Holder to Appoint Prosecutor for CIA Terror Investigations

US News • Views: 4,161

Attorney General Eric Holder has announced he’s going to appoint a prosecutor to investigate CIA interrogations of terrorism suspects, as a prelude to possible “full scale” criminal investigations.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has decided to appoint a prosecutor to examine nearly a dozen cases in which CIA interrogators and contractors may have violated anti-torture laws and other statutes when they allegedly threatened terrorism suspects, according to two sources familiar with the move.

Holder is poised to name John Durham, a career Justice Department prosecutor from Connecticut, to lead the inquiry, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the process is not complete.

Durham’s mandate, the sources added, will be relatively narrow: to look at whether there is enough evidence to launch a full-scale criminal investigation of current and former CIA personnel who may have broken the law in their dealings with detainees. Many of the harshest CIA interrogation techniques have not been employed against terrorism suspects for four years or more.

UPDATE at 8/24/09 11:40:29 am:

This text message just came in over my iPhone:

Breaking (2:32pm EDT): An internal CIA report says interrogators threatened to kill 9/11 suspect’s children.

Jump to bottom

601 comments
1 JammieWearingFool  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:39:28am

A convenient bone to throw to the nutroots.

2 Last Mohican  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:39:54am

I’m glad this got its own thread. It’s a really, really big deal. An extraordinary stupid idea, that’s going to do terrible harm to this country for many years to come.

3 Achilles Tang  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:40:12am

Anyone want to apply for a job at the CIA these days?

4 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:40:59am

This text message just came in over my iPhone:

Breaking (2:32pm EDT): An internal CIA report says interrogators threatened to kill 9/11 suspect’s children.

5 Daria Emmons  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:41:01am

This will end badly…

6 MrSilverDragon  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:41:06am

Just another bad choice in a long list of bad choices from this administration…

…it’s so important to recognize the rights of people that want to kill us.

7 WindHorse  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:41:14am

What a waste of time and taxpayer money, on so many levels…

8 brennant  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:41:49am

re: #4 Charles

how mafia-esque.

9 Russkilitlover  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:42:14am

And Obama’s on vaca with strict orders to the press to just let him eat his waffle.

10 midwestgak  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:42:29am

FBI - Federal Bureau of Interrogation?

11 Lincolntf  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:42:52am

Pedictable as the sunrise. Wee-Wee gets slapped around on Health Care and the still sour economy, polls start dipping below the 50% mark and Presto! the “war crimes” card comes out of his back pocket.

I don’t know how much substance there will be to these “investigations” but it will give the MSM the opportunity to re-visit their favorite era, the Bush Presidency, which is really the goal.

12 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:43:07am

re: #4 Charles

This text message just came in over my iPhone:

This is just wrong. What makes me proud to be an American, and incredibly proud of our troops is that we don’t usually do this stuff. When we do, whether it’s done under a Republican or a Democrat, it needs to be stopped an the people responsible need to be punished.

We need to get the bad guys, but we can’t do that at the expense of what makes us worth fighting for.

13 rhythman  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:43:26am

you know, we are so f***ed for the next three and a half years. I hope and honestly pray that the Obamacare fiasco goes down in flames so his power will be that much more diminished. Whenever I see an Obama bumper sticker I want to ask the driver, “well…are you happy now?”

God Bless this great country of ours. We have to make it through this horrible time.

14 Last Mohican  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:43:33am

re: #1 JammieWearingFool

A convenient bone to throw to the nutroots.

Maybe you’ve got a point. Maybe it’s just a bone. Maybe the prosecutor will officially conclude that there’s not enough evidence to launch a further criminal investigation, and then the whole thing will be put to rest, with the moonbats’ blood pressure having been lowered a few points.

15 nightlight  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:44:01am

An internal CIA report says interrogators threatened to kill 9/11 suspect’s children.

Better to have them THREATEN someone’s children than have them succeed in killing mine.

16 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:44:07am

Ugh. Threatening to kill someone’s children, if that’s true, is something I can’t support at all.

Now I’m beginning to wonder if there’s more waiting to come out.

17 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:44:55am

re: #15 nightlight

An internal CIA report says interrogators threatened to kill 9/11 suspect’s children.

Better to have them THREATEN someone’s children than have them succeed in killing mine.

Are you really arguing that it’s EVER okay to threaten someone’s children?

Really?

18 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:45:26am

re: #16 Charles

Ugh. Threatening to kill someone’s children, if that’s true, is something I can’t support at all.

Now I’m beginning to wonder if there’s more waiting to come out.

Thank you for being rational and compassionate. That seems in short supply in the political realm today.

19 nightlight  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:45:56am

re: #17 ~Fianna

Are you really arguing that it’s EVER okay to threaten someone’s children?

Really?

I’m saying that if they told the suspect that they were threatening this to extract whatever information necessary, then I don’t have a problem with it. A threat is a threat.

20 WindHorse  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:46:02am

Wow, if it truly involves threats to children - investigate. If it is purely a move to distract us from other things, I say bs.

21 Lincolntf  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:46:28am

re: #15 nightlight

I agree. I imagine that pretty much everything that the interrogators said to suspected terrorists would sound unbelievably harsh and cruel in any other context. In the context of the 9/11 investigation, there isn’t a single word in the world that would offend me. It’s just words.

22 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:46:54am

re: #19 nightlight

I’m saying that if they told the suspect that they were threatening this to extract whatever information necessary, then I don’t have a problem with it. A threat is a threat.

That makes no sense. That’s just barbarism.

What’s the difference between that and what the Taliban does?

23 Arbalest  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:46:59am

I think I saw this already; “Three Days of the Condor”, with Robert Redford, right?

I think that there are very many more things waiting to come out, and quite a lot of them about Eric Holder and friends.

24 cronus  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:47:09am

No news here. Bedwetters continue to wet the bed

25 nightlight  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:47:32am

re: #22 ~Fianna

That makes no sense. That’s just barbarism.

What’s the difference between that and what the Taliban does?

The taliban makes good on their threats. That’s the DIFFERENCE

26 JammieWearingFool  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:47:55am

Report: CIA threatened detainee families

A newly declassified CIA report says interrogators threatened to kill the children of a Sept. 11 suspect.

The document, released Monday by the Justice Department, says one interrogator said a colleague had told Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that if any other attacks happened in the United States, “We’re going to kill your children.”

Another interrogator allegedly tried to convince a different terror suspect detainee that his mother would be sexually assaulted in front of him — though the interrogator in question denied making such a threat.

27 MandyManners  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:48:59am

If an investigator knows that there is a bomb waiting to go off and he threatens to kill the suspect’s children, I’m okay with that.

28 victor_yugo  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:49:13am

re: #22 ~Fianna

That makes no sense. That’s just barbarism.

What’s the difference between that and what the Taliban does?

The Taliban follows through.

The job of the interrogators is to convince their Taliban captives that they will follow through as well.

29 Mad Al-Jaffee  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:49:22am

re: #4 Charles

This text message just came in over my iPhone:

That worked for Jack Bauer once.

30 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:49:30am

re: #16 Charles

Ugh. Threatening to kill someone’s children, if that’s true, is something I can’t support at all.

Now I’m beginning to wonder if there’s more waiting to come out.

I’m sorry Charles. I cherish children as much as anyone, but if I thought that a KNOWN terrorist had information that could save lives of hundreds, if not thousands including children I would do just about anything to scare the shit/ truth out of them.

As long as their families were never in harms way and the threats were limited to the interrogation process only

31 WindHorse  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:50:03am

It isn’t right to approach things in this way (ie. threats to children), but in the heat of the moment… feeling completely threatened (ie. twin towers and ~3000 innocent deaths in NYC), it might be understandable.

…something about walking a mile in someone else’s shoes…

32 Flyovercountry  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:50:09am

The implications of this go far beyond the politics of the day. Once current administrations start prosecution of previous administrations, very few will have the fortitude to cary out their duties, such as they are, for fear of retrubution from political rivals at some later date. This is of course not important to President Obama in the slightest. He holds this country and its citizens in contempt. Be careful in your destruction of our republic though Barry, you could fall victim to your own sword, once you are removed from power in November 2012.

33 victor_yugo  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:50:26am

re: #27 MandyManners

If an investigator knows that there is a bomb waiting to go off and he threatens to kill the suspect’s children, I’m okay with that.

But the suspect will just think to himself, “What do I care? I still have my genitals; I can just make more.”

34 victor_yugo  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:50:51am

re: #32 Flyovercountry

Same goes to Holder.

35 wahabicorridor  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:51:24am

re: #30 sattv4u2

I’m sorry Charles. I cherish children as much as anyone, but if I thought that a KNOWN terrorist had information that could save lives of hundreds, if not thousands including children I would do just about anything to scare the shit/ truth out of them.

As long as their families were never in harms way and the threats were limited to the interrogation process only

Not to mention that some of these people were responsible for already killing the children of quite a few Americans. Threats? That’s what this is gonna show?

Big.
Fucking.
Deal.

36 JammieWearingFool  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:51:24am

I’m thinking Obama’s crew saw that Rasmussen index of -14 approval yesterday and figured it’s time to play the Bush-Cheney cards again. Anything to distract from Bambi’s disastrous performance in office.

37 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:51:59am

re: #22 ~Fianna

That makes no sense. That’s just barbarism.

What’s the difference between that and what the Taliban does?

The Taliban kills the children THEN threatens to do it again!

38 jaunte  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:52:15am

It’s unfortunate that headline writers don’t write
“one interrogator said a colleague had told…”
instead of
“CIA threatened children.”

39 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:52:20am

re: #25 nightlight

The taliban makes good on their threats. That’s the DIFFERENCE

Not really. Barbarism is barbarism and the more you travel down that road the easier the path becomes.

If we’re as a society giving people permission to threaten to do these things, than it’s that much easier to decide that it’s okay to actually do them.

For over 1000 years, the Western tradition has been a society of laws, not of vendettas which is why we are free - we can go about our business without worrying that someone is going to come in the night and make us one of the disappeared. Anyone who wants to change that to “protect” me is a fool.

Do you really trust the government that much?

40 wahabicorridor  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:52:23am

re: #32 Flyovercountry

The implications of this go far beyond the politics of the day. Once current administrations start prosecution of previous administrations, very few will have the fortitude to cary out their duties, such as they are, for fear of retrubution from political rivals at some later date. This is of course not important to President Obama in the slightest. He holds this country and its citizens in contempt. Be careful in your destruction of our republic though Barry, you could fall victim to your own sword, once you are removed from power in November 2012.

And the same goes for his little dog, Holder.

41 nightlight  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:52:25am

re: #28 victor_yugo

The Taliban follows through.

The job of the interrogators is to convince their Taliban captives that they will follow through as well.

convincing a terrorist that you will harm them or their family is not the same as actually HARMING the family.

42 Lincolntf  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:52:33am

re: #35 wahabicorridor

Just so long as they can get a few headlines/smears out of it, the Dems will be happy.
I really doubt that there will be much substance to the whole thing.

43 MJ  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:52:50am

Obama White House v. CIA; Panetta Threatened to Quit

A “profanity-laced screaming match” at the White House involving CIA Director Leon Panetta, and the expected release today of another damning internal investigation, has administration officials worrying about the direction of its newly-appoint intelligence team, current and former senior intelligence officials tell ABC News.com…
…Panetta was reportedly upset over plans by Attorney General Eric Holder to open a criminal investigation of allegations that CIA officers broke the law in carrying out certain interrogation techniques that President Obama has termed “torture.”

[Link: abcnews.go.com…]

44 Mad Al-Jaffee  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:53:08am

I don’t care what they do, as long as they don’t use the dreaded underwear on the head technique!

45 theuglydougling  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:53:43am

Maybe we should just threaten terror suspects by telling them we’ll let their kids listen to Britney.

46 researchok  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:54:04am

re: #16 Charles

Ugh. Threatening to kill someone’s children, if that’s true, is something I can’t support at all.

Now I’m beginning to wonder if there’s more waiting to come out.

Interrogation is as much about psychology/intimidation as it is about torture.

If the subject can be coerced via threats and/or intimidation to give up information, I see no harm.

Physical torture is not the same as psychological techniques (threats, intimidation) employed to glean information.

47 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:54:10am

re: #39 ~Fianna

For over 1000 years, the Western tradition has been a society of laws, not of vendettas which is why we are free - we can go about our business without worrying that someone is going to come in the night

I’m sure the 9/11 victims would have liked to have known what was coming in the morning the night before

48 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:55:09am

We were and have been at war with an enemy that has and does see no act as unjustified in bringing about our destruction with the surviving parties either made to convert or live as inferiors (and often, as in Saudia Arabian treatment of non Arab Muslim domestic workers - both).

Those were and are the stakes.

At this point the possibility of Al Qaeda bringing about our destruction seems remote. Now that we have experience fighting and counteracting them and now that we have passed the phase where “all Muslims might rise up,” the threat of AQ has diminished significantly. That is due in large part to our success in fighting them.

So this exercise in justice that we are about to embark on is really about self reflection. It is about what self image we want to maintain. Essentially, we are going to examine punishing those who were given the task (and obviously a great deal of leeway) of defending us for having taken things too far. For having imposed a type suffering (regardless of whether it was effective or not) on “the other”.

This is not about making amends to “them” - it is about making ourselves feel better and hoping that the world joins us in that emotion. And we do it with sharpened hindsight from the comfort of knowing that the threat is no longer imminent.

Meanwhile “the other” still plots and would gladly kill the children of anyone who would do their cause harm.

Aren’t we wonderful?

49 [deleted]  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:56:16am
50 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:56:31am

re: #47 sattv4u2

For over 1000 years, the Western tradition has been a society of laws, not of vendettas which is why we are free - we can go about our business without worrying that someone is going to come in the night

I’m sure the 9/11 victims would have liked to have known what was coming in the morning the night before

Do you think this would have stopped it? I don’t. Torture doesn’t work - people will say anything to make it stop, even if they don’t know anything worth saying.

51 KenJen  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:56:42am

Have they appointed a special prosecutor to look into the lawyers who showed the interrogator’s photos to terrorists? Hmm?

52 WindHorse  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:56:44am

…another adage comes to mind as this information spins circles in my head -

Fight fire with fire…

53 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:56:48am

re: #39 ~Fianna

re: #47 sattv4u2

For over 1000 years, the Western tradition has been a society of laws, not of vendettas which is why we are free - we can go about our business without worrying that someone is going to come in the night

I’m sure the 9/11 victims would have liked to have known what was coming in the morning the night before

FIANNA

On that note, lets say we had KSM in custody on 9/10/01. Lets say his CIA interrogators “threatened” to harm his chidlren unless he was forthcoming with info. Lets say KSM said, “”OKAY ,, tomorrow morning 19 men will get on planes and aim them at the Twin Towers”

Worth it???

54 voirdire  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:57:04am

re: #4 Charles

This text message just came in over my iPhone:

That was Jack Bauer. Season One.

55 Mad Al-Jaffee  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:57:41am

Wait, camels can give birth to human children?

56 avanti  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:57:44am

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Benjamin Franklin

Once we start to emulate the bad guys, we start down a slippery slope.

57 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:57:44am

Sorry, but I will never believe it’s a good idea to authorize government agents to threaten anyone’s children. Terrorist or not. It’s simply wrong.

Some of you people who support that are also the ones who criticize Obama for wanting to give the government too much power. Why would you trust that same government to have free agents with the authority to threaten children?

58 lawhawk  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:58:09am

re: #26 JammieWearingFool

Interesting. It is disturbing that such threats were possibly made, but is this really news? I seem to recall reports stating something along these lines back in 2003 around the time KSM was captured, but I’ll have to dig them up.

In the meantime, perhaps someone would like to explain how threatening killing family members (children) is different than actually killing terrorists and their families while in the course of airstrikes.

Take for example the airstrike that killed Baitullah Mehsud, which not only killed Mehsud, but family members while at his father in law’s compound. That airstrike was carried out during the Obama Administration.

Other airstrikes carried out against Taliban and al Qaeda have killed family members of terrorists involved and were done so during both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration.

I’m curious as to the outrage from the left over the threat of killing family members, when we’ve actually killed family members in actual airstrikes.

At the same time, did those interrogators think that making the threat would cause KSM or other terrorists to break - they had no problems martyring others.

What I see here is opening the door to further curtailment of airstrikes in the WoT and limiting measures to the point of shutting down military operations.

59 [deleted]  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:58:47am
60 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:58:54am

re: #56 avanti

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Benjamin Franklin

Once we start to emulate the bad guys, we start down a slippery slope.

Please read and consider my #53 and answer the ending question

61 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:59:18am

re: #53 sattv4u2

re: #47 sattv4u2

FIANNA

On that note, lets say we had KSM in custody on 9/10/01. Lets say his CIA interrogators “threatened” to harm his chidlren unless he was forthcoming with info. Lets say KSM said, “”OKAY ,, tomorrow morning 19 men will get on planes and aim them at the Twin Towers”

Worth it???

No. Destroying what makes being an American good to keep us safe is antithetical to the principles we were founded under.

And do you really think they would say that? Troops of all kinds are trained to resist these techniques. They work on people who don’t get access to the important information.

62 Dynomite  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:59:52am

re: #57 Charles

Some of you people who support that are also the ones who criticize Obama for wanting to give the government too much power. Why would you trust that same government to have free agents with the authority to threaten children?

Come on, Charles. How dare you use logic! Moral equivalency! Land of the free! Rah Rah!

You’re just not the reactionary you’re supposed to be anymore.

(And I thank you for that!)

63 Lincolntf  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:00:00pm

re: #57 Charles

If the Government employees that screamed in my face about screwing my sister were ever brought up on charges, the Army would be down a few good Drill Sergeants.

64 lightspeed  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:00:06pm

re: #57 Charles

Sorry, but it’s pretend. The interrogators were acting. When it comes to extracting information to save American lives, i don’t care what you tell the guy. We are talking about life and death here and if you can put the fear of Allah into a guy by telling him something terrible will happen if he doesn’t talk, why wouldn’t you? I don’t see any moral problem, as long as there is no actual intention to carry out said threat. Are we becoming a nation of crybabies? Oooh, let’s not make the bad man think scary thoughts.

65 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:00:20pm

re: #61 ~Fianna

No. Destroying what makes being an American good to keep us safe is antithetical to the principles we were founded under.

And do you really think they would say that? Troops of all kinds are trained to resist these techniques. They work on people who don’t get access to the important information.

I see. So you’re telling me there has been no actionable information obtained from interrogations?

66 MJ  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:00:22pm

Given the well-known terrorist tactic of using children as human shields and sending them out strapped with bombs on their bodies, I doubt very much whether threatening to kill their children would have yield any information.

See Palestinian Child Abuse here:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

67 kansas  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:00:39pm

Well this should change the subject nicely.

68 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:00:59pm

This is the first time I’ve ever heard that terror suspects’ children’s lives were threatened, by the way.

69 Lincolntf  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:01:00pm

re: #67 kansas

Bingo.

70 doubter4444  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:01:24pm

re: #17 ~Fianna

Are you really arguing that it’s EVER okay to threaten someone’s children?

Really?

There will be plenty who do.
It’s my opinion that we must look at what we’ve done in the name of our safety and evaluate if it undermined who we are as a people or not.
It’s not easy, or pretty, but I think it’s better than “just keep walking”.

71 turn  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:01:49pm

re: #22 ~Fianna

That makes no sense. That’s just barbarism.

What’s the difference between that and what the Taliban does?

Um, we don’t actually do it or somethiing?

72 Cheesehead  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:01:57pm

If the Justice Dept. wants to re-open old cases, how opening the involvement of Mr. Holder in the Presidential Pardon of Marc Rich? You remember him… The financier who was indicted for evading more than $48 million in taxes, charged with 51 counts of tax fraud, running illegal oil deals with Iran during the 1979-1980 hostage crisis and fled the U.S. during his prosecution and moved to Switzerland. Mr. Holder was instrumental in Pres. Clinton’s pardoning of Rich.
Or how about Mr. Holder’s recent dropping and handling of the Black Panthers voter intimidation crimes?

73 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:02:00pm

re: #16 Charles

Ugh. Threatening to kill someone’s children, if that’s true, is something I can’t support at all.

Now I’m beginning to wonder if there’s more waiting to come out.

I don’t support it either.

But it was done. The question is “was the practiced stopped?”

That is something that isn’t being leaked to anyone.

Rather, those who control the information will release that which stages their narrative of the situation to be the dominant one.

And guess what - this is the first Monday after the POTUS went on vacation in hopes of health care leaving the media stage.

