".

Yes, it would be much more effective (in creating a society YOU want) if we could beat and badger the people we arrest here. However, that's not the kind of society I want. I kinda like it here the way it is.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 09/07/06 7:01 pm:
>>>After we've gotten a blank stare to our inquiry, I would walk away. You want to use some form of physical persuasion.<<<

We're not talking about "blank stares" here, excon. We are talking about people we KNOW have more information but simply aren't being foprthcoming. President Bush gave a perfect example of such a case in his speech yesterday:

Within months of September the 11th, 2001, we captured a man known as Abu Zubaydah. We believe that Zubaydah was a senior terrorist leader and a trusted associate of Osama bin Laden. Our intelligence community believes he had run a terrorist camp in Afghanistan where some of the 9/11 hijackers trained, and that he helped smuggle al Qaeda leaders out of Afghanistan after coalition forces arrived to liberate that country. Zubaydah was severely wounded during the firefight that brought him into custody -- and he survived only because of the medical care arranged by the CIA.

After he recovered, Zubaydah was defiant and evasive. He declared his hatred of America. During questioning, he at first disclosed what he thought was nominal information -- and then stopped all cooperation. Well, in fact, the "nominal" information he gave us turned out to be quite important. For example, Zubaydah disclosed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- or KSM -- was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, and used the alias "Muktar." This was a vital piece of the puzzle that helped our intelligence community pursue KSM. Abu Zubaydah also provided information that helped stop a terrorist attack being planned for inside the United States -- an attack about which we had no previous information. Zubaydah told us that al Qaeda operatives were planning to launch an attack in the U.S., and provided physical descriptions of the operatives and information on their general location. Based on the information he provided, the operatives were detained -- one while traveling to the United States.

We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking. As his questioning proceeded, it became clear that he had received training on how to resist interrogation. And so the CIA used an alternative set of procedures. These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution, and our treaty obligations. The Department of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined them to be lawful. I cannot describe the specific methods used -- I think you understand why -- if I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning, and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful, and necessary.

Zubaydah was questioned using these procedures, and soon he began to provide information on key al Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September the 11th. For example, Zubaydah identified one of KSM's accomplices in the 9/11 attacks -- a terrorist named Ramzi bin al Shibh. The information Zubaydah provided helped lead to the capture of bin al Shibh. And together these two terrorists provided information that helped in the planning and execution of the operation that captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Once in our custody, KSM was questioned by the CIA using these procedures, and he soon provided information that helped us stop another planned attack on the United States. During questioning, KSM told us about another al Qaeda operative he knew was in CIA custody -- a terrorist named Majid Khan. KSM revealed that Khan had been told to deliver $50,000 to individuals working for a suspected terrorist leader named Hambali, the leader of al Qaeda's Southeast Asian affiliate known as "J-I". CIA officers confronted Khan with this information. Khan confirmed that the money had been delivered to an operative named Zubair, and provided both a physical description and contact number for this operative.

Based on that information, Zubair was captured in June of 2003, and he soon provided information that helped lead to the capture of Hambali. After Hambali's arrest, KSM was questioned again. He identified Hambali's brother as the leader of a "J-I" cell, and Hambali's conduit for communications with al Qaeda. Hambali's brother was soon captured in Pakistan, and, in turn, led us to a cell of 17 Southeast Asian "J-I" operatives. When confronted with the news that his terror cell had been broken up, Hambali admitted that the operatives were being groomed at KSM's request for attacks inside the United States -- probably [sic] using airplanes.

During questioning, KSM also provided many details of other plots to kill innocent Americans. For example, he described the design of planned attacks on buildings inside the United States, and how operatives were directed to carry them out. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent the people trapped above from escaping out the windows.

KSM also provided vital information on al Qaeda's efforts to obtain biological weapons. During questioning, KSM admitted that he had met three individuals involved in al Qaeda's efforts to produce anthrax, a deadly biological agent -- and he identified one of the individuals as a terrorist named Yazid. KSM apparently believed we already had this information, because Yazid had been captured and taken into foreign custody before KSM's arrest. In fact, we did not know about Yazid's role in al Qaeda's anthrax program. Information from Yazid then helped lead to the capture of his two principal assistants in the anthrax program. Without the information provided by KSM and Yazid, we might not have uncovered this al Qaeda biological weapons program, or stopped this al Qaeda cell from developing anthrax for attacks against the United States.

