WILLIAMS: Turned around the other way, are you denying that waterboarding was in part among the tactics used to extract the intelligence that led to this successful mission?
PANETTA: No, I think some of the detainees clearly were, you know, they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees. But I'm also saying that, you know, the debate about whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always going to be an open question.
John L. Helgerson, the former CIA inspector general who investigated the agency's detention and interrogation program, said his work did not put him in "a position to reach definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of particular interrogation methods."
"Certain of the techniques seemed to have little effect, whereas waterboarding and sleep deprivation were the two most powerful techniques and elicited a lot of information," he said in an interview.
panetta:
RealClearPolitics - Video - Panetta: "Open Question" If Waterboarding Helped Find Bin Laden
the ig:
link above
a preeminent source is, after all, a preeminent source
that's nice
"waterboarding and sleep deprivation were the two most powerful techniques and elicited a lot of information:" ig report released by ERIC HOLDER, monday preceding aug 29, 2009
Repeating the claim doesn't answer me
That's not the point. I do work in similar situations, and my work overlaps with counter terrorism all the time. I'm not some joke from the BIA who protects the sovereignty of Indian reservations. I've arrested people who are/were suspected of terrorism. That said, intelligence collection is not the case here. The case here is whether or not torture works as an interrogation technique, which, as I have said, it does not. I really hate how all of the people who seem to argue for torture in this thread continuously ignore every single point I make and just attack my credibility, or in another case, compliment me for being a law enforcement officer (not what i was going for)
then why don't you stamp your little feet
LOL!
"waterboarding and sleep deprivation were the two most powerful techniques and elicited a lot of information:" language endorsed by eric holder, aug, 2009
There is a lot of redaction, but also highly unclear. You say suggests. But not clearly states. Nor provides any specifics. The CIA has an inherent interest in making this appear effective. It is another thing to prove it effective. IG is outside the CIA, and while they share a government interest, it would be a step removed from the CIA.
How covenient for you
I like it when pseudo-intellectuals just scream nu-uh at everything they don't like/agree with
You say it does not. If we're throwing our personnel experience out there, while I was only a 35M for one of my deployments to Iraq, I think that's a pretty strong testimonial. Torture, or even just waterboarding, can be effective as an interrogation technique. Even if a federal law enforcement officer doesn't think so.
you haven't answered me
So you conducted interrogations with torture while you were working in humint? You tortured terrorists? I don't think so...especially since you were in the army, and the army uses their field manual for interrogations, which EXPLICITLY states that torture does not work and not to use it.
And again, have you seen it used? Because I have, and it doesn't work. Like I said, I've seen a lot worse than the waterboarding they used in the black sites, which had doctors in the room, and was time limited. And btw, like the report says, torture did not work prof. Your report you keep linking shows the IG saying that it was ineffective at a later party. You are simply posting one line over and over like an idiot and no one is taking you seriously.
Besides, that's not what I did, the fact is I'm asking for something specific which is not in that document. It suggests, but provides no specifics, and I am asking for specifics. I have specifics of misinformation that is verifiable. It seems only fair that those who believe in the effectiveness offer at least as much.
Did I ever say that I did? I'm simply saying that I have a vast, vast array of contacts in the community.
So it didn't work the few (?) times you used it, and you've decided it can never work anywhere, anytime, on anyone? That's fantastic.
Yes. It doesn't work. I never used it myself, for the record.
( I've seen it used many, many times, and I've arrested people whom I released to the custody of others o ended up exposed to these methods.
If you want me to put in less hyperbolic terms, think of it this way: ANY type of method in which the only incentive to give information the person being interrogated has is to stop pain, the information will be unreliable. People will say anything under torture. Like I said before but it was carefully ignored by everyone in this topic, McCain said himself that he was tortured and gave starting lines of football teams as names of his contacts. There are methods that are 100x more effective to elicit information from people. As I previously mentioned, sleep deprivation is a good one, and even the ACLU says that sleep deprivation isn't illegal (though they do say it is "humiliating", I don't really care, because it works)
That said, for the 100th time, talk to an interrogator. He/she will tell you these methods are not reliable. I'm not sure if you conducted interrogations while you were in humint, but if you did, and you embraced coercive methods, then I can understand why you are no longer in that career field.