Well it was just pushed off of the media stage.

If the authorities within the CIA brought these practices to an end internally and have come up with humane and effective means of recovering the same information, then what use is this exercise?

Justice?

Or is this about bringing a little sensational shame into our lives so that we can focus on our collective morality? Maybe then the “moral arguments” for Obamacare will find more fertile soil when Obama returns from Martha’s Vineyard.

74 researchok  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:02:18pm

re: #57 Charles

Sorry, but I will never believe it’s a good idea to authorize government agents to threaten anyone’s children. Terrorist or not. It’s simply wrong.

Some of you people who support that are also the ones who criticize Obama for wanting to give the government too much power. Why would you trust that same government to have free agents with the authority to threaten children?

The interrogators are not threatening children- they are threatening terrorists. The method is no more than a interrogation technique. No one is being empowered- they are employing psychological pressures designed to elicit information.

While the technique is certainly not foolproof, it is well established as useful and productive.

75 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:02:24pm

re: #64 lightspeed

Sorry, but it’s pretend. The interrogators were acting. When it comes to extracting information to save American lives, i don’t care what you tell the guy. We are talking about life and death here and if you can put the fear of Allah into a guy by telling him something terrible will happen if he doesn’t talk, why wouldn’t you? I don’t see any moral problem, as long as there is no actual intention to carry out said threat. Are we becoming a nation of crybabies? Oooh, let’s not make the bad man think scary thoughts.

Bullshit. There’s a whole lot you can do to interrogate even a hardened Al Qaeda terrorist without descending to the level of threatening the lives of children.

76 victor_yugo  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:03:37pm

re: #57 Charles

Some of you people who support that are also the ones who criticize Obama for wanting to give the government too much power. Why would you trust that same government to have free agents with the authority to threaten children?

The criticisms of the current CiC have to do with power against the electorate. Not the same as power against those from without who intend to murder our citizens en masse.

Although, now that I think of it, I recall Golda Meir’s truism that “there will be peace in the Middle East when Arabs love their children more than they hate Israel.” If their hatred of Israel (and infidels in general) is so great, what good would verbalizing a threat against their children do?

77 Son of the Black Dog  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:04:16pm

re: #13 rhythman

you know, we are so f***ed for the next three and a half years. I hope and honestly pray that the Obamacare fiasco goes down in flames so his power will be that much more diminished. Whenever I see an Obama bumper sticker I want to ask the driver, “well…are you happy now?”

God Bless this great country of ours. We have to make it through this horrible time.

Unfortunately, most of the people I know who supported Obama think he’s doing a wonderful job.

78 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:04:32pm

re: #65 sattv4u2

I see. So you’re telling me there has been no actionable information obtained from interrogations?

It doesn’t seem to. Even the FBI’s own internal writings on the issue find that information gained in torture scenarios are not valuable. The Army agrees:

[quote]As Lt. General John Kimmons, the Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, explained in a news conference:

I am absolutely convinced [that] no good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tell us that,” said the general. “Moreover, any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, through the use of abusive techniques, would be of questionable credibility, and additionally it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used. And we can’t afford to go there.[/quote]

79 avanti  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:05:24pm

re: #60 sattv4u2

Please read and consider my #53 and answer the ending question

I might murder a guy that raped my wife in a hypothetical case, but that would not excuse me legally. We are a nation of laws, bound by a constitution. You could get a lot of favorable results by uncivilized actions, but that does not mean we should employ them.
In my hypothetical, perhaps a bit of torture would get a rape confession for example.

80 doubter4444  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:05:43pm

re: #53 sattv4u2

re: #47 sattv4u2

FIANNA

On that note, lets say we had KSM in custody on 9/10/01. Lets say his CIA interrogators “threatened” to harm his chidlren unless he was forthcoming with info. Lets say KSM said, “”OKAY ,, tomorrow morning 19 men will get on planes and aim them at the Twin Towers”

Worth it???

But we did not, that’s the point.
The ticking bomb scenario does not exist.
At least not in these situations.
It’s not the knee jerk, easy reaction to have, but it’s the right one.

81 VioletTiger  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:06:53pm

No matter what side of the argument you take, you have to question the wisdom of airing the dirty laundry. We have troops in harms way. We have terrorists just waiting for an ‘excuse’ to hit us again. So let’s give the people who hate us a banner to rally around???
This is a nasty political move and no good can come from it. We can decide as a nation that we don’t want certain interrogation techniques, but to try and prosecute those who did their best to keep us safe makes no sense to me.

82 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:06:56pm

re: #68 Charles

This is the first time I’ve ever heard that terror suspects’ children’s lives were threatened, by the way.

Same here. If real, it is serious. Otherwise, I think the 24-48 hour rule should be in effect regarding the reports.

83 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:07:08pm

re: #57 Charles

Sorry, but I will never believe it’s a good idea to authorize government agents to threaten anyone’s children. Terrorist or not. It’s simply wrong.

Some of you people who support that are also the ones who criticize Obama for wanting to give the government too much power. Why would you trust that same government to have free agents with the authority to threaten children?

“It’s OK if our side does it.”

84 Danny  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:07:26pm

This is not good. At all. This is going to put the country back to a pre-911 mentality all too soon, I’m afraid.

85 MandyManners  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:07:44pm

I’m a mug-wamp on this issue.

86 avanti  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:08:11pm

re: #68 Charles

This is the first time I’ve ever heard that terror suspects’ children’s lives were threatened, by the way.

BTW, it might well be BS, but a limited investigation is not unreasonable, if not for more then to show we still are the American good guys even when dealing with the worst filth.

87 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:08:19pm

re: #83 Coracle

“It’s OK if our side does it.”

That’s just so disturbing on so many levels.

The governing of our Republic shouldn’t be reduced to which team you root for.

88 victor_yugo  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:08:25pm

re: #75 Charles

Bullshit. There’s a whole lot you can do to interrogate even a hardened Al Qaeda terrorist without descending to the level of threatening the lives of children.

How many of those methods don’t involve offering him the martyrdom he so desperately seeks?

89 callahan23  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:08:33pm

re: #73 karmic_inquisitor

100 up-dings if I could.

90 HoosierHoops  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:08:53pm

re: #83 Coracle

“It’s OK if our side does it.”

Inflammatory…It’s never OK

91 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:09:14pm

re: #75 Charles

CHARLES
LAWHAWK makes a great point in #58. Knowing that families (children included) of known terrorists are with them should we curtail surgical drone strikes that target the terrorist knowing the collateral damage that will ensue?

I think that is more egregious than threatening a terrorist in custody. If true, the CIA never actually threatened the child. I may be parsing, but I see a difference

92 Ringo the Gringo  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:09:25pm

Sometimes we do more than threaten, we actually kill them: Osama bin Laden’s son ‘killed in US drone strike’

93 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:09:26pm

re: #90 HoosierHoops

Inflammatory…It’s never OK

We seem to be in the minority opinion on that, HH.

94 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:09:30pm

re: #87 ~Fianna

That’s just so disturbing on so many levels.

The governing of our Republic shouldn’t be reduced to which team you root for.

Agreed.

95 MandyManners  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:10:12pm

re: #73 karmic_inquisitor

And guess what - this is the first Monday after the POTUS went on vacation in hopes of health care leaving the media stage.

Well it was just pushed off of the media stage.

If the authorities within the CIA brought these practices to an end internally and have come up with humane and effective means of recovering the same information, then what use is this exercise?

Justice?

Or is this about bringing a little sensational shame into our lives so that we can focus on our collective morality? Maybe then the “moral arguments” for Obamacare will find more fertile soil when Obama returns from Martha’s Vineyard.

ROVE, YOU MAGNIFICENT BASTARD!

96 doubter4444  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:10:27pm

re: #57 Charles

Sorry, but I will never believe it’s a good idea to authorize government agents to threaten anyone’s children. Terrorist or not. It’s simply wrong.

Some of you people who support that are also the ones who criticize Obama for wanting to give the government too much power. Why would you trust that same government to have free agents with the authority to threaten children?

That’s the rub, that no one really wants to see.
If we can do this to terrorists, then what about home-grown ones?
In reality, the “ticking bomb” is going to be a lot more likely in a McVeigh type of case, where feds catch one right before the act.
Do we threaten to kill American kids to get information?
As i said, these are terrible issues to deal with. I happen to come down on the side that thinks we can do it differently that this.

97 victor_yugo  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:10:44pm

re: #87 ~Fianna

That’s just so disturbing on so many levels.

The governing of our Republic shouldn’t be reduced to which team you root for.

Uh, if they aren’t rooting for our team (Harry Reid, Turban Durban, John Frakkin’ Kerry), I sure as hell don’t want them governing our Republic, much less lording their authority over our nation’s defenders!

98 Son of the Black Dog  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:10:58pm

re: #32 Flyovercountry

The implications of this go far beyond the politics of the day. Once current administrations start prosecution of previous administrations, very few will have the fortitude to cary out their duties, such as they are, for fear of retrubution from political rivals at some later date. This is of course not important to President Obama in the slightest. He holds this country and its citizens in contempt. Be careful in your destruction of our republic though Barry, you could fall victim to your own sword, once you are removed from power in November 2012.

Acts committed during Democrat administrations will never be punished, only acts of Republican administrations.

Oh, and I think we apply the 48 hour rule to the threats against children.

99 Ringo the Gringo  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:11:08pm

re: #92 Ringo the Gringo

Sometimes we do more than threaten, we actually kill them: Osama bin Laden’s son ‘killed in US drone strike’

Link - [Link: www.timesonline.co.uk…]

100 skiflorida  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:11:48pm

re: #16 Charles

All I can say is I’m glad Charles and Fianna aren’t the ones protecting me and my family.

101 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:11:56pm

re: #90 HoosierHoops

Inflammatory…It’s never OK

Most agreed. It is never OK to do this. It’s a very serious charge, and though I, like Charles, have never heard of this being done before, if it was done, the folks who did it should be reprimanded appropriately.

I am willing to put the 24 to 48 hour rule into effect until we know more about what is going on here.

102 Dahveed  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:11:58pm

I say we probably do more to protect children’s lives then the terrorists do. Even the terrorist’s kids are more protected. They use their kids as shields knowing full well that we would avoid harming them.

103 filetandrelease  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:12:22pm

re: #22 ~Fianna

That makes no sense. That’s just barbarism.

What’s the difference between that and what the Taliban does?

I had to debate on whether or not to even say this, Charles, please delete this if it is over the top.

But on two occasions I read (I can’t find a link) that Al Qaeda in Iraq baked sons and fed them to parents, because the parents would not allow them to join the resistance. That is barbarism. Know your enemy before you make silly moral equivalences. That is not to say what we did was right, but there really is no comparison.

I have also read historical references of the practice in Islam.

104 Gretchen  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:13:05pm

If this is true then threatening the terrorist’s children just scared the terrorists. No actual children were harmed in the process. Water boarding made terrorists think they were going to die, it didn’t actually kill them, it scared them. I don’t call this torture. Unpleasant to an extreme degree yes.

Obama and his justice department are a disgrace. Prosecute the Bush regime when your numbers tank.

105 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:13:11pm

re: #100 skiflorida

skiflorida
Karma: 1
Registered since: Jan 22, 2009 at 6:57 pm
No. of comments posted: 7
No. of links posted: 0

WTF do you know about what has gone on here at this site since 9/11/2001? Fuck off, troll.

106 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:13:24pm

re: #78 ~Fianna

I’m sure KSM gave this info with no coercion! He just wanted to be liked at GITMO

///dripping

[Link: www.time.com…]

107 cronus  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:13:32pm

OT: Another one of those “illegal”…”un-American” policies of the Bush Administration will continue on Obama:

Rendition of Terror Suspects Will Continue Under Obama

The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration’s practice of sending terror suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but will monitor their treatment to insure they are not tortured, administration officials said on Monday.
108 lightspeed  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:13:34pm

re: #75 Charles

Maybe threatening a suspects children is not an effective technique or maybe it is. Different tactics will work on different people. I understand your objections, but this is war, and in this case was immediately following the 9/11 attacks. We were operating under the assumption of imminent threat. I don’t condone any sort of torture, but this doesn’t even come close. An interrogator need to find leverage in order to force an unwilling subject to disclose important information. I don’t care what that leverage is, as long as it does no permanent physical or psychological harm. It may be distasteful, but is it any worse than threatening rendition or playing on their greatest fears? No children were harmed in the interrogation nor would they have been had he not talked. Not a problem for me.

109 doubter4444  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:13:35pm

re: #72 Cheesehead

If the Justice Dept. wants to re-open old cases, how opening the involvement of Mr. Holder in the Presidential Pardon of Marc Rich? You remember him… The financier who was indicted for evading more than $48 million in taxes, charged with 51 counts of tax fraud, running illegal oil deals with Iran during the 1979-1980 hostage crisis and fled the U.S. during his prosecution and moved to Switzerland. Mr. Holder was instrumental in Pres. Clinton’s pardoning of Rich.
Or how about Mr. Holder’s recent dropping and handling of the Black Panthers voter intimidation crimes?

How about Saint Ronnie and Iran Contra, then?

110 MandyManners  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:13:41pm

re: #100 skiflorida

Bye!

111 danrudy  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:13:53pm

Am at work eating lunch so this has to be a hit and run.

a)
Threatening a child would be grabbing the child and putting a gun to the child’s head and scaring the child.
b)
Telling a terrorist that you will hunt down his family and kill them if he doesn’t give you information is threatening the terrorist and employing psychological leverage.

I would be very much against doing “a” even if it were a powerful technique since an innocent child would be needlessly scared. In this instance the child is harmed
However, I have no problem with “b” if it scares the crap out of a suspected terrorist to get the info you want. There is NO HARM to the child in this method.

I assume the methods used were “b” and not “a”.
This does not constitute threatening a child. This constitutes a threat made to the terrorist. They are entirely different. IMO

Back to work

112 LGoPs  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:14:04pm

Liberals have poor judgement, primarily in the area of understanding human behavior, in this case the behavior of our enemies. This becomes dangerous when they’re put in charge of the country’s security apparatus, as evidenced by the damage done to the CIA starting with the Church Committee hearings starting back in the ‘70’s. This will only continue that damage and put us all at risk.
I find it ironic that the only foe liberals seem to be able to muster testosterone and aggression against are their political ones, namely conservatives.

113 Wendya  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:14:14pm

re: #22 ~Fianna

That makes no sense. That’s just barbarism.

What’s the difference between that and what the Taliban does?

The Taliban actually kills children.

114 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:14:19pm

I find it interesting that the Obama admin thought it unwise to release more Gitmo photos but now leaks child killing threats.

They did not want to realease the Gitmo photos, ostensibly, because the added nothing new while only having the potential to inflame more passions.

Yet now we get what should be an investigation of an Executive Branch authority by an independent prosecutor coupled with a sensational leak that will surely inflame passions.

Why the inconsistency?

115 MandyManners  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:14:24pm

re: #103 filetandrelease

Yes, I read that, too. In fact, I read it here. I don’t think Charles had a thread on it but, I read it here.

116 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:14:33pm

re: #100 skiflorida

All I can say is I’m glad Charles and Fianna aren’t the ones protecting me and my family.

That a boy. Shit on your hosts floor. Care to use the drapesd to wipe your ass?

i disagree with Charles on this one, but I’ll do it RESPECTFULLY!

GAZE

117 Ringo the Gringo  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:14:33pm

With an extremely high value terrorist, I realy don’t have a problem telling him lies to elicit information that may actually save the lives of children.

118 fish  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:15:21pm

re: #57 Charles

Sorry, but I will never believe it’s a good idea to authorize government agents to threaten anyone’s children. Terrorist or not. It’s simply wrong.

Some of you people who support that are also the ones who criticize Obama for wanting to give the government too much power. Why would you trust that same government to have free agents with the authority to threaten children?

Putting it that way makes it sound as though the interrogators had the children lined up with guns pointed at them.

What happened (According to information released so far) was the interrogator SAID some mean things including that he would kill the terrorists children if another attack happened. I find this no more disturbing than if the report suggested the interrogators raised their voices, used harsh language, or insulted Mohamed.

119 unrealizedviewpoint  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:15:32pm

A terrorists has knowledge of a potential attack (that may result in the death of hundreds, thousands, or maybe 10’s of thousands?) Should I threaten him with words? I think so.

120 opnion  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:15:38pm

For a new administration to launch an investigation into the actions of the previous sETS a prcedent that Obama & his minions may regret.
I wonder will the terrorists be deposed or called as witnesses?

121 Lincolntf  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:15:44pm

re: #101 Honorary Yooper

I bet we have dozens of Vets online right now. How many of them remember the horrible things said/threatened/implied about their families while they were simply training for war? Are we supposed to lighten up on our enemies during a real war? Seems like a pretty malleable moral standard.

122 JarHeadLifer  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:15:47pm

re: #12 ~Fianna

This is just wrong. What makes me proud to be an American, and incredibly proud of our troops is that we don’t usually do this stuff. When we do, whether it’s done under a Republican or a Democrat, it needs to be stopped an the people responsible need to be punished.

We need to get the bad guys, but we can’t do that at the expense of what makes us worth fighting for.

Spoken like someone who believes all the romanticized bullshit of how America won wars back in the day. Absolute crap. You know who can afford to hand-wring over the way a war was fought - the winner, that’s who.

Would you prefer that our guys threaten to kill their kids, or would you prefer that the Jihadists actually kill yours? We fought the jihadists using Obama’s rules for 8 years during the Clinton administration. How did that turn out?

123 Slymon  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:15:47pm

re: #25 nightlight
Gotta agree with you on this one. Sticks and stones…

124 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:16:06pm

re: #106 sattv4u2

I’m sure KSM gave this info with no coercion! He just wanted to be liked at GITMO

///dripping

[Link: www.time.com…]

That article also mentions that there was some dispute about how much the information was intentionally misleading. Nothing can replace basic investigative work.

125 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:16:13pm

I’d like to see any documentation of such efforts efficacy. You have a sworn enemy prepared to martyr themselves and their people to fight you, and you threaten them with making their families into martyrs? I can only imagine the answer to the ticking timebomb scenario. You threaten to kill the suspects’ family, you’ll get the response, “Promise?”

126 Flyovercountry  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:16:16pm

re: #57 Charles

Sorry, but I will never believe it’s a good idea to authorize government agents to threaten anyone’s children. Terrorist or not. It’s simply wrong.

Some of you people who support that are also the ones who criticize Obama for wanting to give the government too much power. Why would you trust that same government to have free agents with the authority to threaten children?

Charles,

While I will admit to not knowing what specific techniques were used during these interogations, I will just say that lines should be drawn to distinguish between enemy combatants, citizens of this country and those convicted of crimes. These interogations in question were conducted by our military, with legal permission granted in accordance with the geneva convention. I am not O.K. with torture. I am O.K. with enhanced interogative techniques being used. Let’s not forget, that these are the same enemy combatants who beheaded U.S. citizens on youtube videos. I have no clue where to draw these lines, but to my thinking, that is not the main question raised by this thread. My concern is with the Obama Administration criminalizing the Bush Administration. This is a method useful in silencing conservative opposition to his Administration. I will agree that Presidents need to be accountable to the same laws as everybody else, but I also believe that Obama’s intentions go well beyond that. I also note, that in Obama’s world, only conservatives are held to any standard. His cabinet is chock full of alleged criminals. To answer the other issue about the government wielding too much power, there is a difference between that power being wielded against its own citizens, and enemy combatants.

In short, I don’t like the idea of threatening families if it is true, but I do believe in legal enhanced techniques being utilized to obtain valuable information. I trusted the military to act professionaly. I still do.

127 Cheesehead  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:16:43pm

re: #109 doubter4444

Reagan is dead and Holder is the current AG. That’s why.

128 Filala  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:16:56pm

re: #16 Charles

Threaten, not actually do it. I do not believe that the U.S. would ever do it, I also believe that radical Moslems would do it with pleasure.

129 avanti  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:17:02pm

re: #100 skiflorida

All I can say is I’m glad Charles and Fianna aren’t the ones protecting me and my family.

Perhaps you’d prefer some ex SS on the job, they know how to make you talk, but came up short on the war thing. No question they were more ruthless than our guys, but in the end, they lost.

130 filetandrelease  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:17:27pm

re: #115 MandyManners

As a father of two sons, it was a gut wrenching read.

131 sharona  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:18:31pm

How is it that, on one hand, the Obama administration is doing everything it can to gut anti-terrorism efforts (via the chronically catatonic affect that is AG Holder), whilst on the other hand your are announcing the intent to form special anti-terrorism interrogation unit overseen by the White House?

