# Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'



## pardus (Dec 11, 2007)

NEW YORK (CNN) -- A former CIA agent who participated in interrogations of terror suspects said Tuesday that the controversial interrogation technique of "waterboarding" has saved lives, but he considers the method torture and now opposes its use.

Former CIA operative John Kiriakou also told CNN's "American Morning" that he disagrees with a decision to destroy videotapes of certain interrogations, namely of al Qaeda's Abu Zubayda. Kiriakou made the remarks as two congressional committees prepared to grill CIA Director Michael Hayden on the destruction of the tapes and on "alternative" means of interrogation.

Waterboarding begins by placing a suspect on a table with the suspect's feet slightly elevated, said Kiriakou, who was waterboarded several years ago as part of his CIA training. He said he elected not to learn how to perform the technique, which is designed to emulate the sensation of drowning.

Once a suspect is secured on the table, interrogators wrap his or her face in a cellophane-like material, Kiriakou said.

"There is a bladder, or a water source, above the head with water pouring down on the mouth, so no water is going into your mouth, but it induces a gag reflex and makes you feel like you're choking," Kiriakou said. Watch the ex-agent describe the procedure »

Kiriakou said he lasted only a few seconds during his training because his body felt like it was seizing up almost immediately.

"It's entirely unpleasant," Kiriakou said. "You are so full of tension that you tense up, your muscles tighten up. It's very uncomfortable."

Abu Zubayda lasted a little longer, said Kiriakou, but not much.

The former agent, who said he participated in the Abu Zubayda interrogation but not his waterboarding, said the CIA decided to waterboard the al Qaeda operative only after he was "wholly uncooperative" for weeks and refused to answer questions.

All that changed -- and Zubayda reportedly had a divine revelation -- after 30 to 35 seconds of waterboarding, Kiriakou said he learned from the CIA agents who performed the technique.

The terror suspect, who is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, reportedly gave up information that indirectly led to the the 2003 raid in Pakistan yielding the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, an alleged planner of the September 11, 2001, attacks, Kiriakou said.

The CIA was unaware of Mohammed's stature before the Abu Zubayda interrogation, the former agent said.

"Abu Zubayda's the one who told us that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was so important in the al Qaeda structure, and we didn't realize at the time how important he was," Kiriakou said.

Abu Zubayda also divulged information on "al Qaeda's leadership structure and mentioned people who we really didn't have any familiarization with [and] told us who we should be thinking about, who we should be looking at, and who was important in the organization so we were able to focus our investigation this way," Kiriakou said.

Abu Zubayda reportedly told the agent who waterboarded him that "Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate because it would make it easier on the other brothers who had been captured," Kiriakou said.

Though the information wrenched from Abu Zubayda "stopped terrorist attacks and saved lives," Kiriakou said he opposes waterboarding.

"Now after all these years, time has passed, and we're more on our feet in this fight against al Qaeda, and I think it's unnecessary," he said.

In a separate CNN interview, Kiriakou said the Justice Department and National Security Council reportedly approved waterboarding and other "alternative" interrogation techniques in June 2002.

"It was a policy decision that came down from the White House," he said.

Despite the executive blessing, Kiriakou and other agents were conflicted over whether to learn the technique, he said.

"One senior officer said to me that this is something you really have to think deeply about," the former agent said, adding he "struggled with it morally."

Kiriakou conceded his position might be hypocritical and said that the technique was useful -- even if he wanted to distance himself from it.

"Waterboarding was an important technique, and some of these other techniques were important in collecting the information," he said. "But I personally didn't want to do it. I didn't think it was right in the long run, and I didn't want to be associated with it."

As for the tapes of the interrogations, Kiriakou -- who claims neither he nor the other CIA agents realized they were being recorded during the Abu Zubayda interrogation -- said he disagrees with the decision to destroy the tapes.

"I don't see the reason to destroy them," Kiriakou said. "There's a possibility that they could be used in a criminal investigation, and frankly, for the historical record, I think it's important to have things like that maintained."