These are some of the plots that have been stopped because of the information of this vital program.

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 09/07/06 8:59 pm:

Hello again, Elliot:

You miss the point - as does your side.

You say THEY'RE not innocents, as though you (and George) know it as fact. But, you don't. And then, you point to ONE bad guy, and use that success to justify "degrading" ALL of 'em.

But you've got it just backwards. Our emphasis should be on those who were wrongfully "degraded". And, there's a lot of them.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 09/08/06 11:02 am:

Hello again, El:

And here's what you've got it backwards.

It's my understanding, that here in America, we harbor the notion that it's better to let 10 guilty guys off, than to convict 1 innocent person.

In the same vein, I believe we harbor the notion that it's better to let 10 bad guys keep their information, than to torture 1 who knows nothing.

Tell me how I've got that wrong?

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 09/08/06 11:02 am:
Excon,

When they are captured in a terrorist training camp, or in the process of planning a terrorist attack, they are not innocent. If they are implicated in terrorism by other terrorists, they are not innocent. I'm not saying they are guilty... the terrorists are.

Nor did I (or Bush) point to one single case. If you will read my full post above, you will find that we are talking about:

Abu Zubaydah, who under interrogation gave up
Ramzi bin al Shibh, who under interrogation gave up
Kalid Sheikh Mohammed/Muktar, who under interrogation gave up
Majid Khan, who in turn, under interrogation gave up
Zubair, who, when interrogated, gave up
Hambali and his brother. They in turn gave up
17 Southeast Asian "J-I" operatives.

Hambali and KSM also gave up specific information about specific terror plots, as well as information regarding Al Qaeda's attempts to obtain WMDs. KSM also gave up Yazid, who in turn gave up his two assistants in his anthrax plot.

So we're not talking about a single isolated incident. We are talking about a string of information, obtained through rigorous interrogation methods, that lead to the capture of multiple other terrorists and garnered information about specific terrorist threats. And this is just as small sample of what has been gained through these techniques.

But if we had done things your way, as soon as we captured Zubaydah and he refused to talk, you would have simply walked away... and those terrorist plots would still be in process, and all those terrorists would still be on the loose. Great way to fight terrorism, Excon.

>>>Our emphasis should be on those who were wrongfully "degraded".<<<

What makes you think we wrongfully "degraded" anyone. And no, our emphasis should be on getting the information we need by any means necessary so that we can fight the damn war. You keep talking about how the war in Iraq is another Vietnam, but it is you who would tie the hands of the intelligence community and allow the war to drag on forever. If this war is another Vietnam, it is one of your own making, and that of those who are worried about the rights of terrorists, not Bush's making.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 09/09/06 2:03 pm:
Hello again, Elliot:

>>>When they are captured in a terrorist training camp, or in the process of planning a terrorist attack, they are not innocent.<<<

No, they are not, maybe (but not necessarily). And, you assume ALL of the prisoners were captured in such compromising circumstances. I don't think that's the case at all. Have you not heard reports of terrorists that were sold to the Americans? I have.

My statements and sentiments remain. You are wrong, but I'm used to that.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 09/11/06 11:31 am:
>>>And, you assume ALL of the prisoners were captured in such compromising circumstances. I don't think that's the case at all.<<<

And YOU are assuming that the US government is wasting time and resources interrogating people who have nothing to do with terrorism. I am 100% certain that is not the case.

>>>Have you not heard reports of terrorists that were sold to the Americans? I have.<<<

Yep. I have heard those stories too. And I think that the US intelligence community are "educated consumers". I think they are "checking the goods" before they actually buy... that is, they are double-checking whether the terrorist they are "buying" are really what they seem to be, that is connected terrorists with information.

Simply put, I believe that in 100% of the cases where the rough interogation techniques were used, the terrorists in question were known beforehand to have information that we needed. The use of those interrogation techniques was not random and wasn't focused on people who might or might not have information. They were focused on those we knew for a fact had information we needed and had no other way to obtain.

>>>My statements and sentiments remain.<<<

Yes, they remain incorrect.

Elliot