[Link: www.breitbart.com…]

Is everything this President/administration does simply for the purpose of Marketing?

Oh, silly me. That (and playing on white race guilt) is how he came to be President in the first place!

132 HoosierHoops  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:18:31pm

re: #100 skiflorida

All I can say is I’m glad Charles and Fianna aren’t the ones protecting me and my family.

You know what? That post was bullshit…Let’s go at this on a different Tack
When my Son came home from Fallujah I asked him..So what happened when you captured a terrorist? Did you question him? Did you shoot him? Did you question him? What the hell did the 3/5th Marines do with captured terrorists?
He told me’ pops we send em to the back line’…They question them there..
Don’t worry…The US Marines are protecting you tonight and we don’t have to drown people or threaten to kill their children…

133 Ojoe  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:18:32pm

IMHO it is bad for our country that this issue has become a political football.

I note that all of the 3,000 people murdered on 9-11 were each the child of 2 parents.

134 MJ  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:18:35pm

By the way, the Left will not like this. It doesn’t go far enough to please them since it’s limited in scope to those acts which were not authorized by the Justice Department. In effect, it validates the Yoo memo.

135 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:19:06pm

re: #124 ~Fianna

That article also mentions that there was some dispute about how much the information was intentionally misleading. Nothing can replace basic investigative work.

I’ll take some misleading info as long as I’m also getting info that SAVES LIVES at the same time

The misleading info runs an investigator into a DEAD END. Nothing lost but some time

Real info leads to NOT DEAD PEOPLE

Good trade-off in my world

136 KingKenrod  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:19:16pm

There’s no way for a CIA interrogator to get a fair trial. It’s simply impossible under the circumstances.

137 kansas  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:19:29pm

H re: #122 JarHeadLifer

Would you prefer that our guys threaten to kill their kids, or would you prefer that the Jihadists actually kill yours? We fought the jihadists using Obama’s rules for 8 years during the Clinton administration. How did that turn out?


How is the Obama vacation going? Are Michelle and the kids having a good time? Barack getting in a little golf I gather?

138 MandyManners  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:19:30pm

re: #130 filetandrelease

As a father of two sons, it was a gut wrenching read.

It was one of the times I went looking for The Kid just to hug him.

139 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:20:11pm

re: #113 Wendya

The Taliban actually kills children.

So does organized crime. Is that the kind of government we want?

This is just such a slippery slope. If we say it’s okay for one group, what’s to prevent them from adding groups. Where do you stop it? Okay, that’s fine for terrorists. How about gang members? Skinheads? Militia groups? People with parking violations? People protesting the government?

140 MandyManners  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:20:38pm

re: #136 KingKenrod

There’s no way for a CIA interrogator to get a fair trial. It’s simply impossible under the circumstances.

Remember the jury for Lt. Col. Oliver North’s trial? THEY’D NEVER EVEN HEARD OF IRAN OR THE CONTRAS.

141 skiflorida  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:20:42pm

re: #116 sattv4u2

I think our “host” can take care of himself. You all are so touchy. The point is I don’t want a wee-wee man afraid to deal very roughly with the enemy trying to defend me.

142 filetandrelease  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:20:52pm

re: #138 MandyManners
Ditto

143 SasquatchOnSteroids  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:21:19pm

I’m going with 48 hour rule on this one.

However, the timing of this release stinks like a French whore at 4 in the morning.

144 Wendya  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:21:49pm

re: #125 Coracle

I’d like to see any documentation of such efforts efficacy. You have a sworn enemy prepared to martyr themselves and their people to fight you, and you threaten them with making their families into martyrs? I can only imagine the answer to the ticking timebomb scenario. You threaten to kill the suspects’ family, you’ll get the response, “Promise?”

Not necessarily. High level al-Qaeda members don’t use their family members as splodey-dopes but they won’t hesitate to kill the family members of their enemies as a means of punishment.

145 victor_yugo  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:22:00pm

re: #139 ~Fianna

So does organized crime. Is that the kind of government we want?

Show me where our government actually deliberately targeted children, and I might give you some credibility.

146 yochanan  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:22:05pm

just waiting for the PEOPLE COURTS to start trying republicans.

i sure hope I am wrong but …

147 lawhawk  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:22:13pm

OT:
Obama’s busy on his Martha’s Vineyard vacation, and he’s got quite the reading list, but that didn’t catch my attention. It’s the claim by Obama’s press flack for the moment saying that Obama’s predecessor didn’t take flack for taking vacations.

Burton also defended the President against charges - most recently from the National Republican Congressional Committee - that he should not be taking a vacation at a time when many Americans are struggling economically.

“As I recall, the previous president took quite a bit of vacation time himself, and I don’t think anyone bemoaned that,” Burton told reporters, referring to the month of summer vacation that President George W. Bush routinely took. “I think it’s important for the President, as with anybody, to take a little time, spend time with his family, and recharge his batteries.”

Bald.Faced.Lie.

Bush was routinely bashed for taking vacations; and the GOP is wrong for going after Obama for doing the same.

148 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:22:26pm

re: #139 ~Fianna

So does organized crime. Is that the kind of government we want?

This is just such a slippery slope. If we say it’s okay for one group, what’s to prevent them from adding groups. Where do you stop it? Okay, that’s fine for terrorists. How about gang members? Skinheads? Militia groups? People with parking violations? People protesting the government?

Strawman

Does organized crime target 3,000 innocents?

149 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:22:28pm

re: #134 MJ

By the way, the Left will not like this. It doesn’t go far enough to please them since it’s limited in scope to those acts which were not authorized by the Justice Department. In effect, it validates the Yoo memo.

Excellent point.

And you will get a parade of leaks about things that were done that weren’t authorized. But the echo chamber of the media / web will create the impression that they were. Political circus.

150 NoWhereAlaska  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:22:32pm

My first reaction is that John Durham is probably a good choice. At least at first reading—he hates publicity, registered Conn. republican. He has been involved in investigating institutional problems. Lots of experience.

Am I happy about the need to investigate? “no.”

But I wish we were investigating a lot more of the federal problems, like ACORN, etc.

151 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:23:01pm

re: #135 sattv4u2

I’ll take some misleading info as long as I’m also getting info that SAVES LIVES at the same time

The misleading info runs an investigator into a DEAD END. Nothing lost but some time

Real info leads to NOT DEAD PEOPLE

Good trade-off in my world

But wasted time doesn’t help in the “ticking bomb” scenario, does it? And without the time pressure, what’s the benefit of torture other than to reduce us to a level that I don’t want to see our government go to.

152 lightspeed  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:23:05pm

If an investigation moves forward, we are going to see a lot of career CIA officers start to retire. Who the hell wants to do work for an agency when it might land you in jail and ruin your life and the lives of your family when the next administration comes in?

BTW, expect more stories to distract from the health care debate..

153 Wendya  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:23:14pm

re: #139 ~Fianna

So does organized crime. Is that the kind of government we want?

This is just such a slippery slope. If we say it’s okay for one group, what’s to prevent them from adding groups. Where do you stop it? Okay, that’s fine for terrorists. How about gang members? Skinheads? Militia groups? People with parking violations? People protesting the government?

Uh, hello…

Where is the evidence we actually did anything other than threaten them in terms they understand?

154 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:23:21pm

re: #141 skiflorida

I think our “host” can take care of himself. You all are so touchy. The point is I don’t want a wee-wee man afraid to deal very roughly with the enemy trying to defend me.

You’re right, I can. Bye now!

155 doubter4444  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:23:41pm

re: #81 VioletTiger

No matter what side of the argument you take, you have to question the wisdom of airing the dirty laundry. We have troops in harms way. We have terrorists just waiting for an ‘excuse’ to hit us again. So let’s give the people who hate us a banner to rally around???
This is a nasty political move and no good can come from it. We can decide as a nation that we don’t want certain interrogation techniques, but to try and prosecute those who did their best to keep us safe makes no sense to me.

Agreed. But “dirty laundry” needs to be washed sooner or later, doesn’t it?
It’s a thorny issue, but I don’t see any good from brushing it under the rug, and I see LOTS of damage in the future if it seems that the government can basically do what it wants to whom it wants under the name of the GWOT (or whatever it’s called now).
I DO NOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE THIS MUCH POWER.
Republican or Democrat, I say get it out in the open.
I want to know if the feds can do this to anyone, because if they can, they will do it to anyone.
Not to be a drama queen, but I think limits must be in place.
The other way lies real danger down the road, more than exposing it.

156 anduril3019  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:23:59pm

Seems like we have a semantic problem leading to two different arguments going on here.

1) Children’s lives threatened directly.
2) Terrorist threatened in regards to his children.

Charles is saying #1, I think.
Most people here arguing with him are going with #2, I think.

I have a big problem with #1, no problem at all with #2.

(please no comments on incontinence or bowel problems)

157 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:24:17pm

If it’s being a ‘wee-wee man’ to be against government agents threatening the lives of children, well, that’s me then. Mr. Wee Wee.

158 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:24:37pm

re: #22 ~Fianna

That makes no sense. That’s just barbarism.

What’s the difference between that and what the Taliban does?

The Taliban carry out the threat.

159 Spider Mensch  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:24:54pm

disband the CIA..rehab and re-do he whole org..lets call them the COA..Community Organizers Agency… ” if you don’t tell us what we want to know..well…we’re going to..well…register you to vote!…TWICE!!!”

160 kansas  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:25:04pm

re: #147 lawhawk

OT:
Obama’s busy on his Martha’s Vineyard vacation, and he’s got quite the reading list, but that didn’t catch my attention. It’s the claim by Obama’s press flack for the moment saying that Obama’s predecessor didn’t take flack for taking vacations.

Bald.Faced.Lie.

Bush was routinely bashed for taking vacations; and the GOP is wrong for going after Obama for doing the same.

Every August it was 4 weeks of teeth gnashing and bitching about the trip to Crawford. I note how now they reassure us that the mighty One is in constant touch. Oh I feel better. God forbid he wouldn’t be able to do some community agitating from the Vineyard.

161 victor_yugo  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:25:11pm

re: #154 Charles

When one’s karma is so negative it exceeds the number of comments, that can’t be good.

162 BlackFedora  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:25:26pm

re: #16 Charles

I would agree. I don’t care how awful, depraved and full of jihad they are.. some things just aren’t right. We’re supposed to be better than these jihadists, right?

163 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:25:26pm

re: #157 Charles

If it’s being a ‘wee-wee man’ to be against government agents threatening the lives of children, well, that’s me then. Mr. Wee Wee.

I think skiflorida was all wee-weed up about it.

164 opnion  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:25:37pm

I know that this will raise some ire, but what the hell. I would see this differently if the terrorists kids were dragged in with guns to their heads & guards screaming
“Talk or I’ll shoot.”
The only people here that were verally abused were the terrorists, not their kids.
As an OSS agent Julia Child probably was more hard core for God sake.

165 bloodnok  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:25:42pm

re: #4 Charles

This text message just came in over my iPhone:

Disgusting.

166 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:25:47pm

I have no problem with an investigation if it isn’t used as a political circus.

But here it is, an investigation less than an hour old, and it is a political circus.

Hat is off to Rahm Emmanuel - we will now endure a perpetual national shaming. I wonder what our penance will have to be?

167 victor_yugo  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:26:08pm

re: #157 Charles

If it’s being a ‘wee-wee man’ to be against government agents threatening the lives of children, well, that’s me then. Mr. Wee Wee.

Sheesh, Charles, is there any direction from which you aren’t taking heat lately?

168 VioletTiger  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:26:39pm

re: #155 doubter4444

Agreed. But “dirty laundry” needs to be washed sooner or later, doesn’t it?
It’s a thorny issue, but I don’t see any good from brushing it under the rug, and I see LOTS of damage in the future if it seems that the government can basically do what it wants to whom it wants under the name of the GWOT (or whatever it’s called now).
I DO NOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE THIS MUCH POWER.
Republican or Democrat, I say get it out in the open.
I want to know if the feds can do this to anyone, because if they can, they will do it to anyone.
Not to be a drama queen, but I think limits must be in place.
The other way lies real danger down the road, more than exposing it.

You don’t need to sweep anything under a rug. We can decide, independently of any past action, what we want our future actions to be.

169 Danny  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:26:58pm

re: #166 karmic_inquisitor

Leaving American citizens vunerable to slaughter by more terrorists.

170 Ringo the Gringo  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:27:21pm

re: #164 opnion

You don’t think that the kids would traumatized?

C’mon.

171 victor_yugo  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:27:33pm

Obama’s theme song:

“Rahm to the left of me, Holder to the right, here I am, stuck in the muddle with you…”

172 voirdire  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:27:42pm

re: #160 kansas

I can remember when August was a total respite from anything inside the Beltway.

173 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:27:43pm

re: #157 Charles

If it’s being a ‘wee-wee man’ to be against government agents threatening the lives of children, well, that’s me then. Mr. Wee Wee.

No relation to Paul Rubens though, right??

//

174 unrealizedviewpoint  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:27:56pm

re: #166 karmic_inquisitor

I have no problem with an investigation if it isn’t used as a political circus.

But here it is, an investigation less than an hour old, and it is a political circus.

Hat is off to Rahm Emmanuel - we will now endure a perpetual national shaming. I wonder what our penance will have to be?

Continual second guessing of, and by, those sworn to protect us.

175 victor_yugo  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:28:15pm

re: #170 Ringo the Gringo

You don’t think that the kids would traumatized?

C’mon.

He’s talking about what actually happened, vs. what was threatened.

176 kansas  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:28:17pm

re: #172 voirdire

I can remember when August was a total respite from anything inside the Beltway.

Me too, in High School.

177 Ringo the Gringo  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:28:24pm

re: #164 opnion

Perhaps I misunderstood you comment.

178 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:28:25pm

re: #157 Charles

If it’s being a ‘wee-wee man’ to be against government agents threatening the lives of children, well, that’s me then. Mr. Wee Wee.

Either someone or some agency has broken the law or else they haven’t. I guess we will find out. What’s wrong with that?

179 Mad Al-Jaffee  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:28:28pm

re: #141 skiflorida

I think our “host” can take care of himself. You all are so touchy. The point is I don’t want a wee-wee man afraid to deal very roughly with the enemy trying to defend me.

Wee Man? Do you mean the guy from Jackass?

180 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:28:43pm

re: #145 victor_yugo

Show me where our government actually deliberately targeted children, and I might give you some credibility.

And the French Revolution didn’t start with the guillotine, either. Stalin or Hussein didn’t start with mass executions. It’s not a fell-swoop thing, it’s something that we need to hold the line against.

I’m minded of Franklin’s response to the question about what kind of government we had: “A Republic - if you can keep it.” This is the kind of thing that starts making it harder to keep.

Where do we draw the line? Once this behavior starts getting the stamp of approval, it becomes easier and easier to extend. I’m sorry, I just can’t bring myself to trust any government with the power to start threatening people’s families. That road takes us to rape rooms.

181 Racer X  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:28:44pm

War is hell.

War on terrorists is ten times worse than that.

Remember the images of those poor souls jumping out of 100 story windows? Just let me near anyone responsible for that.

182 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:28:56pm

re: #151 ~Fianna

But wasted time doesn’t help in the “ticking bomb” scenario, does it? And without the time pressure, what’s the benefit of torture other than to reduce us to a level that I don’t want to see our government go to.

I’ll be willing to bet the CIA and FBI would be willing to trade some “wasted time” for some saved lives

183 opnion  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:29:14pm

re: #170 Ringo the Gringo

You don’t think that the kids would traumatized?

C’mon.

How would they know, they were not there?

184 voirdire  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:29:34pm

re: #176 kansas

Yep.

185 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:30:04pm

Again, I don’t support the government making death threats against kids as an interrogation technique. It is “too far.”

And I also don’t support doing this in public with political hacks leaking some of the details.

If the purpose is to restore lawfulness, how is prejudicial treatment of the accused in any way lawful? And (stated one more time) how does making a political circus out of this not inflame the very passions that the Obama admin saw fit to avoid by not publishing the supplemental Abu Grahib photos?

186 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:30:10pm

Anyone know if the White House stance is still that those who had authorization to employ certain techniques have cover, or is that off the table?

187 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:30:17pm

re: #148 sattv4u2

Strawman

Does organized crime target 3,000 innocents?

It’s the mentality.

Vendetta government just simply doesn’t sound appealing to me.

188 doubter4444  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:30:17pm

re: #148 sattv4u2

Strawman

Does organized crime target 3,000 innocents?

What to do call the Mexican or Bolivian cartels?
And yes, they would if they need to, or thought there was gain from it.

189 opnion  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:30:23pm

re: #177 Ringo the Gringo

Perhaps I misunderstood you comment.

De nada.

190 victor_yugo  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:30:32pm

re: #180 ~Fianna

And the French Revolution didn’t start with the guillotine, either. Stalin or Hussein didn’t start with mass executions. It’s not a fell-swoop thing, it’s something that we need to hold the line against.

I’m minded of Franklin’s response to the question about what kind of government we had: “A Republic - if you can keep it.” This is the kind of thing that starts making it harder to keep.

Where do we draw the line? Once this behavior starts getting the stamp of approval, it becomes easier and easier to extend. I’m sorry, I just can’t bring myself to trust any government with the power to start threatening people’s families. That road takes us to rape rooms.

That’s one big dodge.

You can’t show the evidence that we actually did anything that we threatened.

Until you can, your hyperbole counts for nothing.

191 Salamantis  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:30:34pm

I know one thing; if Leon Panetta does the honorable thing and falls on his sword over this obvious attempt to distract the American public from the floundering Health Care Bill discussion by scapegoating the CIA, no one who knows enough about covert intelligence to manage it competently and well will deign to take the job over from him. And we will all be in greater danger as a result.

The FBI is slated to take over terrorist interrogations from the CIA. That does not bode well for the future use of effective interrogation techniques.

I have heard that the CIA is going to fight back by leaking the files that Cheney requested be declassified, concerning what plots were stopped and how many lives were likely saved, and where, by info. gleaned from these interrogations. If/when that happens, I will post a link to them in the spinoffs.

These people would beatifically smile while haggling open the throats of our children before our very eyes if they could, secure in the belief that their heinous atrocity would render them Paradise-bound. Daniel Pearl was someone’s child, and Khalid Shaykh Muhammed reprtedly did that to him.

We must be better than that. But we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the effective, because the brutality would be vast and perpetual should such monsters prevail.

192 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:31:02pm

re: #182 sattv4u2

I’ll be willing to bet the CIA and FBI would be willing to trade some “wasted time” for some saved lives

Show me some evidence this kind of tactic actually works and saves lives. You might have a case. From what I understand of this particular enemy, this tactic plays into their hands.

193 Ringo the Gringo  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:31:12pm

re: #164 opnion

I’ve un-dinged you…Your comment wasn’t clear, but I suspect you didn’t mean what I thought you were saying.

194 kansas  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:31:26pm

re: #178 Walter L. Newton

Either someone or some agency has broken the law or else they haven’t. I guess we will find out. What’s wrong with that?

Well Walter, Eric Holder has a pretty piss poor record so far, in my opinion. Seems like he gives a rat’s ass about the law unless it benefits the boss. I think the guys in this video had already plead out when he dropped the case.

Youtube Video
195 Ed_Gibbon  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:32:16pm

re: #2 Last Mohican

Church commission II. It’s hard to believe, but here we go again. I’m afraid the difference this time, is that it won’t take 25 years for the public to realize that a eunuch CIA is not in the country’s best interests…

196 [deleted]  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:32:22pm
197 ckb  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:32:58pm

re: #57 Charles

Sorry, but I will never believe it’s a good idea to authorize government agents to threaten anyone’s children. Terrorist or not. It’s simply wrong.

Some of you people who support that are also the ones who criticize Obama for wanting to give the government too much power. Why would you trust that same government to have free agents with the authority to threaten children?

The CIA/FBI should have the authority to threaten anything they want during a terrorist interrogation. They should be allowed to then try to convince the subject that the threats are real, using any kind of deception they can muster.

The authority to actually carry threats through should lie elsewhere.

Why does anyone have problems with empty threats?

198 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:33:06pm

re: #188 doubter4444

What to do call the Mexican or Bolivian cartels?
And yes, they would if they need to, or thought there was gain from it.

Good. So if we get any Mexican or Bolivian cartel members into GITMO and we know they have info about a raid on a border town in Arizona that will kill hundreds you get the details from them ,,,

how?
promise them ice cream on Saturday?
give them conjugal visits?
make their saty as comfy as possible?
mints on their pillows???