The Justice Department and CIA have announced a preliminary inquiry into the matter. Hayden, the CIA director, is slated to go before congressional committees Tuesday and Wednesday.

Hayden has said the CIA destroyed the tapes "only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative or judicial inquiries."

Congressional leaders said they were never properly notified about the decision.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/11/agent.tapes/index.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"It's effective, it saves lives, but its bad"

:uhh: WTF?

It is NOT fucking torture!

Pussies!


----------



## ROS (Dec 11, 2007)

My first thought, "pussies".

2nd thought: at least the bastards still have their heads.


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 11, 2007)

So it worked on one fuckpot that wouldn't talk but now it's bad so we shouldn't do it on any other fuckpot's that won't talk.  :uhh:  I'd like to know the situation that led this moron to leaving the CIA, it's not like he hit fucking retirement age.


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 11, 2007)

gdamadg said:


> So it worked on one fuckpot that wouldn't talk but now it's bad so we shouldn't do it on any other fuckpot's that won't talk.  :uhh:  I'd like to know the situation that led this moron to leaving the CIA, it's not like he hit fucking retirement age.



As well as what prompted his going to CNN and talking about his work there.  I'm guessing that suggestion didn't come from Langley...

Last sentence sounds like an afterthought to divert attention from Congress, and make sure nobody reading this looks to closely at their end of all this.  :2c:


----------



## Hitman2/3 (Dec 12, 2007)

This guy sounds like a shitbird. He's like the guy that joins the infantry then gets out and protest because he had to kill people. Its one thing not to agree with the tactic, which I personaly do agree with, but to got to Communist News Network and talk about what goes on behind doors that are closed for a reason is just bullshit.


----------



## 275ANGER! (Dec 12, 2007)

Terrorist get nice room and board, hot meals, and some luxuries he is not accustomed too(toilet seat), and yet they feel sorry for him because we ruffled his feathers.  We need to go Medevil on there asses , waterboarding ain't real torture, will it help if we added some booze to the mix.


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Dec 12, 2007)

People like that only hurt our country.  I guess he sort of forgot about lifespan of his NDA after getting his clearance.


----------



## Paddlefoot (Dec 12, 2007)

I saw him interviewed on Nightline a couple of nights ago, and he revealed that he was _*not*_ present during the waterboarding, only that he was told that it worked.

Which is hearsay, regardless of the credibility of the person who told him that. But that's beside the point.

Nothing but a bunch of desparate amateurs masquerading as professionals. No sense reiterating my views on these methods.


----------



## ROS (Dec 12, 2007)

Paddlefoot said:


> I saw him interviewed on Nightline a couple of nights ago, and he revealed that he was _*not*_ present during the waterboarding, only that he was told that it worked.
> 
> Which is hearsay, regardless of the credibility of the person who told him that. But that's beside the point.
> 
> Nothing but a bunch of desparate amateurs masquerading as professionals. No sense reiterating my views on these methods.


But we haven't all heard them.


----------



## pardus (Dec 12, 2007)

He said they were great!


----------



## Paddlefoot (Dec 12, 2007)

Soft pillows, comfy chairs. They're all the same.

[YOUTUBE]CSe38dzJYkY[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## pardus (Dec 13, 2007)

*CIA agents sense shifting support for methods*

By Scott Shane

Thursday, December 13, 2007 
WASHINGTON: For six years, Central Intelligence Agency officers have worried that someday the tide of post-Sept. 11 opinion would turn, and their harsh treatment of prisoners from Al Qaeda would be subjected to hostile scrutiny and possible criminal prosecution.

Now that day may have arrived, after years of shifting legal advice, searing criticism from rights groups — and no new terrorist attacks on American soil.

The Justice Department, which in 2002 gave the CIA legal approval for waterboarding and other tough interrogation methods, is reviewing whether agency officials broke the law by destroying videotapes of those very methods.