Or because of the Geneva Conventions?Why do you think your army interrogation manual, which you and your "vast array of contacts" should have been trained on, says not to use torture? 1) because it doesn't work 2) it's illegal, and unwritten reasons include that it helps recruit the enemy's ranks, and it gives the enemy the unalienable right to torture our soldiers.
Here is a quote from the manual, which, as I said, since you were in HUMINT, regardless of if you were involved with interrogation or not, should have studied at some point.
"Acts of violence or intimidation, including physical or mental torture, or exposure to inhumane treatment as a means of or aid to interrogation are expressly prohibited. Acts in violation of these prohibitions may be a violation of US law and regulation and the law of war, including the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and may be criminal acts punishable under the UCMJ and other US law. Moreover, information obtained by the use of these prohibited means is of questionable value. (United States Department of the Army)"
Guantánamo leaks lift lid on world's most controversial prison | World news | The Guardian
Here is the file with the fifteen year old boy that was a kidnap victim
I'm not shocked that these people would "interrogate" children. People that supported in keeping this prison are sick and I hate that Obama is keeping it open. Yeah, lets keep open a prison were children were interrogated for being terrorist
You consider Obama sick?
You're not getting what I'm saying. You worked in the Army. The Army does not use torture. The army uses conventional methods which are proven time to time to work and be effective. I'm sorry to say, but you can't claim that since you interrogated in counterintelligence, you have more experience. An interrogation changes subject to subject, and different methods are applicable. Whether it's a serial murderer, a narcoterrorist, or whoever you interrogated or talked to friends about interrogating, torture is never acceptable and never works.Okay, dude. I'm to believe your experience as an interrogator (perhaps?) in federal law enforcement trumps my experience as a counterintelligence interrogator in international operations, when it comes to counterintelligence operations conducted by folks who aren't in federal law enforcement. Can you see why I don't really give you much benefit of doubt? Why there's literally nothing you could say that would dissuade me, that would influence me, more than what I've already learned? Okay.
Really? You're sure I haven't? Ok, if you want to doubt what I said, my guess is I doubt you were a 35M. I think you are actually a 91 year old widower living in Australia. I am 49 years old. I have been around for a while, and I've seen it all.I'm sure you haven't, actually.
I wasn't talking about interrogating detainees. I was talking about in general. I've used techniques like sleep deprivation as well as seen reports of it used on people. Of course it's not the methods that were used in the black sites which was pretty damn long sleep deprivation, but the point is, regarding sleep deprivation, if done for long enough, it confuses the hell out of the subject, and gets them to talk. As for the HCS clearance, I don't talk about what my clearance level is on the internet, though I have seen some people on this forum do that (not you).Right. Which is why it's only useful in an extreme set of circumstances. But I appreciate you letting the world know what is useful in general situations. I'm not sure why you'd share what was useful in specific situations. Did you have an HCS clearance? If you did, why would you talk about what activities were useful and what weren't?
I can agree with the useful =/ moral part. However, these methods are not useful, and the fallout from them is not worth it.I've talked to an interrogator and I've been an interrogator. So stop trying appeal to authority when I know you don't know what you're talking about. Carrots are as useful as sticks, and sticks are usually most useful when they're used in very simple ways. But in some situations, sticks are needed. And in the extreme of those situations, waterboarding- or even torture- are useful. To pretend their not is just not grounded in reality- even if it's not moral. Useful =/ moral.
You failed to elaborate on the rest of what I said, namely that torture can happen to our own men, or that it can be a recruitment tool (which it is, Gitmo is a huge recruitment tool, even though most of these EITs didn't even happen there)Or because of the Geneva Conventions?
That's not just a UCMJ brief.. that's what you should've been following as an interrogator or as someone who worked with them.Well, that tells me what's prohibited, not what's useful, but I appreciate the UCMJ brief. It's been awhile, but god knows there's nothing I miss more than a 0600 brief about annual training, so thanks.
eric holder has
No, Holder, Panetta, Hayden have ALL said that EIT's have provided solid info....it jusy is what it is.
yup, just a claim
endorsed by eric holder
LOL!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?