199 Drider  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:33:06pm

Looks like someone needs a major distraction from his failing plans and the CIA are on the chopping block.

As far as threatening to kill a terrorists family, so eeffing what, it’s a threat for God sake.
Prepare to see names, news crews outside of some of the CIA members homes, it must suck to do whats asked of you to protect your Country that is within the law and then get strung upfor nothing more than a distraction for a pathetic politician.

200 doubter4444  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:34:03pm

re: #168 VioletTiger

You don’t need to sweep anything under a rug. We can decide, independently of any past action, what we want our future actions to be.

Hummm. I don’t know, since giving the government anything is like letting the dog on the bed.
Once done, they’ll do it again and again.

201 Racer X  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:34:24pm

You time travel back to 1936. Would you torture someone to get to Hitler? 8 Million lives.

Stalin?
20 Million.

202 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:35:00pm

re: #192 Coracle

Show me some evidence this kind of tactic actually works and saves lives. You might have a case. From what I understand of this particular enemy, this tactic plays into their hands.

[Link: www.time.com…]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Names Names

Do you think Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave the info because he wanted to be liked by his captors?

203 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:35:07pm

re: #182 sattv4u2

I’ll be willing to bet the CIA and FBI would be willing to trade some “wasted time” for some saved lives

But isn’t the whole argument about torture that it can save lives if there’s a ticking bomb? Wasted time doesn’t solve that problem and that’s the big defense of how torture can save lives.

204 LGoPs  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:35:09pm

re: #139 ~Fianna

So does organized crime. Is that the kind of government we want?

This is just such a slippery slope. If we say it’s okay for one group, what’s to prevent them from adding groups. Where do you stop it? Okay, that’s fine for terrorists. How about gang members? Skinheads? Militia groups? People with parking violations? People protesting the government?

Organized crime is generally only a threat to other members of organized crime. They don’t target civilians.
Gangs I have less sympathy for, mainly due to the fact that they often seem to operate as if in a free fire zones and innocents do get killed, although again, not intentionally targeted.
Your examples with parking violators and protestors is just silly. You stop that slippery slope by the novel idea of just not doing it.

205 BlackFedora  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:35:17pm

re: #141 skiflorida

Yeah…

I’m sure you’d have no problem being a man and threatening to machine gun the jihadist’s family? Macho tough talk is so god damn annoying.

206 Lincolntf  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:35:34pm

re: #192 Coracle

I’m guessing that the CIA and FRI have a bit more experience with interrogations than you or I. They’ve been doing it for generations. I doubt that they would deliberately use a method that had been proven ineffective.

207 doubter4444  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:35:40pm

re: #178 Walter L. Newton

Either someone or some agency has broken the law or else they haven’t. I guess we will find out. What’s wrong with that?

Agreed.

208 unrealizedviewpoint  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:35:50pm

I sense that all this threatening prosecution of spooks is a smokescreen to provide cover for the Administration’s new Army Field Manual techniques employed by the new Interrogation Unit. Ab.fuckin.surd.

209 Lincolntf  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:35:54pm

re: #206 Lincolntf

FBI

210 HoosierHoops  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:36:11pm

re: #197 ckb

The CIA/FBI should have the authority to threaten anything they want during a terrorist interrogation. They should be allowed to then try to convince the subject that the threats are real, using any kind of deception they can muster.

The authority to actually carry threats through should lie elsewhere.

Why does anyone have problems with empty threats?

Cause when the last line of questioning involves blowing your kids brains out…Maybe you should just shut the fuck up and let somebody else try questioning…We are better than that…I hope we are

211 opnion  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:36:11pm

re: #193 Ringo the Gringo

I’ve un-dinged you…Your comment wasn’t clear, but I suspect you didn’t mean what I thought you were saying.

What exactly did you think that I meant?

212 reine.de.tout  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:37:05pm
UPDATE at 8/24/09 11:40:29 am:

This text message just came in over my iPhone:

Breaking (2:32pm EDT): An internal CIA report says interrogators threatened to kill 9/11 suspect’s children.

That information isn’t quite as clear as it would appear.

I assume it means young children, rather than a suspect’s 30-year-old active terrorist child?

213 [deleted]  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:37:13pm
214 victor_yugo  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:37:19pm

re: #192 Coracle

Show me some evidence this kind of tactic actually works and saves lives.

Not sure about “this tactic,” but here’s one incident of harsh interrogation that saved lives:

[Link: www.nationalreview.com…]

It all comes down to these four words: “the ambushes were avoided”.

215 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:37:24pm

re: #203 ~Fianna

But isn’t the whole argument about torture that it can save lives if there’s a ticking bomb? Wasted time doesn’t solve that problem and that’s the big defense of how torture can save lives.

but actionable info does. So the question now becomes how to get actionable info
As I stated in #198
promise them ice cream on Saturday?
give them conjugal visits?
make their saty as comfy as possible?
mints on their pillows???

216 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:38:28pm

re: #190 victor_yugo

That’s one big dodge.

You can’t show the evidence that we actually did anything that we threatened.

Until you can, your hyperbole counts for nothing.

So you’re okay with giving the government permission to threaten people’s families and think they won’t ever abuse that power once given to them?

This is the same government that you don’t trust to administer a health care plan, but you’re really hunky-dory with the idea that they’re just going to do this to terrorists, but never, ever in any other situation?

217 Son of the Black Dog  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:38:58pm

re: #146 yochanan

just waiting for the PEOPLE COURTS to start trying republicans.

i sure hope I am wrong but …

Like the people who want to put Karl Rove on trial.
What for? He was never more than a political adviser.
They want to try him for “Crimes against the Party”?
The Democrat Party.

218 Ojoe  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:39:06pm

IMHO were field conditions desperate enough these questionable things would be done & no matter what the previous political stinks or official policies.

219 ckb  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:39:06pm

re: #158 Creeping Eruption

The Taliban carry out the threat.

One word. Beslan.

It could happen here. There isn’t much that should not be done to avoid such a thing.

220 doubter4444  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:39:41pm

re: #198 sattv4u2

Good. So if we get any Mexican or Bolivian cartel members into GITMO and we know they have info about a raid on a border town in Arizona that will kill hundreds you get the details from them ,,,

how?
promise them ice cream on Saturday?
give them conjugal visits?
make their saty as comfy as possible?
mints on their pillows???

Don’t be an ass. No one is recommending coddling terrorists, that’s a cheap way of avoiding the issue.
But for the record, there is ample evidence that treating suspects humanly works better than torture.
This argument has been made many times in the past, and I reckon no minds will be changed.

221 victor_yugo  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:40:37pm

re: #216 ~Fianna

This is the same government that you don’t trust to administer a health care plan, but you’re really hunky-dory with the idea that they’re just going to do this to terrorists, but never, ever in any other situation?

I answered that apples-oranges above. Find it.

222 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:40:59pm

re: #219 ckb

One word. Beslan.

It could happen here. There isn’t much that should not be done to avoid such a thing.


Including threatening the same thing? Should we tell a terrorist that we are going to send some operatives into his children’s school and blow them away?

Do you realize the disconnect that you have just created?

223 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:41:04pm

Why didn’t 0bama just bring back Stansfield Turner to run the CIA? Or, how about another Church Committee? F-ck me.

/what intel?

224 SasquatchOnSteroids  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:41:28pm

Thank God we had Bush in office when 9/11 happened.

225 victor_yugo  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:41:41pm

re: #222 Walter L. Newton

Including threatening the same thing? Should we tell a terrorist that we are going to send some operatives into his children’s school and blow them away?

Do you realize the disconnect that you have just created?

I think you got it backwards. He’s using the threat of a Beslan here to justify “any measures” to prevent it.

226 Chip Designer  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:41:47pm

re: #216 ~Fianna

I think you are confusing government war powers with domestic powers. We give our government the power to drop nuclear bombs on cities that are at war with us. That does not translate into the power to drop the bomb on Phoenix.

227 MrSilverDragon  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:42:17pm

re: #224 SasquatchOnSteroids

Thank God we had Bush in office when 9/11 happened.

Thank God that nothing happened like 9/11 after 9/11 while Bush was in office.

228 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:42:20pm

re: #16 Charles

Ugh. Threatening to kill someone’s children, if that’s true, is something I can’t support at all.

Now I’m beginning to wonder if there’s more waiting to come out.

I don’t like that idea at all. Who was this directed at? KSM?

229 SFGoth  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:42:21pm

There’s evidence that treating civilized people with civility works. I’m not aware of any humane interrogations of waffen SS members, for instance.

230 JarHeadLifer  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:42:24pm

re: #180 ~Fianna

I’m minded of Franklin’s response to the question about what kind of government we had: “A Republic - if you can keep it.” This is the kind of thing that starts making it harder to keep.

Ben Franklin? I forget, did Franklin say that before or after we fire-bombed Dresden? How about the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, before or after Franklin?

Thank God that we’ve had Presidents in the past that have embraced their primary responsibility - to defend the people of America. Sometimes, that involves doing absolutely barbaric and inconceivably cruel things - acts that would never be considered in a time of peace, or against enemies that embrace western rules of war.

Truman didn’t threaten to kill the children of our enemies. He just killed them - and he saved millions of lives in the process - both Japanese and American. Obama and Holder just don’t understand this. They don’t understand it, because like all narcissists, history began the day they were born, anything before is just meaningless ether.

231 SasquatchOnSteroids  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:42:42pm

re: #227 MrSilverDragon

Thank God that nothing happened like 9/11 after 9/11 while Bush was in office.

Exactly my point.

232 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:42:47pm

Look. I’ve been a supporter of harsh interrogation techniques in the aftermath of 9/11 throughout the history of this blog. Even waterboarding, although I do believe that one does fall into the category of torture.

But threatening children? Nope. That’s way too far for the government to be going.

There’s a huge difference between bombing a terrorist camp in Afghanistan and killing children because they were present, and threatening to kill the children of a man who’s helpless in your custody.

It’s not necessary. It’s debasing to the interrogators, and the country, to allow this. There are other ways that probably work better to get any information you think you’ll get by threatening someone’s children.

And the CIA, last time I looked, does indeed have the power to carry out threats like this. A threat doesn’t mean much unless it can be carried out.

233 unrealizedviewpoint  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:42:56pm

re: #222 Walter L. Newton

Including threatening the same thing? Should we tell a terrorist that we are going to send some operatives into his children’s school and blow them away?

Do you realize the disconnect that you have just created?

A terrorists has knowledge of a potential attack (that may result in the death of 100’s or maybe 1000’s) Should I threaten him with words? I think so.

234 filetandrelease  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:42:59pm

re: #220 doubter4444

Don’t be an ass. No one is recommending coddling terrorists, that’s a cheap way of avoiding the issue.
But for the record, there is ample evidence that treating suspects humanly works better than torture. This argument has been made many times in the past, and I reckon no minds will be changed.

I call BS.

235 callahan23  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:43:23pm

re: #213 taxfreekiller

Torture.

One more Obama teleprompter talk on race relations.

Torture.

One more Obama teleprompter talk excusing for past ‘sins’ to the world.

236 SFGoth  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:43:30pm

We didn’t threaten children, we threatened to threaten children.

237 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:43:47pm

re: #201 Racer X

You time travel back to 1936. Would you torture someone to get to Hitler? 8 Million lives.

Stalin?
20 Million.

No, actually, I’d just kill them plain and simple if I had the power.

It’s thinking of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Franco, Chevalier, Hussein, Rasputin and on and on and on that makes me think that we need to check behavior like this and check it hard when it happens. It’s not one thing, one event, one moment that births a genocide or a dictatorship. It’s a gradual slide of the government telling the people that we’re doing this to $enemyOfthePeople to protect you. Sooner or later, though, the category of enemyOfthePeople gets bigger and bigger and bigger and suddenly you find out that you’re in the new category of enemy.

238 ckb  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:43:53pm

re: #210 HoosierHoops

Cause when the last line of questioning involves blowing your kids brains out…Maybe you should just shut the fuck up and let somebody else try questioning…We are better than that…I hope we are

Better than that? I hope we are as good as that. I hope we were showing surveillance video of the kids at home going about the normal daily activities while we were giving empty threats against their lives.

As for actually doing it - yes, we should be better than that.

239 Sharmuta  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:43:58pm

re: #157 Charles

If it’s being a ‘wee-wee man’ to be against government agents threatening the lives of children, well, that’s me then. Mr. Wee Wee.

I can only imagine the screams and howls if children of domestic terrorists were threatened. The kookspiracy theorists would have a field day.

240 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:44:33pm

re: #216 ~Fianna

So you’re okay with #1 giving the government permission to threaten people’s families and think they won’t ever abuse that power once given to them?

#2 This is the same government that you don’t trust to administer a health care plan, but you’re really hunky-dory with the idea that they’re just going to do this to terrorists, but never, ever in any other situation?

#1,,, these aren’t “peoples families” and they weren’t threatened. These are TERRORISTS, who swore DEATH to us in WAR. These aren;’t some innocent American citizens walking down Main Street USA. And NO child was threatened. What was done was the PRISONER was told his family could be in danger. NO Marine walked up to that child in Afghanisatn and held a rifle to their heads

#2 apples and oranges. Policies being implemented that affect the entire population can be reasonably argued. THE job of the gov;’t is to protect Americans (see #1), NOT to mandate life decisions of Americans

241 Racer X  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:44:57pm

re: #224 SasquatchOnSteroids

Thank God we had Bush in office when 9/11 happened.

Ask the average college kid who the worst world leader was in the past 100 years. Most will answer Bush.

Hitler?
Stalin?
Pol Pot?

Who? No clue.

242 LGoPs  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:45:13pm

re: #220 doubter4444

Don’t be an ass. No one is recommending coddling terrorists, that’s a cheap way of avoiding the issue.
But for the record, there is ample evidence that treating suspects humanly works better than torture. This argument has been made many times in the past, and I reckon no minds will be changed.

Terrorists who are perfectly willing to kill themselves while killing innocents don’t pass my humanity test. They wouldn’t understand being treated humanely - they would spit on it as proof of weakness. They would more readily understand fear and terror.
The Roman treatment would be the more appropriate.

243 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:45:24pm

re: #202 sattv4u2

[Link: www.time.com…]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Names Names

Do you think Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave the info because he wanted to be liked by his captors?

Are you contending he gave the info because his children or family were threatened? Do you have any evidence regarding the techniques used?

244 HoosierHoops  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:45:34pm

re: #226 Chip Designer

I think you are confusing government war powers with domestic powers. We give our government the power to drop nuclear bombs on cities that are at war with us. That does not translate into the power to drop the bomb on Phoenix.

Hey CD… No Nuclear launch fire Control system allows a launch on any American City…The code doesn’t allow it…Any other place? They are so messed up…

245 SasquatchOnSteroids  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:45:41pm

re: #241 Racer X

Ask the average college kid who the worst world leader was in the past 100 years. Most will answer Bush.

Hitler?
Stalin?
Pol Pot?

Who? No clue.

That same kid probably has a Che T-shirt.

246 MandyManners  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:45:47pm

re: #219 ckb

One word. Beslan.

It could happen here. There isn’t much that should not be done to avoid such a thing.

Every now and then when I drop off The Kid at school, I think of Beslan. I know it’s not rational but, I still do think of it.

247 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:46:16pm

re: #246 MandyManners

Every now and then when I drop off The Kid at school, I think of Beslan. I know it’s not rational but, I still do think of it.

Hard not to, actually.

248 Ben Hur  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:46:22pm
Breaking (2:32pm EDT): An internal CIA report says interrogators threatened to kill 9/11 suspect’s children.

Who cares?

249 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:46:27pm

re: #233 unrealizedviewpoint

A terrorists has knowledge of a potential attack (that may result in the death of 100’s or maybe 1000’s) Should I threaten him with words? I think so.

Not “I’m going to kill your children.”

250 Danny  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:46:32pm

re: #232 Charles

I don’t recall: are you opposed to waterboarding?

251 doubter4444  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:46:51pm

re: #225 victor_yugo

I think you got it backwards. He’s using the threat of a Beslan here to justify “any measures” to prevent it.

I think that’s what he meant, it’s pretty confusing.
But pretty whacked to say, if that’s the case, I’ll fucking kill your kids to save my my people. But you are an evil terrorist if you kill mine to protect or promote your world view.

252 LoquaciousLady  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:46:56pm

I think out military has done some less than savory things during every war. Whether it was the Civil War, WWII, Vietnam (agent orange), Spanish-American War, etc… I’ve ready stories of “less than legal” actions being taken by officers and others. So I don’t think we’re losing our moral high ground here. There have always been less than “above board” actions taken by our side to win. No way to condone it, war is hell.

253 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:47:11pm

re: #226 Chip Designer

I think you are confusing government war powers with domestic powers. We give our government the power to drop nuclear bombs on cities that are at war with us. That does not translate into the power to drop the bomb on Phoenix.

This isn’t the Army we’re talking about. This is the FBI and they have pretty broad powers over American citizens.

254 JarHeadLifer  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:47:18pm

re: #232 Charles

But threatening children? Nope. That’s way too far for the government to be going.

Charles, respectfully - they weren’t threatening children. They were threatening grown men with a ruse. If these guys had lined up children against a wall with a gun to their heads so their fathers could watch and be intimidated, then I’d be right with you. That would be unquestionably wrong.

These interrogators were acting - putting on a piece of performance art to intimidate murdering bastards into giving up something, anything that might be used to save children - our children, and frankly their children as well. The sooner we can get this over with, the better it will be for children everywhere.

255 filetandrelease  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:47:45pm

re: #243 Coracle

Are you contending he gave the info because his children or family were threatened? Do you have any evidence regarding the techniques used?

We will soon find out thinks to the “O”. At this point we don’t really even know this happened at all.

256 avanti  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:47:48pm

re: #220 doubter4444

Don’t be an ass. No one is recommending coddling terrorists, that’s a cheap way of avoiding the issue.
But for the record, there is ample evidence that treating suspects humanly works better than torture.
This argument has been made many times in the past, and I reckon no minds will be changed.

Don’t the Israelis do just that with prisoners. I seem to recall schooling, religious accommodation and the rest.

257 Right Brain  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:47:57pm

Obama is down in the polls, his staff look like idiots, his health care bill is DOA.

The race card already played. So what to do?

Campaign some more. Bring down the Bush administration! That’ll stir the troops.

258 unrealizedviewpoint  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:48:15pm

re: #249 Walter L. Newton

Not “I’m going to kill your children.”

A few harsh words to save thousands, maybe even millions. I’ll get harsh.

259 ckb  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:48:17pm

re: #222 Walter L. Newton

Including threatening the same thing? Should we tell a terrorist that we are going to send some operatives into his children’s school and blow them away?

Do you realize the disconnect that you have just created?

There’s no disconnect because we (hopefully) would never do such a thing. The hardest part of making such a threat would be convincing the subject that we were sincere, since anyone with half a brain knows that it would never happen.

260 kansas  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:48:23pm

re: #241 Racer X

Ask the average college kid who the worst world leader was in the past 100 years. Most will answer Bush.

Hitler?
Stalin?
Pol Pot?

Who? No clue.

Meanwhile the Obama Bankrupt America Plan moves forward.

261 Son of the Black Dog  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:48:36pm

re: #180 ~Fianna

…

I’m minded of Franklin’s response to the question about what kind of government we had: “A Republic - if you can keep it.” This is the kind of thing that starts making it harder to keep.

…

And yet, we seem to have come a long way from the republican form of government envisioned by the founding fathers. A long way toward the all encompassing European socialist nanny state. A little bit here, a little bit there.

262 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:48:46pm

re: #243 Coracle

Are you contending he gave the info because his children or family were threatened? Do you have any evidence regarding the techniques used?

No, I’k contending that he did NOT give up the info willingly. Was it waterboarding? Maybe! Was it sleep deprivation? Perhaps! COULD it have been that an interrogator told him his children were in the “crosshairs”? After todays revelation, it’s possible. All I iknwo is thast SOMETHING worked, and I’ll be willing to bet it was NOT being nicye nice to him!

263 Ben Hur  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:49:14pm

re: #133 Ojoe

IMHO it is bad for our country that this issue has become a political football.

I note that all of the 3,000 people murdered on 9-11 were each the child of 2 parents.

Because Americans are instant experts.

264 doubter4444  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:49:22pm

re: #234 filetandrelease

I call BS.

Man there is so much literature about it, I guess I’ll have to look some up, but really, it’s like debunking the birth certificate, there is so much that supports it, but there will always be those who deny it.

265 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:49:27pm

re: #214 victor_yugo

Not sure about “this tactic,” but here’s one incident of harsh interrogation that saved lives:

[Link: www.nationalreview.com…]

It all comes down to these four words: “the ambushes were avoided”.