The congressional intelligence committees, whose leaders in 2002 gave at least tacit approval for the tough tactics, have voted in conference to ban all coercive techniques, and they have announced investigations of the destruction of the videotapes and the methods they documented.

"Exactly what they feared is what's happening," Jack Goldsmith, the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, said of the CIA officials he advised in that job. "The winds change, and the recriminations begin."

The legal siege against the Bush administration's counterterrorism programs goes far beyond the CIA, including lawsuits brought on behalf of hundreds of detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and more than 40 challenges in court to the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program.

For some at the CIA, the second-guessing began in 2004 with a decision by Goldsmith, now at Harvard Law School, to withdraw the 2002 opinion on interrogation, whose sweeping constitutional claims and narrow definition of torture he found fatally flawed. But he said he regretted the way the agency had been whipsawed — accused of "risk aversion" immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, and now blamed for traducing American values by engaging in torture.

"Things that seemed to them five years ago to have airtight legal and political support are now under investigation," he said, comparing this cycle to the Senate hearings into CIA abuses in the 1970s and the criminal prosecution of CIA officials in the Iran-contra affair of the 1980s.

Even a CIA officer involved in capturing and questioning leaders of Al Qaeda expresses a striking ambivalence about the policies that were carried out.

John Kiriakou, who helped lead the team that caught the Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in March 2002, went public on ABC News this week with such a message. He said he saw intelligence reports saying that waterboarding, a technique that induces a sense of suffocation, had caused Abu Zubaydah to start talking after 35 seconds.

But Kiriakou, a 43-year-old father of four who left the agency in 2004, also said in an interview that he believed waterboarding was torture and should never be used again, because "we Americans are better than that." He added: "I think the second-guessing of 2002 decisions is unfair. What I think is fair is having a national debate over whether we should be waterboarding."

Legal hazards were on the minds of Bush administration officials from the beginning of the response to 9/11. The 2002 Justice Department interrogation opinion laid out some defenses interrogators might use against criminal accusations of torture.

"The administration's success in preventing attacks has become its enemy," said John Yoo, the former Justice official who wrote most of the 2002 opinion. Since then, he added, "The political environment has changed because people feel the threat is less than it used to be."

Yoo's legal opinions, though criticized as seriously flawed by some scholars, may nonetheless provide impenetrable armor for CIA officers. From the beginning, wary agency officials insisted on what they called "top cover" — written Justice Department approval for what they did.

Most legal scholars say that even under a future administration, the Justice Department would not seek charges against CIA officers for actions the department itself had approved.

Another obstacle to such prosecutions would be the laws passed by Congress in 2005 and 2006 granting extensive legal protection for authorized conduct. But the videotape destruction may not have such protection; the episode recalls the adage of Washington scandals — that it's not the crime, it's the cover-up that leads to trouble.

The deaths of several prisoners who had been questioned by CIA officers or contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan — but outside the detention program for high-level Qaeda prisoners — have been referred to the Justice Department. Only one CIA contractor, David Passaro, has been prosecuted, receiving an eight-year sentence for beating an Afghan man who later died.

Still, investigations can impose a high price no matter how they end. "It's not just the fear of going to jail," Goldsmith said. "It's the enormous expense of hiring lawyers. It's seeing your reputation destroyed. It's losing your career."

Overseas, CIA officers implicated in rendition cases have been sought on criminal charges in Italy and Germany, though none have been arrested. And since the international pursuit of the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, human rights advocates have often sought criminal charges against former officials on the principle of "universal jurisdiction" for certain grave offenses, including torture.

The Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, which unsuccessfully sought charges against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a recent visit to France, has pledged to pursue criminal torture charges against former Bush administration officials when they travel abroad.