More than that. The interrogator stepped over the line, knew it, and took responsibility for it. Isn’t personal responsibility one of our cardinal virtues?

266 Ojoe  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:49:47pm

This leak is pure politics.

267 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:49:47pm

Via AP

A newly declassified CIA report says interrogators threatened to kill the children of a Sept. 11 suspect.

The document, released Monday by the Justice Department, says one interrogator said a colleague had told Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that if any other attacks happened in the United States, “We’re going to kill your children.”

Another interrogator allegedly tried to convince a different terror suspect detainee that his mother would be sexually assaulted in front of him—though the interrogator in question denied making such a threat.

The report, written in 2004, examined CIA treatment of terror detainees following the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It has been declassified as part of a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

268 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:49:49pm

re: #251 doubter4444

I think that’s what he meant, it’s pretty confusing.
But pretty whacked to say, if that’s the case, I’ll fucking kill your kids to save my my people. But you are an evil terrorist if you kill mine to protect or promote your world view.

I didn’t have it backwards. You don’t threaten to “kill your kids” even if you believe the person you are talking to may kill some kids.

We know for a FACT, that these people do NOT react to this sort of pressure. They are killer, they KILL THIER OWN CHILDREN and have parties afterward.

So, if we are going to threaten the same thing, we better be prepared to do it, otherwise it is a hollow threat and these people will simply laugh in our face.

269 callahan23  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:49:49pm

re: #245 SasquatchOnSteroids

That same kid probably has a Che T-shirt.

Plus a Jordiptian scarf. Caution! Offensive image!

270 WindHorse  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:49:54pm

This release of information reeks of doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons.

271 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:50:05pm

But on the larger issue of Holder’s investigation, I think this is a rotten development, and isn’t going to help either the country or the CIA. But it isn’t like you couldn’t see it coming.

272 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:50:09pm

re: #240 sattv4u2

#1,,, these aren’t “peoples families” and they weren’t threatened. These are TERRORISTS, who swore DEATH to us in WAR. These aren;’t some innocent American citizens walking down Main Street USA. And NO child was threatened. What was done was the PRISONER was told his family could be in danger. NO Marine walked up to that child in Afghanisatn and held a rifle to their heads

#2 apples and oranges. Policies being implemented that affect the entire population can be reasonably argued. THE job of the gov;’t is to protect Americans (see #1), NOT to mandate life decisions of Americans

Aah, so since they’re not people, it’s okay? Sorry, I don’t want to live in a country with one set of laws over here and another set over there. It’s a bureaucrat’s pen that puts people in categories, and I just simply don’t trust any Administration - liberal, conservative, moderate whatever, with the power to selectively apply law to itself.

273 Dahveed  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:50:21pm

I had a professor in college show a picture of Hitler holding two small children before he took power. He asked if you could go back in time and stop Hitler from taking power by killing him and the two children, would you? There were some that said no because the kids were innocent and they did nothing to deserve being killed. I took the position, as did several others, that if the two kids dying were the price of keeping millions alive, then it was a small price to pay.

274 Ojoe  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:50:46pm

re: #263 Ben Hur

I don’t quite follow your comment.

275 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:50:52pm

re: #259 ckb

There’s no disconnect because we (hopefully) would never do such a thing. The hardest part of making such a threat would be convincing the subject that we were sincere, since anyone with half a brain knows that it would never happen.

We know for a FACT, that these people do NOT react to this sort of pressure. They are killer, they KILL THIER OWN CHILDREN and have parties afterward.

So, if we are going to threaten the same thing, we better be prepared to do it, otherwise it is a hollow threat and these people will simply laugh in our face.

276 kansas  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:50:55pm

re: #267 karmic_inquisitor

Via AP

A newly declassified CIA report says interrogators threatened to kill the children of a Sept. 11 suspect.

The document, released Monday by the Justice Department, says one interrogator said a colleague had told Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that if any other attacks happened in the United States, “We’re going to kill your children.”

Another interrogator allegedly tried to convince a different terror suspect detainee that his mother would be sexually assaulted in front of him—though the interrogator in question denied making such a threat.

The report, written in 2004, examined CIA treatment of terror detainees following the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It has been declassified as part of a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Would that be the Eric Holder Justice Department? Well shazam.

277 jill e  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:51:03pm

But isn’t this a case where children were NOT threatened. The interrogators just TOLD the terrorists that their children would be killed. At no time was the US going to kill kids. Is this not different or do I just need some caffeine?

278 Racer X  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:51:05pm

re: #266 Ojoe

This leak is pure politics.

I keep clicking the plus sign but it only moved once. Can someone help me out?

279 Ben Hur  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:51:34pm

re: #256 avanti

Don’t the Israelis do just that with prisoners. I seem to recall schooling, religious accommodation and the rest.

I served in Israel security prisons.

They are not a deterrent.

They are actually a joke.

Summer camp.

With arts and crafts, etc.

Thank Amnesty, Int’l Red Cross, etc.

280 avanti  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:51:35pm

re: #260 kansas

Meanwhile the Obama Bankrupt America Plan moves forward.

Made me google it. 61 % of historians picked Bush as the

worst. I don;t know how college kids would feel.

281 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:51:45pm

re: #271 Charles

But on the larger issue of Holder’s investigation, I think this is a rotten development, and isn’t going to help either the country or the CIA. But it isn’t like you couldn’t see it coming.

This will absolutely handcuff the CIA, and I’d be willing to bet the FBI will be very cautious about how they obtain info also!

282 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:51:53pm

re: #273 Dahveed

I had a professor in college show a picture of Hitler holding two small children before he took power. He asked if you could go back in time and stop Hitler from taking power by killing him and the two children, would you? There were some that said no because the kids were innocent and they did nothing to deserve being killed. I took the position, as did several others, that if the two kids dying were the price of keeping millions alive, then it was a small price to pay.

And that’s the problem with most ‘ticking bomb’ scenarios, by the way. They rarely exist in reality. You can’t go back in time.

283 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:51:58pm

re: #246 MandyManners

Every now and then when I drop off The Kid at school, I think of Beslan. I know it’s not rational but, I still do think of it.

I think of Mumbai whenever my sons go on shlichus missions.

284 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:52:00pm

re: #277 jill e

But isn’t this a case where children were NOT threatened. The interrogators just TOLD the terrorists that their children would be killed. At no time was the US going to kill kids. Is this not different or do I just need some caffeine?

We know for a FACT, that these people do NOT react to this sort of pressure. They are killer, they KILL THIER OWN CHILDREN and have parties afterward.

So, if we are going to threaten the same thing, we better be prepared to do it, otherwise it is a hollow threat and these people will simply laugh in our face.

285 MandyManners  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:52:11pm

Speaking of the devil, I gotta’ go pick him up.

286 lawhawk  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:52:15pm

re: #256 avanti

The Israelis have tried all manner of techniques to deal with Palestinian terrorists. Actionable intel is hard to come by, and getting it in a timely fashion is critical. I have no specific knowledge of what they do, but those terrorists who are detained for long periods of time are provided all manner of amenity - well beyond what is required under Geneva Conventions.

What undermines Israel’s abilities to extract intel is that the Palestinians are always trying to secure the release of hundreds of terrorists via deals for Israelis held by terrorists. Since they know that they happen fairly regularly, they can hold out hope for release without giving up details (or at least hold out long enough that their intel is useless because it loses time criticality).

287 filetandrelease  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:52:42pm

re: #264 doubter4444

Man there is so much literature about it, I guess I’ll have to look some up, but really, it’s like debunking the birth certificate, there is so much that supports it, but there will always be those who deny it.


So, let me get this straight, the guys that actually study this stuff because when it is needed they have to do it, read the wrong books?

288 Achilles Tang  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:52:42pm

re: #75 Charles

Bullshit. There’s a whole lot you can do to interrogate even a hardened Al Qaeda terrorist without descending to the level of threatening the lives of children.

Yes, but let us not jump to the level of the MSM too fast here.

Most terrorists of any sophistication would know it was an empty threat at the simplest level, unless perhaps it was a threat to send a predator to where the family and other terrorists lived, which we have done. I haven’t seen indignation on the reports that some children have died in those attacks.

It does not sound like an intelligent or commendable threat to me, but unless I see that it was in the manual as a standard script I am not going to let this become a central definition of American interrogation in my mind.

Waterboarding sounds a lot worse than a verbal threat to me and at this point it sounds like one threat by one person one time.

289 Salamantis  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:52:43pm

re: #262 sattv4u2

No, I’k contending that he did NOT give up the info willingly. Was it waterboarding? Maybe! Was it sleep deprivation? Perhaps! COULD it have been that an interrogator told him his children were in the “crosshairs”? After todays revelation, it’s possible. All I iknwo is thast SOMETHING worked, and I’ll be willing to bet it was NOT being nicye nice to him!

Khalid Shaykh Muhammed would not talk in response to any other interrogation technique. Waterboarding got him to talk. And to tell the truth. Because everyone concerned knew that the info would be checked out, and if it DIDN’T check out, the interrogator and the interrogatee will see each other again. And the interrogator would not be a happy puppy.

290 victor_yugo  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:52:52pm

re: #232 Charles

And the CIA, last time I looked, does indeed have the power to carry out threats like this. A threat doesn’t mean much unless it can be carried out.

Now here’s something I can find common ground with you on, with one caveat: Osama bin Laden’s children are now old enough to be adult jihadis. They are not off-limits; if anything, they are targets.

291 Last Mohican  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:53:05pm

re: #232 Charles

I’ve been away for the last hour or so, so I may have missed something.

Were the CIA interrogators actually considering killing the detainees’ children? Or was it just an idle threat, made to force information out of the detainees?

If the former, then it’s unequivocally wrong. The children are innocent. Not only should the CIA not kill them, but they shouldn’t kidnap them, or even harass them. They should try to minimize the trauma to the children by, if possible, attempting to arrest their father somewhere other than the house where the children are. They shouldn’t even for one minute allow the children to think that they might be intentionally harmed by the CIA.

But what if there’s no way that the threat could ever be communicated back to the children, because the detainee is locked up, incommunicado, in Guantanamo? It seems to me that then it inflicts anguish upon the detainee, but not upon the children. I’m not sure how I feel about that, and I can see both sides of the issue. But I really might be okay with that.

292 Racer X  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:53:23pm

re: #280 avanti

Made me google it. 61 % of historians picked Bush as the

worst. I don;t know how college kids would feel.

*shakes head*

Historians forgot Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the rest?

293 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:53:36pm

re: #272 ~Fianna

Aah, so since they’re not people, it’s okay? Sorry, I don’t want to live in a country with one set of laws over here and another set over there. It’s a bureaucrat’s pen that puts people in categories, and I just simply don’t trust any Administration - liberal, conservative, moderate whatever, with the power to selectively apply law to itself.

There are (and have always been ) laws that apply to our citizens that do NOT apply to those we are at war with. Sorry if you’re not cognizant of that fact

294 opnion  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:53:49pm

re: #226 Chip Designer

I think you are confusing government war powers with domestic powers. We give our government the power to drop nuclear bombs on cities that are at war with us. That does not translate into the power to drop the bomb on Phoenix.

Constitutional protections do not apply to enemy combatants or most would be out on Habeas Corpus.
We should not be slicing of digits or using cattle prods, but empty threats , sure.
The meme that treating them compassionately gets more info is in no way proven. There are anecdotal stories both ways

295 jill e  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:53:55pm

re: #284 Walter L. Newton

We know for a FACT, that these people do NOT react to this sort of pressure. They are killer, they KILL THIER OWN CHILDREN and have parties afterward.

So, if we are going to threaten the same thing, we better be prepared to do it, otherwise it is a hollow threat and these people will simply laugh in our face.

But this is in an individual situation where one person is being interrogated under very high pressure. Not all terrorists kill their own children.

296 Picayune  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:53:56pm

re: #56 avanti

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”


Benjamin Franklin


Once we start to emulate the bad guys, we start down a slippery slope.

So, did Obama start us on down that slippery slope when he ordered the Marines to shoot/kill (head shot) the pirates who were holding our Merchant Marine Captain captive recently?

Don’t bother, I am still watching the Obamacare debacle, regardless of the WH spin, and this item will only cause further erosion of Obama’s poll numbers. Watch it happen!

297 Rancher  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:54:03pm

We haven’t fully recovered from the last time the left castrated the CIA. Morale at the Agency is heading strait down on afterburners.

Circuses are not new in Washington, and I can see preparations being made for tents from the Capitol straight down Pennsylvania Avenue. The CIA has been pulled into the center ring before. The result this time will be the same: a hollowed-out service of diminished capabilities. After Sept. 11, the general outcry was, ‘Why don’t we have better overseas capabilities?’ I fear that in the years to come this refrain will be heard again: once a threat — or God forbid, another successful attack — captures our attention and sends the pendulum swinging back


Ex CIA Director Porter Goss

298 victor_yugo  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:54:17pm

re: #265 Coracle

More than that. The interrogator stepped over the line, knew it, and took responsibility for it. Isn’t personal responsibility one of our cardinal virtues?

That isn’t what you asked for. You wanted to see where such tactics worked, and saved lives. I found an example for you. Don’t go moving the goal-posts.

299 LGoPs  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:54:25pm

re: #271 Charles

But on the larger issue of Holder’s investigation, I think this is a rotten development, and isn’t going to help either the country or the CIA. But it isn’t like you couldn’t see it coming.

Obama did say he was going to fundamentally change America. I hope that this is fundamental enough for those who fucking voted for him.

300 Son of the Black Dog  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:54:44pm

re: #186 Creeping Eruption

Anyone know if the White House stance is still that those who had authorization to employ certain techniques have cover, or is that off the table?

I think the only constant is that Holder’s Justice Department will prosecute anybody when it is in the interest of advancing the liberal agenda in general or the Obama administration in particular.

301 MandyManners  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:54:45pm

Before I go, I wonder if we’ll see any of Alinksy’s rules used in FCBBHO/his minions’ attack on the C.I.A..

302 kansas  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:54:55pm

re: #280 avanti

Made me google it. 61 % of historians picked Bush as the

worst. I don;t know how college kids would feel.

Historians typically wait for…oh I don’t know…HISTORY. These people are partisans. Maybe he was the worst. I doubt it. Pretty sure Carter was worst in my time. I think right now we are looking at the worst.

303 avanti  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:55:00pm

re: #292 Racer X

*shakes head*

Historians forgot Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the rest?

Sorry, should have been clearer, it was a poll on US Presidents.

304 k2law  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:55:01pm
I note that all of the 3,000 people murdered on 9-11 were each the child of 2 parents.

And many of the people killed that day were the parents of children.

When reading the comments of those who somehow believe that telling a terrorists that something awful will happen to their children if they don’t speak, I’m reminded of Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men” when he said “YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH.” Techniques are used to get information and they probably do not comport with rules of etiquette in a Cotillion tea party. Now, I personally question whether these techniques would be fruitful since it’s those same people who strap bombs to children, but do I have a problem with them being told that? Absolutely not.

305 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:55:11pm

re: #271 Charles

But on the larger issue of Holder’s investigation, I think this is a rotten development, and isn’t going to help either the country or the CIA. But it isn’t like you couldn’t see it coming.

Yes, he’s got to get back his street cred among the moonbats.

306 right_on_target  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:55:16pm

Every intelligence interrogation is different. Each bit of information gathered from the interrogation has to be checked out, no matter how small or absurd.

One of the objectives of intelligence gathering is speed. Threatening terrorist suspects is a result of that quest for a speedy outcome. The interrogators can’t wait for the suspects to “spill the beans”, voluntarily.

How do you people think terrorists are interrogated?
The CIA didn’t play question and answer games.

307 kynna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:55:27pm

I’m confused. Are these allegations? Or confessions? It looks like at least one of these accused is saying he didn’t do it. Maybe we should ask the perp. He’ll clear up the misunderstanding.

Gotta love the timing, though. A lot of lizards nailed this one yesterday. Deficit gets raised to 9 tril, C4C is exposed as a dog program, low poll numbers, and Holder’s suddenly investigating the Bush administration again.

I don’t support torture, but I don’t support the tactic of harassing your predecessor’s administration in order to divert attention from your own failings either.

308 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:55:32pm

re: #289 Salamantis

Khalid Shaykh Muhammed would not talk in response to any other interrogation technique. Waterboarding got him to talk. And to tell the truth. Because everyone concerned knew that the info would be checked out, and if it DIDN’T check out, the interrogator and the interrogatee will see each other again. And the interrogator would not be a happy puppy.

You mean we didn’t put KSM in a Hyatt with a flat screen 200 channel cable TV and 24/7 room service to get the info???

309 [deleted]  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:55:44pm
310 Athos  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:55:47pm

re: #292 Racer X

*shakes head*

Historians forgot Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the rest?

Apparently, remembering political ideology trumps historical facts.

311 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:55:48pm

re: #268 Walter L. Newton

I didn’t have it backwards. You don’t threaten to “kill your kids” even if you believe the person you are talking to may kill some kids.

We know for a FACT, that these people do NOT react to this sort of pressure. They are killer, they KILL THIER OWN CHILDREN and have parties afterward.

So, if we are going to threaten the same thing, we better be prepared to do it, otherwise it is a hollow threat and these people will simply laugh in our face.

My point is that because of what you say above, threatening to kill their children is no threat, and instead plays into their hands.

312 Floppydusk  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:55:48pm

This witch hunt will gut the CIA

313 Racer X  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:55:51pm

re: #303 avanti

Sorry, should have been clearer, it was a poll on US Presidents.

Yes my bad I saw that after I posted. My original comment dealt with world leaders.

314 Sharmuta  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:56:00pm

It’s un-American to threaten innocence. We’re supposed to be defenders of it.

315 brandon13  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:56:04pm

re: #292 Racer X

*shakes head*

Historians forgot Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the rest?

That poll was only for U.S. presidents, not all world leaders.

316 HoosierHoops  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:56:05pm

re: #273 Dahveed

One little old problem…Nobody gets to go back in time…We don’t know if that child is Damien or Mother Teresa…

317 SasquatchOnSteroids  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:56:08pm

Pinch just creamed his pants. Two weeks of stories.
Journalistic gold.

318 kansas  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:56:15pm

re: #301 MandyManners

Before I go, I wonder if we’ll see any of Alinksy’s rules used in FCBBHO/his minions’ attack on the C.I.A..

You mean see someone name them?

319 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:56:23pm

re: #309 buzzsawmonkey

Charles: I was hanging back in the prior thread, clicking new comments—and the fact that there was a new thread up did not even appear (as it normally does) at the upper and lower right.

There may be some little code breakdown there.

No, I changed some code — now that you’ve reloaded, it will work…

320 avanti  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:56:40pm

re: #296 Picayune

So, did Obama start us on down that slippery slope when he ordered the Marines to shoot/kill (head shot) the pirates who were holding our Merchant Marine Captain captive recently?

Don’t bother, I am still watching the Obamacare debacle, regardless of the WH spin, and this item will only cause further erosion of Obama’s poll numbers. Watch it happen!

Nope, that was not a unreasonable thing to do to protect the life of the captain in clear and present danger.

321 [deleted]  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:56:53pm
322 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:56:58pm

re: #293 sattv4u2

There are (and have always been ) laws that apply to our citizens that do NOT apply to those we are at war with. Sorry if you’re not cognizant of that fact

Nope - American laws protect everyone on American soil. That’s why we’ve got Guantanamo in the first place.

323 Ben Hur  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:57:06pm

re: #274 Ojoe

I don’t quite follow your comment.

I can’t explain it now.

But in the places where they deal with terror daily, no one is giving a sh*t about THREATS, when their children are actually being killed.

324 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:57:10pm

re: #301 MandyManners

Before I go, I wonder if we’ll see any of Alinksy’s rules used in FCBBHO/his minions’ attack on the C.I.A..

I have the book right in my hands, it would be nice if somewhere in the book he just listed his rules so we could find them quickly.

325 jamgarr  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:57:15pm

re: #254 JarHeadLifer

What you said!

326 [deleted]  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:57:18pm
327 wkeller  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:57:19pm

Can you imagine what will happen to the Big “O” when the CIA launches its war against him?? Just little leaks here and there about his cabinet or his czars. Perhaps Dead Fish or Axelrod. Just a steady drip, drip, drip. Death by 1,000 cuts as the Chinese would say. I suspect once they turn an operator loose in Chicago there will be quite a bit of information to be found. Perhaps a round or two with the big boys will wise the Big “O” up.

As for the country, think of the data being lost just because interrogators are afraid what they are being asked to do will later be determined to be criminal. Why ask?? Why risk it?? On the battlefield - there might be some good news there. It would be so much cheaper to fire one more round than to try and talk a guy down. “He was reaching for his weapon!”; “I couldn’t believe he took a shot at me, I had to shoot him!” Yep, Gitmo should be empty soon enough - and I suspect alot fewer of our enemies will be “surrendering”.

And, of course, we no longer have a GTOW anyway - so silly me - the CIA can simply be shelved . Yep, I feel much safer now - much, much safer now.

Hope and change, hope and change.

328 jill e  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:57:28pm

In considering the MSM, this certainly will knock health care off the opener for the evening news.

329 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:57:41pm

re: #314 Sharmuta

It’s un-American to threaten innocence. We’re supposed to be defenders of it.

It’s more un-American to not protect your citizenry. Thats the 1st, 2nd and 3rd job of the federal gov’t

330 Achilles Tang  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:57:46pm

re: #292 Racer X

*shakes head*

Historians forgot Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the rest?

They were American presidents? Coulda fooled me.//

331 Ojoe  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:58:02pm

re: #323 Ben Hur

I understand

332 doubter4444  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:58:03pm

re: #242 LGoPs

Terrorists who are perfectly willing to kill themselves while killing innocents don’t pass my humanity test. They wouldn’t understand being treated humanely - they would spit on it as proof of weakness. They would more readily understand fear and terror.
The Roman treatment would be the more appropriate.

Listen, I feel the same way, but I intellectually can’t let that sway me.
And, no snark, but who are you to decide the humanity of anyone?
Look, if I’m there as a witness a heinous act, I could easily kill that person, and worse, particularly, if it was my family.
So I’m not getting righteous here.
We are talking about the systematic torture of terror suspects over time.
I’m against it.
I have a good friend, one of the most decorated gunnies in the war.
He’d kick the shit out of any of his people threatening a family. He’d have no problem shooting the guy in the head, but he has honor, and unless there was a reason, he keep the family’s out.
He said it was just common sense.

333 avanti  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:58:09pm

re: #313 Racer X

Yes my bad I saw that after I posted. My original comment dealt with world leaders.

Let’s rap each others fingers with a ruler and move on. :)

334 Ben Hur  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:58:10pm

re: #284 Walter L. Newton

We know for a FACT, that these people do NOT react to this sort of pressure. They are killer, they KILL THIER OWN CHILDREN and have parties afterward.

So, if we are going to threaten the same thing, we better be prepared to do it, otherwise it is a hollow threat and these people will simply laugh in our face.

It worked when the Russians did it.

They actually DID it though, they didn’t threaten.

335 filetandrelease  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:58:16pm

re: #284 Walter L. Newton

We know for a FACT, that these people do NOT react to this sort of pressure. They are killer, they KILL THIER OWN CHILDREN and have parties afterward.

So, if we are going to threaten the same thing, we better be prepared to do it, otherwise it is a hollow threat and these people will simply laugh in our face.

This allegedly happened just after 9/11. It is possible the terrorist believed we would have carried it out, and it may have been effective. Of course today he would just laugh.

336 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:58:22pm

re: #322 ~Fianna

Nope - American laws protect everyone on American soil. That’s why we’ve got Guantanamo in the first place.

Ahh , and thats where the “threats” took place,, SO,,, no problem , right ???

337 Rancher  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:58:24pm

re: #280 avanti

Made me google it. 61 % of historians picked Bush as the

worst. I don;t know how college kids would feel.

Wow, and here I thought most college professors were right wing nuts.

338 ckb  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:58:33pm

re: #284 Walter L. Newton

We know for a FACT, that these people do NOT react to this sort of pressure. They are killer, they KILL THIER OWN CHILDREN and have parties afterward.

So, if we are going to threaten the same thing, we better be prepared to do it, otherwise it is a hollow threat and these people will simply laugh in our face.

We have to convince them we are prepared and capable to doing it, not actually be prepared and capable of doing it. This is the art of interrogation.

Some will be impervious. Some will not. If it doesn’t work…then you try something else.

339 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:58:45pm

re: #311 Coracle

My point is that because of what you say above, threatening to kill their children is no threat, and instead plays into their hands.

Am I being vague. That’s exactly what I am saying. We should not make these threats if we are not really going to follow through, since it will mean nothing to them.

There for

We shouldn’t be making this threat.

340 Achilles Tang  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:59:13pm

re: #333 avanti

Let’s rap each others fingers with a ruler and move on. :)

OK

341 Racer X  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:59:21pm

Help Wanted:

Intelligence operatives needed. Must have exceptional social skills; ability to deal with difficult situations without resorting to threats of violence; must be fluent in touchy-feely; ability to control anger a must.

Urgent need! We have more openings every day!

Apply on-line at CIA dot com.

342 Charpete67  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:59:31pm

re: #292 Racer X

*shakes head*

Historians forgot Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the rest?

they also forgot Jimmy Carter…

343 lawhawk  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:59:49pm

This is navel gazing of the worst kind. It’s the kind that breeds complacency. The investigation into the CIA and the politicization of an already politicized agency (at the administrative level, not the operational level mind you), will further impair the agency to do its job of obtaining actionable intel and enabling the government to act upon it in a timely and prudent manner.

It’s intended to be a sideshow - one with potentially deadly consequences. Sure, it’s red meat for the left, but it will undermine the ability of the CIA to do its job.

I’m not so sure that threatening terrorist that his kids might be targeted qualifies as going beyond the pale. After all, we already target and kill terrorists’ families (in the pursuit of those terrorists). I wonder whether this is effective, and whether it continues to this day. If it was stopped, why was it stopped - who stopped it at the CIA and for what reason?

Is it possible that we’ll find out that the DCIA, upon being briefed decided that this was not a prudent step and put an end to it? Possibly. There’s quite a bit we don’t know about the interrogations, and quite a bit we shouldn’t know - why give the terrorists further insight into how we break their brethren?

344 Ben Hur  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:59:53pm

re: #320 avanti

Nope, that was not a unreasonable thing to do to protect the life of the captain in clear and present danger.

Wow.

I was just going to refer to Patriot Games.

Who hear wouldn’t shoot the Prince’s secretary in the leg to find out how many men were coming?

345 reine.de.tout  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:59:56pm

re: #232 Charles

Look. I’ve been a supporter of harsh interrogation techniques in the aftermath of 9/11 throughout the history of this blog. Even waterboarding, although I do believe that one does fall into the category of torture.

But threatening children? Nope. That’s way too far for the government to be going.

There’s a huge difference between bombing a terrorist camp in Afghanistan and killing children because they were present, and threatening to kill the children of a man who’s helpless in your custody.

It’s not necessary. It’s debasing to the interrogators, and the country, to allow this. There are other ways that probably work better to get any information you think you’ll get by threatening someone’s children.

And the CIA, last time I looked, does indeed have the power to carry out threats like this. A threat doesn’t mean much unless it can be carried out.

Charles, I agree with you, if the “children” in question are indeed young children.

I am my mother’s “child” and I’m 56 years old. I assume the text you got is referring to young children, but it really isn’t clear which suspect, and which children.

346 kansas  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:59:56pm

re: #328 jill e

In considering the MSM, this certainly will knock health care off the opener for the evening news.

Yeah, notice how it’s Monday. All week plus the next Sunday shows. They’ll beat this horse then beat it some more.

347 medaura18586  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:00:02pm

re: #57 Charles

Sorry, but I will never believe it’s a good idea to authorize government agents to threaten anyone’s children. Terrorist or not. It’s simply wrong.

Some of you people who support that are also the ones who criticize Obama for wanting to give the government too much power. Why would you trust that same government to have free agents with the authority to threaten children?

Charles,

I am one of those people. But while I am concerned about the government acquiring too much power, I do trust the same government to have free agents with the authority to verbally issue a threat to a terrorist relating to his children. What I would never trust is for the government agents to have the authority to actually make good on such threats and make them credible.

What authority does a CIA investigator have toward harming anyone outside his or her assigned case? They can barely perform enhanced interrogation on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed himself, who was under their custody, let alone harm any of his children in foreign lands. The children have not been threatened (even assuming the report is accurate). The threat is perceived by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed alone — because he doesn’t understand the basics of how the American bureaucracy operates, and who can kill whom, under what circumstances. It’s all in his head, part of psychological pressure.

Certain terrorists were also locked in a confined space with a caterpillar, after they had been told it was a poisonous stinging bug that would kill them. I would feel uneasy, to say the least, if they had been placed in a confined space with a poisonous stinging big that could kill them. But having been made to believe that they were, while they in fact weren’t, I am completely fine with.

348 WindHorse  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:00:02pm

re: #333 avanti

-you stick out your fingers first…

349 Racer X  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:00:08pm

re: #333 avanti

Let’s rap each others fingers with a ruler and move on. :)

OUCH!

Hey!

350 [deleted]  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:00:16pm
351 eastsider  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:00:17pm

isn’t the justice department (at least in name) not under the control of the presidency?

352 Last Mohican  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:00:43pm

re: #295 jill e

But this is in an individual situation where one person is being interrogated under very high pressure. Not all terrorists kill their own children.

No. Some fanatical Muslims kill their children, because they catch them holding hands with a member of the opposite sex or something. Others probably love their children very much, and would be very upset about possible harm coming to them.

I’d say, if it were to be okay to make idle threats against a detainee’s family, necessary but not necessarily sufficient requirements should be that (1) there was some reasonable chance of the threat succeeding in extracting useful information, and (2) the threat was made only for that instrumental purpose, never because the interrogator was just feeling angry and wanted to harass the detainee.

353 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:00:48pm

re: #298 victor_yugo

That isn’t what you asked for. You wanted to see where such tactics worked, and saved lives. I found an example for you. Don’t go moving the goal-posts.

You didn’t provide an example of what I asked for. The “such tactics” I asked about were the threats mentioned in the recent CIA news, not the “harsh interrogation” mentioned in your linked item. So I replied to your side track with a response about the actual case you mentioned.

354 doubter4444  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:01:04pm

re: #249 Walter L. Newton

Not “I’m going to kill your children.”

Again, this does not happen.
Or rather, this type of situation is akin to winning the lottery, yes it could happen, but the likelihood is vanishingly small.
To even argue that point, is frankly, pretty telling that you have not really given the issue much though other than what you have seen of 24.
That’s not the real world.

355 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:01:17pm

re: #312 Floppydusk

This witch hunt will gut the CIA

Yes, it looks like we’re going to revisit 9/10.

356 Salamantis  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:01:24pm

The reason to not threaten these guys’ children is because it is dumb, and it is dumb because it would not work, and anyone weho knows jack shit about the jihadi mindset would KNOW that it would not work. They would consider their children to be dying martyrs’ deaths, and to thus be assured Paradise, and themselves to be willing to sacrifice their children for Allah, so they would eventually be allowed by Him to join them there.

A jihadi win-win all the way around.

357 Last Mohican  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:01:33pm

re: #355 Ward Cleaver

Yes, it looks like we’re going to revisit 9/10.

We’re already there.

358 Racer X  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:02:06pm

re: #350 buzzsawmonkey

Has anyone suggested that Obama and Holder making noises about going after CIA operatives may simply be a way of shoring up their support among those on the left who are disappointed with Obama talking about scrapping the public option in his healthcare intiative, the fact that he is not precipitously withdrawing troops, hasn’t closed Gitmo, etc.?

Yep.

His poll numbers are rising as we type.

359 Cato the Elder  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:02:18pm

This should give the moral relativists on the right something to whine about.

360 Rancher  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:02:26pm

re: #351 eastsider

isn’t the justice department (at least in name) not under the control of the presidency?

This was predictable when Obama picked Holder.

361 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:02:30pm

re: #336 sattv4u2

Ahh , and thats where the “threats” took place,, SO,,, no problem , right ???

Still illegal under the Geneva Convention.

This is really a pointless argument. I see this as inherently immoral behavior that we as citizens should not condone under any circumstances. You don’t see it that way. I don’t think either of us are going to be swayed.

362 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:02:49pm

re: #335 filetandrelease

This allegedly happened just after 9/11. It is possible the terrorist believed we would have carried it out, and it may have been effective. Of course today he would just laugh.

What. So, you are saying that right after 9/11 they weren’t the same ruthless killers that they are now? Are you saying that the culture they come from didn’t already celebrate death? Are you saying that just after 9/11, they wouldn’t have sent one of their children into a situation with a bomb belt? You mean, everything about their death culture came about after 9/11?

Of course not. So, threatening the death of their children AFTER 9/11 would not have been any different than doing it now, or before 9/11.

These people don’t care about their children. This sort of threat would be nothing more than giving them the chance to see their children die as heros.

If we make this threat, we better be able to carry it out, which I do not want to see happen, ergo, we should not be making this kind of hollow and dangerous threat.

363 transient  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:03:02pm

re: #338 ckb

We have to convince them we are prepared and capable to doing it, not actually be prepared and capable of doing it. This is the art of interrogation.

Some will be impervious. Some will not. If it doesn’t work…then you try something else.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Americans were pissed and al-Qaeda had been trained to resist the interrogation methods of the “evil Americans,” so the threat was credible. An alternative, if the family was living in another Arab country, say Saudi Arabia, would be to threaten to have the locals kill the family. This would be entirely credible.

With our current administration, no one would believe we would do any of that. I’m not entirely sure if that’s good or bad.

364 jamgarr  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:03:14pm

Bracketing the weekend - 9 trillion on Friday - investigation on Monday.
Axelrod, you genius!

365 jill e  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:03:29pm

re: #352 Last Mohican

No. Some fanatical Muslims kill their children, because they catch them holding hands with a member of the opposite sex or something. Others probably love their children very much, and would be very upset about possible harm coming to them.

I’d say, if it were to be okay to make idle threats against a detainee’s family, necessary but not necessarily sufficient requirements should be that (1) there was some reasonable chance of the threat succeeding in extracting useful information, and (2) the threat was made only for that instrumental purpose, never because the interrogator was just feeling angry and wanted to harass the detainee.

That’s what I was saying. I’m sure the CIA was trying this on individuals. For some it may have worked, but not with others. I’m all for trying and leaving it to the experts.

366 [deleted]  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:03:37pm
367 SasquatchOnSteroids  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:03:40pm

Yeah, but do the terrorists kids have healthcare ?

368 FrogMarch  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:03:47pm

re: #2 Last Mohican

I’m glad this got its own thread. It’s a really, really big deal. An extraordinary stupid idea, that’s going to do terrible harm to this country for many years to come.

Obama’s poll numbers are tanking.
Screw this nation. The left have certain priorities.

369 capitalist piglet  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:04:09pm

There were children on the planes that were hijacked on 9/11, were there not? Did this enemy give a rat’s ass about them? Did they sit around and debate what they would do differently if seat 47B was occupied by a six year-old?

I’ll take “HELL NO” for $500, Alex.

We’re not talking about harming children. We’re talking about bluffing their fathers, and we’re struggling with it.

No wonder they think we’re weak.

370 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:04:11pm

re: #354 doubter4444

Again, this does not happen.
Or rather, this type of situation is akin to winning the lottery, yes it could happen, but the likelihood is vanishingly small.
To even argue that point, is frankly, pretty telling that you have not really given the issue much though other than what you have seen of 24.
That’s not the real world.

Then it is a threat that means nothing to these people. So, why do it? I’ve never watched 24. Cheap shot on your part.

371 VioletTiger  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:04:24pm

re: #356 Salamantis

The reason to not threaten these guys’ children is because it is dumb, and it is dumb because it would not work, and anyone weho knows jack shit about the jihadi mindset would KNOW that it would not work. They would consider their children to be dying martyrs’ deaths, and to thus be assured Paradise, and themselves to be willing to sacrifice their children for Allah, so they would eventually be allowed by Him to join them there.

A jihadi win-win all the way around.


Which is why I suspect we will find out that it is not true.

372 LGoPs  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:04:24pm

The real price this country pays for the Obama administration’s actions against the CIA will be in the area of unintended consequences.
The mere threat of investigations after the fact will have a chilling effect on actions being taken today and in the future. It will be totally natural and expected for agents to hang back, to not do anything even remotely controversial and the end result will be lessened vigilance and heightened vulnerability for all of us.
All Americans, liberal and conservative, need to be concerned about that.

373 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:04:27pm

re: #339 Walter L. Newton

Am I being vague. That’s exactly what I am saying. We should not make these threats if we are not really going to follow through, since it will mean nothing to them.

There for

We shouldn’t be making this threat.

Even if we are going to follow through, it plays in their hands.
Therefore, we shouldn’t be making this threat.
We agree. In effect, even if not 100% in rationale.

374 Ben Hur  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:05:19pm

You should see the pictures I’ve seen of what they do to each other.

375 The Shadow Do  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:05:46pm

I expect to hear all manner of hoary story as Holder ramps up his political bloodlet. I sure John Murtha has some ‘facts’ he’d like to share.

376 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:06:17pm

re: #373 Coracle

Even if we are going to follow through, it plays in their hands.
Therefore, we shouldn’t be making this threat.
We agree. In effect, even if not 100% in rationale.

Do you have to argue every point with a conservative, even if they agree with you? You, gaze for now on. You’re not happy unless someone agrees 100 percent with you, your way, your way of saying it, your way of thinking it.

377 Athos  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:06:38pm

re: #357 Last Mohican

We’re already there.

That is the very scary part.

Not only if there is a successful terror attack on the US, but the resulting political turmoil and finger pointing will tear the country apart…

378 jill e  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:06:39pm

Threaten to use David Letterman and the MSM on their kids. Now THAT would be torture!

379 Achilles Tang  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:06:48pm

re: #361 ~Fianna

Still illegal under the Geneva Convention.

This is really a pointless argument. I see this as inherently immoral behavior that we as citizens should not condone under any circumstances. You don’t see it that way. I don’t think either of us are going to be swayed.

I think this particular threat is crude, unsophisticated and ineffective.

However, would it be OK to threaten to castrate someone? Would it be OK to threaten to drop them out an airplane? Is it Ok to tell a scary story?

Is it OK to threaten anyone with anything distinctly unpleasant, and if so what?

380 EaterOfFood  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:06:51pm

re: #350 buzzsawmonkey

Has anyone suggested that Obama and Holder making noises about going after CIA operatives may simply be a way of shoring up their support among those on the left who are disappointed with Obama talking about scrapping the public option in his healthcare intiative, the fact that he is not precipitously withdrawing troops, hasn’t closed Gitmo, etc.?

Which means he’s not going to do this either? So I can stop calling Obama and Holder vindictive little toads?

381 callahan23  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:06:54pm

re: #350 buzzsawmonkey

Has anyone suggested that Obama and Holder making noises about going after CIA operatives may simply be a way of shoring up their support among those on the left who are disappointed with Obama talking about scrapping the public option in his healthcare intiative, the fact that he is not precipitously withdrawing troops, hasn’t closed Gitmo, etc.?

Plus, getting close again with the European nations as this is fodder for their anti-Americanism just as it is for the American left.

382 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:07:43pm

re: #361 ~Fianna

Still illegal under the Geneva Convention.

This is really a pointless argument. I see this as inherently immoral behavior that we as citizens should not condone under any circumstances. You don’t see it that way. I don’t think either of us are going to be swayed.

Keep moving the goalposts


1st it’s “immoral” because we’re better than that,,, OOOPPPSSS, we’re fighting immoral terrorists
Then it’s “illegal” because of US law,,, OOOPSS, but they aren’t US citizens
Then it’s “illegal” because we’re holding them prisoner ,, OOPPSS, they’re not in US jails

Now it’s “illegal” because of the Geneve Convention ,, OOPPS, Al Quada isn’t a signatory!!

383 opnion  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:07:57pm

You know, reading the thread I say again, It would be one thing to
actually involve the children, but quite another to use the treat as a tool.
I fail to see how the empty threat in an interrogation room to a terrorist in any way traumatizes the children.
To say that it does not work is another issue.

384 kynna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:08:00pm

re: #371 VioletTiger

Which is why I suspect we will find out that it is not true.

Which is possible because, as far as I can tell, it’s still alleged. But we can expect the MSM to give it the Murtha-style “cold blooded killers” treatment.

385 gregb  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:09:04pm

I couldn’t find a copy on the CIA site, so I finally had to jump over to LGF. I downloaded a PDF, but it wasn’t searchable, so I ran it through Acrobat Pro 8’s OCR. Results pending…

Has anyone read it end to end yet?