"The only way to restore the moral authority of our country," said Michael Ratner, the group's president, "is accountability."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/13/america/13inquire.php


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 13, 2007)

Maybe the people should look at it that these people have been doing their job since 9/11 and preventing future attacks.  If they start restricting the way counter terrorist work is done, then there will be more attacks on US soil.  :2c:


----------



## pardus (Dec 13, 2007)

We'll be asking nicely and giving them rewards to encourage them to talk in future


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 13, 2007)

pardus762 said:


> We'll be asking nicely and giving them rewards to encourage them to talk in future



We can give them rewards of an all expense paid lifestyle with a bunch of virgins. ;)


----------



## pardus (Dec 13, 2007)

Ah there you go, a win win situation, everyone's happy!


----------



## MADMIKE175 (Dec 13, 2007)

We are a country of pussy's, and with shit like this going on it won't be long before we're hit in the face again.


----------



## pardus (Dec 13, 2007)

Hate to say it but it might be what we need to refocus.


----------



## MADMIKE175 (Dec 13, 2007)

I hate to even think of it.

If it must happen again perhaps I could write up the target list for the bad guys....

NY Times, LA Times, CNN HQ, etc..etc..

Just joking, please no one get their panties in a twist!


----------



## Gypsy (Dec 13, 2007)

pardus762 said:


> We'll be asking nicely and giving them rewards to encourage them to talk in future



Perhaps some milk and cookies.


----------



## pardus (Dec 13, 2007)

Have to make sure thats not offensive first!


----------



## car (Dec 13, 2007)

MADMIKE175 said:


> I hate to even think of it.
> 
> If it must happen again perhaps I could write up the target list for the bad guys....
> 
> ...



Dude, I've got a list........just can't figure out who to give it to


----------



## Paddlefoot (Dec 13, 2007)

> Most legal scholars say that even under a future administration, the Justice Department would not seek charges against CIA officers for actions the department itself had approved.



There's a strange circular logic at work here.


----------



## rv808 (Dec 13, 2007)

I don't give two fucks about Al-Qaeda trash.  The only reason we should keep them alive is for Intel.


----------



## MADMIKE175 (Dec 14, 2007)

car said:


> Dude, I've got a list........just can't figure out who to give it to




BAHAHAHA - NICE!


----------



## QC (Jan 17, 2008)

Paddlefoot said:


> There's a strange circular logic at work here.



I think that if a person can give you intel that will prevent the deaths of say, 100,000 in a terrorist event, it is justified. This seems to be the case. Fucking muppet probably need a good wash anyway...


----------



## Paddlefoot (Jan 17, 2008)

Queens Cadet said:


> I think that if a person can give you intel that will prevent the deaths of say, 100,000 in a terrorist event, it is justified. This seems to be the case. Fucking muppet probably need a good wash anyway...



Not sure I follow you.

How many prisoners do you have to work your way through until you get to "the one" that has that proverbial ticking time bomb info that is guaranteed (I use that term loosely) to prevent 100,000 deaths in a terrorist event. And how will you know for sure that person is the guy that's going to help you crack it? 

The huge numbers always get thrown out there as justification, as does this idea that the info he gives you is going to be about some earth shaking event just over the horizon.

Again, and I've said it before, interrogation is not about trying to hit the home run. People at the top, who are as clueless about the intelligence cycle as just about any folks I've ever seen, seem to get that fictional _24_ bug up their ass. That shit works on TV shows, in reality it is not as a reliable a method.

Treat interrogation like it is, one asset, one method to help put the big picture together, not the brush and the paint and the easel that's going to put the whole thing down on canvas. Many times, your source may not even know he's got decent info you can exploit, and you may never know either. Not if you're focused in on hitting the long ball, under pressure from superiors who only want "results" (even when they're not sure what those results are), and they want them yesterday.


----------



## pardus (Jan 17, 2008)

Paddle I know your views on this.
Do you guys ignore the possibility of the '24' scenario when you get a prisoner?

I would like to hear your thoughts on the French actions in Algeirs where torture was the tool that allowed the effective destruction of the terror network in the city.


----------



## QC (Jan 17, 2008)

Thats constructive paddle and to an extent, I agree. It's not a blunt force tool. Would you then apply a method on someone who you knew for certain had information and was reluctant to speak?