386 Drider  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:09:19pm

re: #57 Charles

Sorry, but I will never believe it’s a good idea to authorize government agents to threaten anyone’s children. Terrorist or not. It’s simply wrong.

Some of you people who support that are also the ones who criticize Obama for wanting to give the government too much power. Why would you trust that same government to have free agents with the authority to threaten children?

Sorry Charles but when it comes to getting vital information out of enemy combatants, who don’t even have protection under the Geneva Convention, then “threats” of any kind is fair game.I’m quite certain that we have professional interrogators who feel that such a threat is likely to bear out results. There is a world of difference between a threat and actually carrying out a threat.
Threats are simply another tool in the tool box and making hay out of it is simply nonsense.
I’m kind of lost on your comment on giving Obama more power and relating that in any way shape of form in comparison of enemy combatants/terrorists and American citizens, I don’t see a connection in any way and never will.

387 jamgarr  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:09:25pm

Pay no attention to the single payor behind the curtain!

388 Mad Mullah  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:09:29pm

It’s too bad that those CIA agents weren’t black panthers, Obama/Holder would instantly dismiss all charges.

389 kynna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:09:41pm

Threaten to take their daughters and teach them to read. Now that’ll scare them into cooperating.

390 Charpete67  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:09:42pm

re: #383 opnion

You know, reading the thread I say again, It would be one thing to
actually involve the children, but quite another to use the treat as a tool.
I fail to see how the empty threat in an interrogation room to a terrorist in any way traumatizes the children.
To say that it does not work is another issue.

…well…the kids know about the threat now…

391 transient  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:10:20pm

re: #356 Salamantis

[A]nyone weho knows jack shit about the jihadi mindset would KNOW that it would not work. They would consider their children to be dying martyrs’ deaths, and to thus be assured Paradise, and themselves to be willing to sacrifice their children for Allah, so they would eventually be allowed by Him to join them there.

A jihadi win-win all the way around.

I disagree. Hamas leadership, for example, does not offer up their own children as “martyr” suicide bombers…that’s the role of rank and file cannon fodder. I do not recall evidence that AQ thinks any differently.

392 jill e  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:10:37pm

CIA investigations…releases in Scotland…it’s a GREAT time to be a terrorist!

393 jamgarr  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:10:43pm

re: #389 kynna

Threaten to take their daughters and teach them to read. Now that’ll scare them into cooperating.

Ding, ding, ding!! We have a winner!!

394 SasquatchOnSteroids  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:10:54pm

re: #350 buzzsawmonkey

Has anyone suggested that Obama and Holder making noises about going after CIA operatives may simply be a way of shoring up their support among those on the left who are disappointed with Obama talking about scrapping the public option in his healthcare intiative, the fact that he is not precipitously withdrawing troops, hasn’t closed Gitmo, etc.?

I believe that’s called shaking the Bush until the fruit falls of.
They’ll eat it up and beg for more.
ShakeShakeShake.

395 doubter4444  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:10:57pm

re: #287 filetandrelease

So, let me get this straight, the guys that actually study this stuff because when it is needed they have to do it, read the wrong books?

I don’t even know what the that means, but from the 1st google page:
Just a few atricles about the subject

[Link: plato.stanford.edu…]
On the left
[Link: www.salon.com…]
[Link: highclearing.com…]
On the right:
[Link: www.economist.com…]

[Link: georgewashington2.blogspot.com…]

From the MSM:
[Link: www.washingtonpost.com…]

396 right_on_target  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:11:42pm

re: #245 SasquatchOnSteroids
Ask the average college kid who the worst world leader was in the past 100 years. Most will answer Bush.

Hitler?
Stalin?
Pol Pot?

That same kid probably has a Che T-shirt.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You’re right! I had asked my son’s friend if he knew about the “Killing Fields” of Cambodia and Pol Pot. He didn’t know it existed, but his remark was “kewl” ! He thought about a computer game with violent mayhem.
That’s a sick reply, and I told him so.

397 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:11:48pm

re: #376 Walter L. Newton

Do you have to argue every point with a conservative, even if they agree with you? You, gaze for now on. You’re not happy unless someone agrees 100 percent with you, your way, your way of saying it, your way of thinking it.

Not every point with “a conservative”. Just you. You’re special.
I’m perfectly happy not to be in 100% agreement. I was pleasantly surprised we were in any agreement whatsoever. I think it was interesting we got to nearly the same place from different directions.

398 opnion  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:12:12pm

re: #333 avanti

Let’s rap each others fingers with a ruler and move on. :)

Sister Marie Kevin, is that you?

399 Perivayne  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:12:16pm

I’m a long time lurker, but I feel that I need to comment here.

I don’t agree with the stance that it’s beyond the pale to threaten in an interrogation. It seems from most of the comments that many believe that an interrogation is all flat out coercion and imprecations. Psy ops are about getting inside the mind of the person being questioned, and that involves contradictory behavior. It’s using ups and downs to disorient and confuse the person into slipping up and revealing what he doesn’t want to give.

I would wait to see what the context of the threats are, and how they were used if they truly were. This type of leak reeks of shock value for the news cycle, and that makes me mistrust it.

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. —George Orwell”

Our enemies know our ways, our morals, our legal basis and make no mistake, they use that information against us. The irony of this debate is that they consider even questioning the value of violence against an enemy to be a sign of weakness, while we consider the debate of great value and substance.

Faced with such a disconnect between value systems, how can we, in good conscience, attack those few of us who’ve had to bear the burden of being the “bad ones” while in the pursuit of the intelligence to protect the rest of us? They deserve a respectful oversight and investigation, not a drawing and quartering by the media and the beltway to serve their political agenda.

400 Rancher  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:12:53pm

From what I heard this morning threatening the terrorists themselves, much less their children, with death or bodily harm is illegal. Whether this was known by the interrogators, or was even done by trained interrogators is as yet unknown. Whether the tactic works or not and how it was actually put forth is also unknown. I really don’t care, what I care about is the result this will have on the effectiveness or rather ineffectiveness of our intelligence gathering capabilities in a time of asymmetrical war on Islamic jihadists. Taking the moral highroad doesn’t mean much to me when that road leads us off a cliff.

401 Picayune  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:12:55pm

re: #320 avanti

And KSM did not constitute a “clear and present danger”, after he had already become known as the mastermind of 911/3,000 American deaths, effecting many children? War is hell, so, better to win your enemy’s respect, then affection. Re-read our actions during WWII. Why do you suppose the “greatest generation” came home in peace and kept their mouths shut around their families?

402 doubter4444  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:12:58pm

re: #268 Walter L. Newton

I didn’t have it backwards. You don’t threaten to “kill your kids” even if you believe the person you are talking to may kill some kids.

We know for a FACT, that these people do NOT react to this sort of pressure. They are killer, they KILL THIER OWN CHILDREN and have parties afterward.

So, if we are going to threaten the same thing, we better be prepared to do it, otherwise it is a hollow threat and these people will simply laugh in our face.

Perhaps I wrote in a confusing manner.
That’s what I thought you meant.

403 kynna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:13:25pm

re: #392 jill e

CIA investigations…releases in Scotland…it’s a GREAT time to be a terrorist!

It certainly is. Terrorism is good business when ulterior motives abound for the leaders of your target.

Just how does this leak help our current efforts in Afghanistan?

404 opnion  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:14:09pm

re: #390 Charpete67

…well…the kids know about the threat now…

True, courtesy of the Obama Administration. He is giving our enemies so much, on the one hand a propaganda tool & on the other a proof statement that there is no reason to fear us.

405 Salamantis  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:14:47pm

re: #403 kynna

It certainly is. Terrorism is good business when ulterior motives abound for the leaders of your target.

Just how does this leak help our current efforts in Afghanistan?

It sets the stage for Obama to pull out in shame.

406 callahan23  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:14:59pm

re: #399 Perivayne

I’m a long time lurker, but I feel that I need to comment here.

I don’t agree with the stance that it’s beyond the pale to threaten in an interrogation. It seems from most of the comments that many believe that an interrogation is all flat out coercion and imprecations. Psy ops are about getting inside the mind of the person being questioned, and that involves contradictory behavior. It’s using ups and downs to disorient and confuse the person into slipping up and revealing what he doesn’t want to give.

I would wait to see what the context of the threats are, and how they were used if they truly were. This type of leak reeks of shock value for the news cycle, and that makes me mistrust it.

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. —George Orwell”

Our enemies know our ways, our morals, our legal basis and make no mistake, they use that information against us. The irony of this debate is that they consider even questioning the value of violence against an enemy to be a sign of weakness, while we consider the debate of great value and substance.

Faced with such a disconnect between value systems, how can we, in good conscience, attack those few of us who’ve had to bear the burden of being the “bad ones” while in the pursuit of the intelligence to protect the rest of us? They deserve a respectful oversight and investigation, not a drawing and quartering by the media and the beltway to serve their political agenda.

Excellent comment. Thanks !

407 filetandrelease  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:15:23pm

re: #362 Walter L. Newton
No, not at all. Two points, First, just after the attack the terrorist could not be certain what we would or wouldn’t do, and very well might have thought this was not an empty threat.

Second, the pure animalistic nature of our enemy was not common knowledge at that time.

408 medaura18586  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:15:38pm

re: #232 Charles

It’s not necessary. It’s debasing to the interrogators, and the country, to allow this. There are other ways that probably work better to get any information you think you’ll get by threatening someone’s children.

And the CIA, last time I looked, does indeed have the power to carry out threats like this. A threat doesn’t mean much unless it can be carried out.

Debating the merits of this ruse is another thing entirely. And I agree that it’s likely counterproductive, foolish, and unnecessarily gives a bad name to U.S. detention centers and the protocols according to which they are run. A hardened terrorist motivated by religious fundamentalism is also likely to welcome such threat as a means of turning his children into martyrs.

But the threat is simply not credible — another reason it’s a bad idea to employ it. While the CIA of course has the power to carry it out, it lacks the authority. Its hands are tied in red tape, and even slapping detainees get widely publicized; or throwing female garments on them. Let alone carrying out a punitive mission against a detainee’s family. It may fly in conspiratorial movies like the Bourne series, that view the CIA as an independent rogue cell of the U.S. government, which gets away with casual murder on a daily basis. But it doesn’t fly in the real world.

409 Last Mohican  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:15:49pm

I had to laugh at the headline story on Drudge right now:

White House officials have stressed that the president is on a
private vacation and very little is planned.

-Click here to see photos of the Obamas on vacation

But here’s a question: is it a coincidence that this CIA thing is breaking while Obama is on vacation and refusing to discuss anything with anyone? I’m wondering not so much if he’s avoiding the press, but maybe he’s avoiding having to talk to anyone at CIA about this.

410 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:16:28pm

re: #405 Salamantis

It sets the stage for Obama to pull out in shame.

Michelle will be disappointed!!

oh ,, wait ,,, nevernmind!

411 doubter4444  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:16:31pm

re: #370 Walter L. Newton

Then it is a threat that means nothing to these people. So, why do it? I’ve never watched 24. Cheap shot on your part.

I disagree… well, perhaps it is a bit of a cheap shot.
But the ‘“ticking bomb” scenario is so rare that it is naive to claim it as a defense, though that did not stop many from doing so.
24 was referenced on the floor of the senate, as an example of torture needing to be used.

412 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:16:39pm

re: #379 Naso Tang

I think this particular threat is crude, unsophisticated and ineffective.

However, would it be OK to threaten to castrate someone? Would it be OK to threaten to drop them out an airplane? Is it Ok to tell a scary story?

Is it OK to threaten anyone with anything distinctly unpleasant, and if so what?

I don’t see the effect of a threat unless we’re prepared to carry it out, and I don’t like the idea of giving our government permission to even consider using people’s children as weapons or to consider maiming and murdering people.

Threaten them with the things that we can do under law - trial and execution, imprisonment, loss of privileges, etc.

413 unrealizedviewpoint  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:17:05pm

re: #399 Perivayne

We’d like to hear from you somewhat more often, if possible.

414 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:18:07pm

re: #412 ~Fianna

I don’t see the effect of a threat unless we’re prepared to carry it out, and I don’t like the idea of giving our government permission to even consider using people’s children as weapons or to consider maiming and murdering people.

Threaten them with the things that we can do under law - trial and execution, imprisonment, loss of privileges, etc.


No snickers bar for you unless you tell us who/ whats going to be blown up next!

Yup ,, that’ll work!

415 Charpete67  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:18:53pm

Since there is no benefit to the security of our country by releasing this information…how can anyone in their right mind see this as anything but purely political?

After 9/11, the country really rallied around Bush (dems and republicans)…if BHO keeps this direction, the country could really turn against him if there is another attack because they will see him as not doing everything to keep us safe. That would not be good for the country.

416 unrealizedviewpoint  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:18:58pm

re: #410 sattv4u2

Michelle will be disappointed!!

oh ,, wait ,,, nevernmind!

I cannot decide if I should up or downding that comment.

417 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:19:03pm

re: #407 filetandrelease

No, not at all. Two points, First, just after the attack the terrorist could not be certain what we would or wouldn’t do, and very well might have thought this was not an empty threat.

Second, the pure animalistic nature of our enemy was not common knowledge at that time.

It wasn’t. Hmmm, I guess 1400 years of written history, and all the shit that had hit the fan in the middle east over the 45 years before 9/11 wasn’t some sort of clue?

You make this all sound like it came out of now where, non-existent before 9/11.

Please.

418 opnion  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:19:14pm

re: #382 sattv4u2

Keep moving the goalposts


1st it’s “immoral” because we’re better than that,,, OOOPPPSSS, we’re fighting immoral terrorists
Then it’s “illegal” because of US law,,, OOOPSS, but they aren’t US citizens
Then it’s “illegal” because we’re holding them prisoner ,, OOPPSS, they’re not in US jails

Good points. We can be pristine & watch our people get killed when intel might avoid it.
We should not act like mosters & we don’t.
One arguement that has been made several times is that the Juhadis are immune to that kind of threat. OK, if that’s true who got hurt?
Go on to the next tactic.

419 SasquatchOnSteroids  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:19:33pm

re: #414 sattv4u2

No snickers bar for you unless you tell us who/ whats going to be blown up next!

Yup ,, that’ll work!

Jees, No ESPN for you tonite.

OK,OK, I’ll talk.

WTF

420 gregb  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:20:02pm

re: #280 avanti

Made me google it. 61 % of historians picked Bush as the

worst. I don;t know how college kids would feel.

That just means that if decades down the line, the middle east really does reform through individual freedoms, undermining extremism, supporting the rule of law and promoting democratic institutions that respect human and property rights, Bush will never get credit for it.

421 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:20:30pm

re: #382 sattv4u2

Keep moving the goalposts

1st it’s “immoral” because we’re better than that,,, OOOPPPSSS, we’re fighting immoral terrorists
Then it’s “illegal” because of US law,,, OOOPSS, but they aren’t US citizens
Then it’s “illegal” because we’re holding them prisoner ,, OOPPSS, they’re not in US jails

Now it’s “illegal” because of the Geneve Convention ,, OOPPS, Al Quada isn’t a signatory!!

It doesn’t matter whether they’re a signatory or not. We are. And it’s still immoral because we need to be better than that, it is against our law and custom and it should remain so.

The essential question is are we a civilized nation of laws or a barbaric nation of vendetta.

If we’re the former, than this behavior needs to be investigated when it happens. If we’re the latter, we’ve given up every value that we were founded on.

422 Rancher  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:21:08pm

re: #412 ~Fianna

Threaten them with the things that we can do under law - trial and execution, imprisonment, loss of privileges, etc.


That doesn’t even work on normal criminals.

423 unrealizedviewpoint  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:21:14pm

Sports fans: Free Yearly Subscription to ESPN the Magazine

424 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:21:32pm

re: #416 unrealizedviewpoint

I cannot decide if I should up or downding that comment.

WWMD

(What Would Michelle Do)

425 Dr. Shalit  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:21:51pm

Lemmesee Now -

We played “Good Cop, Bad Cop” with some of the detainees - … AND THE PROBLEM IS?… That is all.

-S-

426 Greengolem64  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:22:39pm

re: #16 Charles

Ugh. Threatening to kill someone’s children, if that’s true, is something I can’t support at all.

Now I’m beginning to wonder if there’s more waiting to come out.

The key phrase in your statement Charles is IF. Gonna need more than some Monday afternoon ‘sound bites’.

IF it’s true then what? Finger wringing and teeth gnashing? And if it’s not true? Another successful distraction for the BHO administration.

And I think we did just kill one of Bin Laden’s children didn’t we?

Funny thing about the timing of those ‘newly declassified’ documents…hmmm which one should we dump out for this little distraction?

427 Danny  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:22:57pm

re: #421 ~Fianna


The essential question is are we a civilized nation of laws or a barbaric nation of vendetta.

If terror suspects’ children were actually threatened (doubt it), it is highly unlikely it was done as a vendetta.

428 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:24:16pm

re: #414 sattv4u2

No snickers bar for you unless you tell us who/ whats going to be blown up next!

Yup ,, that’ll work!

Maybe, maybe not. I think sitting in an isolation cell all by yourself for a few days would be powerful inducement, honestly. So would threat of trial and execution. Talk and maybe you can go home is perfectly fair game.

Bringing people’s families in to it is immoral and sets a very frightening precedent.

429 opnion  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:25:04pm

re: #421 ~Fianna

It doesn’t matter whether they’re a signatory or not. We are. And it’s still immoral because we need to be better than that, it is against our law and custom and it should remain so.

The essential question is are we a civilized nation of laws or a barbaric nation of vendetta.

If we’re the former, than this behavior needs to be investigated when it happens. If we’re the latter, we’ve given up every value that we were founded on.

Why do you keep talking about Vendetta? What Vendetta?
This is a matter of getting info to save lives , not get even.

430 jvic  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:25:05pm

The proper way to handle this is confidentially. If the interrogators blatantly crossed the line, quietly squelch their careers—not just in government, but among national-security contractors. Let the word spread in the national-security grapevine. But keep the focus on a war that can still get much worse.

(Instability is rising in Iraq. The Afghan election is controversial, and apparently more troops are needed. Work on the Iranian bomb continues.)

431 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:25:44pm

re: #421 ~Fianna

It doesn’t matter whether they’re a signatory or not. We are. And it’s still immoral because we need to be better than that, it is against our law and custom and it should remain so.

The essential question is are we a civilized nation of laws or a barbaric nation of vendetta.

If we’re the former, than this behavior needs to be investigated when it happens. If we’re the latter, we’ve given up every value that we were founded on.

Let me ask you this. In our entire history of fighting wars “by the rules” (even though I can argue we never in actuality did AND site examples, but thats another debate) please tell me when we have EVER fought one where the enemy uses the tactics that this one does. In that I’m sure there isn’t one, don’t our tactics;/ rules/ even laws need to change in fighting them?

432 lawhawk  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:26:18pm

re: #409 Last Mohican

I had to laugh at the headline story on Drudge right now:

But here’s a question: is it a coincidence that this CIA thing is breaking while Obama is on vacation and refusing to discuss anything with anyone? I’m wondering not so much if he’s avoiding the press, but maybe he’s avoiding having to talk to anyone at CIA about this.

I laugh for a slightly different reason. Obama isn’t on a private vacation. He’s the President of the US and as such is not on vacation even if he’s away from the White House. He’s got to get daily briefings and is kept up to date about all manner of events. It’s just more difficult to do in Martha’s Vineyard than at Camp David or some other locale.

It isn’t private to say the least, even if the media wants to portray it as such. Moreover, it enables a president to act and relax without the kind of scrutiny found at DC, which is why so many Presidents head out of town at the first opportunity.

The timing isn’t a coincidence, since such news would have to get approved by the White House. It’s been percolating for some time, and that it happens to take some of the heat off the Administration for its health care situation is a benefit to them.

433 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:26:35pm

re: #418 opnion

re: #427 Danny

If terror suspects’ children were actually threatened (doubt it), it is highly unlikely it was done as a vendetta.

Threatening people who didn’t do anything wrong to coerce behavior out of someone is exactly a vendetta.

There’s a big difference between justice and revenge.

434 Rexatosis  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:26:37pm

Does anyone recall how the Soviets stopped the seizure of Soviet citizens in Lebanon c. 1983? It was very effective. War is hell but the choice facing the combantants is usually between victory and death.

435 Achilles Tang  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:26:43pm

re: #412 ~Fianna

I don’t see the effect of a threat unless we’re prepared to carry it out, and I don’t like the idea of giving our government permission to even consider using people’s children as weapons or to consider maiming and murdering people.

Threaten them with the things that we can do under law - trial and execution, imprisonment, loss of privileges, etc.