----------



## Scotth (Jan 18, 2008)

I will probably be in the minority on this issue with select others.

For me I am reluctant to believe just because someone get up and says torture saved live that it actually did that.  I'm reluctant because there is no evidence to support the claim.  We have had 1000's of people in custody and at one point after Abu Ghraib there was 30-40 active murder investigation for people who died in custody.  We have actively shipped people off to other countries were the only reasonable conclusion can be to keep the blood off our hands.  Of the 100's and maybe 1000's of prisoners that filtered thru Gitmo, the government says there is less than 5 people that they will charge with any offense some time in the future.  We have been holding many of those people 6 or more years.

After WWII we executed Japanese soldiers that took part in the torture of American troops.  I also tend to give a lot of credence to people like John McCain who actually have lived thru such an ordeal that certainly has incites that hopefully I or any of us will ever have.  The bottom line for me is very simple.  If you want to be the good guy you have to act like the good guy.  It's not easy and it maybe costly but being right isn't necessarily the easiest road.  Should there be an exception to the rule, probably in an extreme case, but that was not what we had or have today.


----------



## pardus (Jan 18, 2008)

Where do I start..... ?



Scotth said:


> I will probably be in the minority on this issue with select others.
> 
> For me I am reluctant to believe just because someone get up and says torture saved live that it actually did that.  I'm reluctant because there is no evidence to support the claim.



Where do you get this no evidence claim from?



Scotth said:


> We have had 1000's of people in custody and at one point after Abu Ghraib there was 30-40 active murder investigation for people who died in custody.



Please cite a source for this info, I want to see some proof of this and to know how many convictions for murder there were.



Scotth said:


> We have actively shipped people off to other countries were the only reasonable conclusion can be to keep the blood off our hands.



Resonable? You are talking shit you know nothing about.



Scotth said:


> Of the 100's and maybe 1000's of prisoners that filtered thru Gitmo, the government says there is less than 5 people that they will charge with any offense some time in the future.  We have been holding many of those people 6 or more years.



So what? We are at war, they stay locked up.



Scotth said:


> After WWII we executed Japanese soldiers that took part in the torture of American troops.



I want to see evidence of this, I think this claim is bullshit.



Scotth said:


> I also tend to give a lot of credence to people like John McCain who actually have lived thru such an ordeal that certainly has incites that hopefully I or any of us will ever have.  The bottom line for me is very simple.  If you want to be the good guy you have to act like the good guy.  It's not easy and it maybe costly but being right isn't necessarily the easiest road.  Should there be an exception to the rule, probably in an extreme case, but that was not what we had or have today.




So don't do it but be allowed to do it? :uhh:

Why be pussies? it's either yay or nay to authorising the use of it in certain circumstances, your way will have troops prosecuted for obeying orders.

I hate it when people dont have the balls to do something but want the option in extreme circumstances, basicly "I'm a pussy who won't sign off on this because it repulses me but I want nasty people (i.e. Military, intel agencies etc...) to do it without my knowledge to save me when needed but If  I find out about it i'll be outraged and demand an investigation and the ruination of someones career/life as a result!"

This pisses me off!


----------



## Scotth (Jan 18, 2008)

I will do what I can to reproduce link to items I have read but that will take some time.  Most of what I said was expressing my personal opinion.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Scotth
> I will probably be in the minority on this issue with select others.
> 
> ...



Like I said I was reluctant, I didn't call them liars.  I guess I would turn this around towards you and say show me the example were tortured intel saved lives?  I haven't seen it myself.  It doesn't mean it didn't or couldn't.  It means that I haven't seen it.



> Please cite a source for this info, I want to see some proof of this and to know how many convictions for murder there were.



I will work on link from were I read this, but like I said it was a while ago.  I have never read anything about any convictions from the investigation.



> Resonable? You are talking shit you know nothing about.



Vary well maybe the case, then please explain to me what I don't know.



> So don't do it but be allowed to do it?
> 
> Why be pussies? it's either yay or nay to authorising the use of it in certain circumstances, your way will have troops prosecuted for obeying orders.
> 
> ...



Seldom things are black and white.  That's why you need options.  Yes you are right.  I want someone, especially the President, to step up and have the balls to sign off of this crap.  If it's that important they say so.  As normal we have things like Abu Garaib go on and who got the blame?  The E-3 thru E-6 take all the blame and nobody of any consequence stands up and take responsibility.  I want the responsibility and accountability to happen.  If they believe it was right then say so.  Instead it's all done in secret and when it heads south it's let the little guy take the fall.


----------



## Scotth (Jan 18, 2008)

Here are a few links that I found on a Google search:

I post this one because it has references to a lot of other articles:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/ct0406/appendixb.pdf

Other links I found:

http://www.feedsfarm.com/article/4bd110c11cf2ed3d7466b408036f43cbb1bd4fe5.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,909294,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10950946/

These were found through a Google search.  The point I made was an article I read during the whole Abu Garaib that they were investigating 30-40 cases.  I don't think its right that these troops are getting hung out to dry.  I believe people in leadership want this information no matter the cost but are unwillingly to stand up and say this is what we asked of these people.

I'm not here trying to piss anyone off.  I'm expressing my opionion.  We may not aggree and that Ok.  I'm not a perfect person and I'm not right all the time.  But I do like to discuss issue to expand my persception and hopefully find a point of view that I may not have thought of.


----------



## pardus (Jan 18, 2008)

Scotth said:


> I will do what I can to reproduce link to items I have read but that will take some time.  Most of what I said was expressing my personal opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Im OK with this all being behind closed doors, in fact I think it should be hidden, that said it should be down in writing so there is no BS come back when things get public.

Explain to you what you don't know? lol do your own reasearch, until then don't make claims you cant back up that harm our forces and aid our enemy. 



Scotth said:


> I'm not here trying to piss anyone off.  I'm expressing my opionion.  We may not aggree and that Ok.  I'm not a perfect person and I'm not right all the time.  But I do like to discuss issue to expand my persception and hopefully find a point of view that I may not have thought of.



Understood, no worries.


----------



## QC (Jan 18, 2008)

It's good to debate what is a thorny issue. But what are the wider implications if officially recognized? The 'ticking bomb' scenario may glean quality information but can lead to widespread misuse. So how do you limit it? It cannot be legalized as that encourages. There are some interesting outcomes. 
The French under General Aussaresses carried out many interrogations in Algeria, which led, they claim, to them winning the battle. This divided the French at home and later led to Algerian independence. Argentina defeated leftist opponents but the junta was toppled. Israel employ harsh techniques, but this has not stopped the suicide bombers. 
The Convention Against Torture 1984  "does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to lawful sanctions."  With the treatment of suspected IRA prisoners by the British, in 1978 the European Court of Human Rights the majority of judges found that it wasn't torture to be made to stand spread-eagled against a wall for hours, to be hooded, to be deprived of sleep, to be given short rations or to be subject to continuous loud noise. They did find that these practices were "inhuman and degrading" and therefore in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. What is clearly ruled out is physical pain or the threat of it.  It's a hard choice to make and looking in the rear view mirror it may well have been justified. As above, use it sparingly. 
Saudi Arabia now has an interesting technique. If a terrorist is captured, they meet with an Imam who talks to them and persuades them that their interpretation of Islam is incorrect. This is done without any coercion. If the prisoner comes to realize that their view is in fact a corrupted one, their sentence is reviewed and they get remissions on their sentence. If however, they are found to be intractable, they are executed.


----------



## JBS (Jan 18, 2008)

Waterboarding and other measures should have never been put out into the public arena, in my opinion.  Allowing the enemy to review political dialog on the subject, along with disclosure of methods, allows them to prepare for it, in the event they are captured- hence potentially reducing the effectiveness of those methods.  


If it was an issue of concern, an internal committee should have been dispatched to review it.  Things like this don't belong in the public eye.  Its amazing to me how many people agree not to disclose things that they have been trusted to keep secure, only to go out and write books and screenplays about them.  

If things like waterboarding (or other interrogation techniques) are likely to have ever saved any lives, its my view that we have to trust those who employ those techniques to apply them inside of good judgment, and within the boundaries that have already been set.


----------



## Paddlefoot (Jan 18, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> Paddle I know your views on this.
> Do you guys ignore the possibility of the '24' scenario when you get a prisoner?
> 
> I would like to hear your thoughts on the French actions in Algeirs where torture was the tool that allowed the effective destruction of the terror network in the city.



They don't ignore anything, but an interrogator wouldn't go into a session with a preconceived notion that this source was the guy who had info on some event such as the ones portrayed on shows like _24_. The most important thing is to keep an open mind. Much of the information that is gleaned, again, won't be of some event that is just about to happen. The "ticking time bomb" scenario is a tired cliche that should be retired, but it seems to be the rationale driving much of these techniques. 

As for Algeria, in the end the French withdrew and Algeria gained their independence. I don't think there is much to be learned from the French experience in Algeria, especially when it comes to their methods. This was a colonial power that tried to hold on to its Algerian "assets" long past their sell-by date. Any thing they did during the Algerian war for independence should be taken with a grain of salt. And in the end, they withdrew from the country. What did they gain from the use of torture, exactly?


----------



## pardus (Jan 18, 2008)

Paddlefoot said:


> They don't ignore anything, but an interrogator wouldn't go into a session with a preconceived notion that this source was the guy who had info on some event such as the ones portrayed on shows like _24_. The most important thing is to keep an open mind. Much of the information that is gleaned, again, won't be of some event that is just about to happen. The "ticking time bomb" scenario is a tired cliche that should be retired, but it seems to be the rationale driving much of these techniques.



OK, cool thanks.



Paddlefoot said:


> As for Algeria, in the end the French withdrew and Algeria gained their independence. I don't think there is much to be learned from the French experience in Algeria, especially when it comes to their methods. This was a colonial power that tried to hold on to its Algerian "assets" long past their sell-by date. Any thing they did during the Algerian war for independence should be taken with a grain of salt. And in the end, they withdrew from the country. What did they gain from the use of torture, exactly?



They destroyed the terror network within Algeirs, locally it was very successful.
The end of the war is not what I was getting at just the campaign within Algeirs itself.


----------



## Paddlefoot (Jan 20, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> They destroyed the terror network within Algeirs, locally it was very successful.
> The end of the war is not what I was getting at just the campaign within Algeirs itself.



Understood, and there were excesses on both sides. The problem I always had with the French experience in Algeria is that for every 1 person that might have been useful as a source into the Algerian network(s), another 10 with no real ties or info would get swept up and subjected to the same treatment. They were fairly indiscriminate in who they swept up in their dragnets. 

That's the main reason I'm not sold on French methods of interrogation during that period. Throwing things against the wall to see what sticks and shaking the bushes and rattling cages is a time honored method for obtaining information. And there are very subtle ways to go about it, in many instances. You start subjecting large segments of the population to these extreme methods of interrogation, torture if you will, you aren't gaining the upper hand. In the end, you wind up losing their proverbial hearts and minds.

And as we saw during the 90s, Algerian terror cells were still alive and well. I'm sure much of the legacy was passed on from the experiences during the 50s and 60s, although within the context of a pure Islamic movement to gain control of the country. Algeria is still what I would call a battleground state for what's going on around the world with the Jihadis, although their agenda might not be exactly the same as the Taliban, or Al Quaeda or any of the other movements currently active.


----------



## pardus (Jan 20, 2008)

Thank you Paddle, good points.


----------



## Scotth (Jan 21, 2008)

JoeBlackSpade said:


> If it was an issue of concern, an internal committee should have been dispatched to review it.



You need checks and balances in a democracy.  Having any administration policing themselves isn't good for the democratic process.  I've said it about different issues but I think this issue applies as well.  You need to look at policies and judge them as if someone you didn't like was President.  Would you be happy if Hilary was President and keeping this or many other issue like domestic surveillance secret?


----------



## Hitman2/3 (Jan 22, 2008)

Scotth said:


> You need checks and balances in a democracy.  Having any administration policing themselves isn't good for the democratic process.  I've said it about different issues but I think this issue applies as well.  You need to look at policies and judge them as if someone you didn't like was President.  Would you be happy if Hilary was President and keeping this or many other issue like domestic surveillance secret?



Yes I would be happy if they kept it secret. For some reason we (not me) as Americans seem to think that we have the right to know every single little thing that goes on in the government. This country has enemies and we are at war. Even before 9/11 we were at war, just no body except the ones fighting it new about it. When you are at war you do not give the enemy your play book so that they can review and prepare for it, even a 10 year old playing football knows this. Our enemies have cable and the Internet, every time some ass clown leaks some information that "the people have the right to know about" our enemies know about it and look for ways to exploit it. 

But yet for some reason idiots like the New York times and CNN think that its there job to "break the big story". Who cares if it gets an agent killed, or a Team in the field ambushed. I do damn it, because I still have friends that are in the field both overtly and covertly, and the last thing I want to hear is that they got smoked because some jack ass in the media had to get the big story. 

There are things that go on that the average American/ civilian does not need to know about because they can't understand them. That is why we have people like the men and women on this site, because we do understand what needs to happen and why. We understand how real and how close the threat is. I have and would be willing to do things that most people couldn't even think of because I have been trained to do so. Our brain functions in a completely different way then those we protect, and maybe that's a good thing. But those that we protect need to understand just like my wife and most of my family does that there are things that don't get talked about for their safety and peace of mind. They are sheep we are wolves, they don't need to know how we hunt they just need to know that we keep them safe   :2c:


----------



## ROS (Jan 22, 2008)

Hitman2/3 said:


> Yes I would be happy if they kept it secret. For some reason we (not me) as Americans seem to think that we have the right to know every single little thing that goes on in the government. This country has enemies and we are at war. Even before 9/11 we were at war, just no body except the ones fighting it new about it. When you are at war you do not give the enemy your play book so that they can review and prepare for it, even a 10 year old playing football knows this. Our enemies have cable and the Internet, every time some ass clown leaks some information that "the people have the right to know about" our enemies know about it and look for ways to exploit it.
> 
> But yet for some reason idiots like the New York times and CNN think that its there job to "break the big story". Who cares if it gets an agent killed, or a Team in the field ambushed. I do damn it, because I still have friends that are in the field both overtly and covertly, and the last thing I want to hear is that they got smoked because some jack ass in the media had to get the big story.
> 
> There are things that go on that the average American/ civilian does not need to know about because they can't understand them. That is why we have people like the men and women on this site, because we do understand what needs to happen and why. We understand how real and how close the threat is. I have and would be willing to do things that most people couldn't even think of because I have been trained to do so. Our brain functions in a completely different way then those we protect, and maybe that's a good thing. But those that we protect need to understand just like my wife and most of my family does that there are things that don't get talked about for their safety and peace of mind. They are sheep we are wolves, they don't need to know how we hunt they just need to know that we keep them safe   :2c:


Well said.

As a civilian, I don't _want or need_ to know how and why things are done, just that they have the same end result: we retain the freedoms granted us by the Constitution. 

At the risk of sounding redundant because this aspect really nerves me, the media played a positive and limited role in WWII, and it was a good thing. The media in general today provide nothing but negativity and promote disdain for those putting their asses on the line for their rights to print their negativity. 

When it comes to policing agencies and their activities, I don't believe it should fall on the hands of every citizen to do so when we have limited and twisted information, information to which we shouldn't be privy to begin with. It's war, it's uglier than I'll ever know, and there's a reason for that.


----------