A threat can be effective if it believed, period. In this case I doubt it would be anyway. If a CIA interrogator may not have known it was actually illegal, being verbal only, what would the terrorist have known?

436 Bloodnok  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:26:54pm

re: #428 ~Fianna

Maybe, maybe not. I think sitting in an isolation cell all by yourself for a few days would be powerful inducement, honestly. So would threat of trial and execution. Talk and maybe you can go home is perfectly fair game.

Bringing people’s families in to it is immoral and sets a very frightening precedent.

I have to agree.

437 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:26:57pm

re: #428 ~Fianna

Maybe, maybe not. I think sitting in an isolation cell all by yourself for a few days would be powerful inducement, honestly. So would threat of trial and execution. Talk and maybe you can go home is perfectly fair game.

Bringing people’s families in to it is immoral and sets a very frightening precedent.

HOLD THE WEDDIN ,.,, YOU were thre one that was arguing about the time sensitive nature (ticking bomb)

Wait a FEW DAYS !?!?!?!

438 Mike McDaniel  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:27:47pm

Obama is making a BIG mistake.

It’s one thing to state that the Bush Administration botched the interrogation methods. There is a strong case that their refusal to properly consider this a war and to promptly deal with war criminals led to a muddle over the handling of prisoners. Add to this the refusal of successive administrations of both parties to properly implement reprisals for the mistreatment of American POWs, and you have a recipe for some very hard-nosed attitudes.

But it is quite another to attempt to criminialize differences of policy. Democracy works only as long as the loser of an election knows that he may lose his job, but not his freedom or fortune. Obama is proposing to violate this.

But the CIA has the abiilty to hit back…and I would anticipate that there will be leaks about his administration’s dirty laundry over the next few weeks. This will not be a rerun of the Church Commission - that outfit may have investigated, but never prosecuted. Obama is proposing to cross that bound.

And is about to find out what a cornered intelligence service can really do.

439 Danny  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:28:42pm

re: #433 ~Fianna

Not arguing definition of “vendetta” simply saying that it is highly unlikely that such a threat would have been carried out by the CIA.

440 opnion  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:29:34pm

re: #433 ~Fianna

Threatening people who didn’t do anything wrong to coerce behavior out of someone is exactly a vendetta.

There’s a big difference between justice and revenge.


The terrorist is being threatened with harm to his children. The children are not being threatened, they know nothing.

441 gregb  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:31:33pm

Cigar smoke…
Uncomfortably cool environment…

On another note, I’m getting matches on redacted text.


In addition, individuals interviewed
during the Review identified, other techniques that caused concern
because DoJ had not specifically approved them. These included me
making of threats, blowing cigar smoke, employing certain stress
positions, the use of a stiff brush on a detainee, and stepping ,on a
detainee’s ankle shackles.


185. _ When asked in~031if cold
was used as an interrogation teclmique,’the_responded,
“not per se.” He explained that physical and environnlental .
discomfort was used to e:rcourage the detainees to improve their
environment. bserved that cold is hard to define. He
asked rhetoriCally, “How cold is cold? How cold is life threatening?”
He stated that cold water was still employed however,
.showers were administered in a heated room. He stated there was no
specific guidance on it from Head~~as left to its
own discretion in the use of cold. ~dded there is a cable
froll1._docUlnenting the use of “manipulation of the
environment.”

442 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:32:58pm

re: #429 opnion

Why do you keep talking about Vendetta? What Vendetta?
This is a matter of getting info to save lives , not get even.

I think that when we descend to the level where people are defending threatening children, we have gone to the level of just wanting to get even.

Look at the responses - they do it! they do worse things! they don’t care, they don’t love their children anyway! That’s skirting close to saying that they’re not human and I’m very deeply uncomfortable with arguments that accept the possibility that any group of people is somehow sub-human.

They are our enemy. We shouldn’t give them a hug and ask them not to be mean to us anymore. But we also shouldn’t EVER allow ourselves to think that any person is less than human, we shouldn’t ever justify the threat of violence against innocent people because of the actions of a member of their family. That takes our humanity away and lowers who we are and what we stand for.

If we can’t win this war and still hold true to our values and our virtues, what’s the point of even fighting it?

443 Rexatosis  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:33:23pm

Just an aside. It will be interesting to see how the Washington and New York based MSM will cover this. Almost all of them know someone (or of someone by 1 degree of separation) killed on 9/11. Also the military, CIA, and FBI are not going to be too happy with this.

444 Dr. Shalit  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:34:22pm

re: #425 Dr. Shalit

Reply to Self -

The act that showed that we were more civilized , even just after the 9/11 Attack was allowing Bin Laden relatives and other assorted “Saudi” Muckety Mucks in the US at the time of the attack to fly home immediately.
In hindsight, I believe that was a mistake and that they should have been interned as Enemy Aliens with their US Assets Frozen. This would have been an act commensurate with what a Civilized Nation does during a time of war.
We did NOT even do that.

-S-

445 avanti  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:34:30pm

re: #432 lawhawk

I laugh for a slightly different reason. Obama isn’t on a private vacation. He’s the President of the US and as such is not on vacation even if he’s away from the White House. He’s got to get daily briefings and is kept up to date about all manner of events. It’s just more difficult to do in Martha’s Vineyard than at Camp David or some other locale.

It isn’t private to say the least, even if the media wants to portray it as such. Moreover, it enables a president to act and relax without the kind of scrutiny found at DC, which is why so many Presidents head out of town at the first opportunity.

The timing isn’t a coincidence, since such news would have to get approved by the White House. It’s been percolating for some time, and that it happens to take some of the heat off the Administration for its health care situation is a benefit to them.

Not to mention today was the deadline for the response to the ACLU request.

446 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:36:04pm

re: #437 sattv4u2

HOLD THE WEDDIN ,.,, YOU were thre one that was arguing about the time sensitive nature (ticking bomb)

Wait a FEW DAYS !?!?!?!

No, I don’t believe in the ticking bomb scenario.

447 doubter4444  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:38:12pm

re: #304 k2law

And many of the people killed that day were the parents of children.

When reading the comments of those who somehow believe that telling a terrorists that something awful will happen to their children if they don’t speak, I’m reminded of Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men” when he said “YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH.” Techniques are used to get information and they probably do not comport with rules of etiquette in a Cotillion tea party. Now, I personally question whether these techniques would be fruitful since it’s those same people who strap bombs to children, but do I have a problem with them being told that? Absolutely not.

Funny my take away from “A Few Good Men” was that the Jack Nicholson character, far from being the holy warrior, was actually a craven opportunist who was willing to lie and falsify the record to save his own skin, and send two innocent young men to jail for the rest of their lives.
The person I respected in the film was Lt Col. Markenson.
“You can’t handle the truth” is a lie. Always is, always will be.

448 opnion  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:39:23pm

re: #442 ~Fianna

I think that when we descend to the level where people are defending threatening children, we have gone to the level of just wanting to get even.

Look at the responses - they do it! they do worse things! they don’t care, they don’t love their children anyway! That’s skirting close to saying that they’re not human and I’m very deeply uncomfortable with arguments that accept the possibility that any group of people is somehow sub-human.

They are our enemy. We shouldn’t give them a hug and ask them not to be mean to us anymore. But we also shouldn’t EVER allow ourselves to think that any person is less than human, we shouldn’t ever justify the threat of violence against innocent people because of the actions of a member of their family. That takes our humanity away and lowers who we are and what we stand for.

If we can’t win this war and still hold true to our values and our virtues, what’s the point of even fighting it?


Your wandering a little here. My comment was specific to the usage of the term Vendetta. It is not a Venedtta to seek info. Hunting down & killing their families in retaliation for 9/11 woud be a Vendetta.

449 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:40:44pm

re: #431 sattv4u2

Let me ask you this. In our entire history of fighting wars “by the rules” (even though I can argue we never in actuality did AND site examples, but thats another debate) please tell me when we have EVER fought one where the enemy uses the tactics that this one does. In that I’m sure there isn’t one, don’t our tactics;/ rules/ even laws need to change in fighting them?

We’ve fought a lot of wars against groups that behave similarly - Vietnam is a really good example.

We need to understand that these people do awful things - that’s part of the reason that we’re at war with them. But understanding them should not be becoming them.

450 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:41:03pm

re: #446 ~Fianna

No, I don’t believe in the ticking bomb scenario.

You’re the one that rought it up

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

But isn’t the whole argument about torture that it can save lives if there’s a ticking bomb? Wasted time doesn’t solve that problem

451 Picayune  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:41:06pm

re: #409 Last Mohican

I had to laugh at the headline story on Drudge right now:

But
here’s a question: is it a coincidence that this CIA thing is breaking
while Obama is on vacation and refusing to discuss anything with
anyone? I’m wondering not so much if he’s avoiding the press, but maybe
he’s avoiding having to talk to anyone at CIA about this.

Obama left on vacation on the first day of Ramadan, maybe he’s demanded silence from the media now, as he’s just observing the religious rite?

Just wondering!

452 jvic  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:41:49pm

re: #438 Mike McDaniel

Obama is making a BIG mistake.
…
But the CIA has the abiilty to hit back…and I would anticipate that there will be leaks about his administration’s dirty laundry over the next few weeks. This will not be a rerun of the Church Commission - that outfit may have investigated, but never prosecuted. Obama is proposing to cross that bound.

And is about to find out what a cornered intelligence service can really do.

Birds of a feather stick together. If you’re correct, the damaging leaks could come from abroad: from (some of) the CIA’s foreign counterparts.

453 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:42:23pm

re: #449 ~Fianna

We’ve fought a lot of wars against groups that behave similarly - Vietnam is a really good example.

We need to understand that these people do awful things - that’s part of the reason that we’re at war with them. But understanding them should not be becoming them.

Really. What American Cities buildings did the Viet Cong blow up?

454 doubter4444  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:44:01pm

re: #370 Walter L. Newton

Then it is a threat that means nothing to these people. So, why do it? I’ve never watched 24. Cheap shot on your part.

I just reread my post, and the comment was not to you.
Sorry for the confusion.

455 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:44:15pm

re: #448 opnion

Your wandering a little here. My comment was specific to the usage of the term Vendetta. It is not a Venedtta to seek info. Hunting down & killing their families in retaliation for 9/11 woud be a Vendetta.

Fair point. I’m concerned that there’s controversy over this amongst generally very level-headed and intelligent people.

Are you not even a little worried that we’re equivocating on the particulars of threats to children?

456 Mad Mullah  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:44:20pm

What a funny world we live in where lying to terrorists and mass murderers is illegal. I believe that interrogation is all about breaking down the terrorists emotionally and trying to extract the info that they might have. I don’t see any problems at all with threatening the children of terrorists during an interrogation. It’s only words. American lives are at stake, not the sensibilities of some scumbag terrorist and liberals.

Maybe from now on, when the next terrorist attack occurs under Obama’s watch, he can hire the ACLU to interrogate them. We’ll see how that works out.

457 kynna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:46:30pm

It’ll be interesting to see if they’re still playing this fiddle in two weeks. The anniversary of 9/11 still means something to most Americans. They’re walking a fine edge here. I guess they thought the distraction was worth it, but I think people will soon be reminded of their feelings immediately post-9/11 and they’ll less likely to knee jerk into condemnation (particularly based on allegations), so the Obama administration is going to have to milk this distraction for all it’s worth this week and then get the investigation buried before the big day.

458 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:47:10pm

re: re: #53 sattv4u2

re: #47 sattv4u2

FIANNA

On that note, lets say we had KSM in custody on 9/10/01. Lets say his CIA interrogators “threatened” to harm his chidlren unless he was forthcoming with info. Lets say KSM said, “”OKAY ,, tomorrow morning 19 men will get on planes and aim them at the Twin Towers”

Worth it???

k”>#450 sattv4u2

You’re the one that rought it up

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

But isn’t the whole argument about torture that it can save lives if there’s a ticking bomb? Wasted time doesn’t solve that problem

That’s not agreeing with it. You alluded to it in your 53 and I was responding. My argument is that the “ticking bomb” scenario almost never happens, so the excuse that torture could net us info that would let us prevent deaths that are immanently about to happen is a straw man.

459 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:47:43pm

re: #458 ~Fianna

That’s not agreeing with it. You alluded to it in your 53 and I was responding. My argument is that the “ticking bomb” scenario almost never happens, so the excuse that torture could net us info that would let us prevent deaths that are immanently about to happen is a straw man.

UGH… PIMF. sorry about the wrecked mark-up.

460 jill e  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:48:19pm

Just part of the plan to be rid of the CIA in such matters. Obama is creating his own elite interrogation group.

They’ll be using wet noodles.

461 Charpete67  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:48:38pm

re: #457 kynna

It’ll be interesting to see if they’re still playing this fiddle in two weeks. The anniversary of 9/11 still means something to most Americans. They’re walking a fine edge here. I guess they thought the distraction was worth it, but I think people will soon be reminded of their feelings immediately post-9/11 and they’ll less likely to knee jerk into condemnation (particularly based on allegations), so the Obama administration is going to have to milk this distraction for all it’s worth this week and then get the investigation buried before the big day.

I wonder if they will accuse BHO of politicizing the the 9/11 events the way they accused Bush.

462 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:49:12pm

re: #458 ~Fianna

the “ticking bomb” scenario almost never happens

KEYWORD ,, ALMOST ,, and for when it DOES, I want all the safeguards available

463 filetandrelease  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:49:29pm

re: #417 Walter L. Newton

It wasn’t. Hmmm, I guess 1400 years of written history, and all the shit that had hit the fan in the middle east over the 45 years before 9/11 wasn’t some sort of clue?

You make this all sound like it came out of now where, non-existent before 9/11.

Please.

For most people, that would be just about right.

464 Mad Mullah  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:50:14pm

And the Obama administration and leftist wackjobs are attempting to turn 9/11 into some ridiculous national day of service and activism. A true disgrace and an insult to all Americans who actually care about 9/11.

465 Dad O' Blondes  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:50:27pm

Whatever the CIA interrogators did, or didn’t do, or said, or didn’t say, or thought, or didn’t think…it’s worked.

It’s next to impossible to bat 1.000 in the terror game, but the CIA and the NSA and the US military are doing just that.

And that’s just fine with me.

.

466 Picayune  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:50:29pm

re: #418 opnion

What if the Holder investigation revels that the “threat to children” worked in foiling the Jihad plot against the City of LA? The Bush Admin is on record stating that the integration methods prevented this planned attack.

Should we have allowed LA to get hit, due to the interrogation methodology? Had it been hit, what would be the attitude now, if the CIA had not used all means necessary to acquire the info from the “detainees”? We are splitting hairs, here.

467 HippieforLife  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:51:09pm

It surprises me what anger this announcement has stirred up.

Every single day in our country children are mistreated and die.

To get on a high moral horse and say that we would never do (fill in the blank) is not true. People of all kinds are capable of all sorts of evil. No one person is perfect nor is one country perfect.

468 right_on_target  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:51:21pm

re: #428 ~Fianna

Maybe, maybe not. I think sitting in an isolation cell all by yourself for a few days would be powerful inducement, honestly. So would threat of trial and execution. Talk and maybe you can go home is perfectly fair game.

Bringing people’s families in to it is immoral and sets a very frightening precedent.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What do you think the American POWs in North Viet Nam were exposed to? An isolation cell for a few days will coerce information ? That’s a joke! Many of the POWs were isolated for months!
I guess you would have wanted some of our POWs to have a ” Talk and maybe you can go home”. If I remember correctly, McCain refused to talk. He could have gone home sooner.

469 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:51:36pm

re: #453 sattv4u2

Really. What American Cities buildings did the Viet Cong blow up?

None, of course, but they used similar tactics - child soldiers, mass violations of the rules of warfare, etc.

If you’re talking about blowing up cities, the only reason that that didn’t happen to us in the 20th century was technological limitations. We haven’t seen anything like what happened to London or Dresden. The closest we’ve had to something on that scale would have been Sherman’s march to the coast during the Civil War.

The Japanese did a pretty good job on Pearl Harbor and actually did manage to get some bombs to the Pacific Northwest on balloons, though.

470 opnion  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:52:29pm

re: #458 ~Fianna

That’s not agreeing with it. You alluded to it in your 53 and I was responding. My argument is that the “ticking bomb” scenario almost never happens, so the excuse that torture could net us info that would let us prevent deaths that are immanently about to happen is a straw man.


The CIA claims that waterboarding Khaled Sheik Mohamad produced intel that was used to thwart planned operations.

471 Buster  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:53:12pm

What to do if your Health care initiative is rapidly loosing traction:

A) Read the House bill and determine what it says vis-a-vis what you are telling the American public, to see if there is a valid reason for the disconect.

Nah, too much work. I’m sure Nancey’s doing fine.

B) Undermine doctors by accusing them of performing procedures that are not in the best interest of their patients, purely to maximize reimbursements under the current system.

Check

C) Grossly exaggerate the cost of medical procedures (30/40 even 50K vs $1200 for a simple foot amputation) to further undermine the public’s trust of Doctors.

Check

D) Have Congress deride Insurance companies and accuse them of “obscene” profits, even though some had signed on with you, and their profit margins are well within that of businesses in general. This will further undermine public confidence in their industry.

Check

E) Have Congress demand pay and other records from the Insurance industry, even though no crime has been alleged, purely to intimidate their executives.

Check

F) Go on vacation and demand privacy from the press. While you are out of pocket, go back to the Bush era well and have Holder announce a special Prosecutor to go after the CIA, this will draw the MSM off the Health care story.

Check

472 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:53:23pm

re: #462 sattv4u2

the “ticking bomb” scenario almost never happens

KEYWORD ,, ALMOST ,, and for when it DOES, I want all the safeguards available

Cattle prods in the anus? Hacking people’s limbs off until they talk? What if they played a tape of a child screaming and told the guy it was his kid? Where do you, personally, draw the line?

473 jpkoch  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:55:07pm

Just a few observations concerning Obama’s new policy of directly supervising the interrogation process:

1)The White House is circumventing the normal chain of command of the CIA. I’m assuming that a special office will be set up in either the EOB or the West Wing that will supervise and/or concur with ongoing interrogations. Not much of a vote of confidence for the folks in the CIA Operation’s branch. It is no wonder the DCI is not very happy. Remember, at the WH level politics trumps everything. Essentially, the entire interrogation process will eventually become politicized. I cannot imagine any effective interrogators staying on.

2)The Army Manual is much more constricting than what the CIA is historically used to. In the past, what the CIA interrogators did was secret; not anymore. In the past, a terror suspect or an enemy combatant didn’t really know what to expect from the CIA. Generally the public knew it was harsher, but to what degree? Now enemies of the US know exactly how to train their agents, and they now know that the White House will be acting as a direct check on any alleged “abuses”. With the new policies promulgated by the Courts giving habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants, the knowledge that now the White House has to know how the prisoners are to be treated, it is not a difficult to imagine a defense lawyer gaining an edge against the President? The obvious question arises, at what point is the President directly responsible for what goes on in the process? The new WH policy eliminates any future”disavowal”. The President now is legally and politically on the ropes.

In a practical sense, who in their right mind would serve as an interrogator for the CIA? Their effectiveness is now neutered. Our enemies know how far we will go, and now can use this politicization to their benefit. Who is advising the President? If I were his NSA or DCI I would certainly think about leaving.

474 Charpete67  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:55:08pm

re: #472 ~Fianna

Cattle prods in the anus? Hacking people’s limbs off until they talk? What if they played a tape of a child screaming and told the guy it was his kid? Where do you, personally, draw the line?

where do you draw the line?…for you and your family? So many people take a high minded stance on what is acceptable…but that line usually moves when it is personalized…

475 Mad Mullah  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:55:10pm

re: #469 ~Fianna
The Japanese did a pretty good job on Pearl Harbor and actually did manage to get some bombs to the Pacific Northwest on balloons, though.

And we did a pretty good job on them too, dropping two atomic bombs on their heads.

The Islamic terrorist attack of 9/11 killed more Americans and caused far more damage than Pearl Harbor ever did. And yet, we’re not supposed to lie to the perpetrators behind 9/11. It’s pretty comical.

476 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:55:28pm

re: #468 right_on_target

++++++++++ ++++++++++ ++++++++++ ++++++++++ ++
What do you think the American POWs in North Viet Nam were exposed to? An isolation cell for a few days will coerce information ? That’s a joke! Many of the POWs were isolated for months!
I guess you would have wanted some of our POWs to have a ” Talk and maybe you can go home”. If I remember correctly, McCain refused to talk. He could have gone home sooner.

McCain was a very, very brave man who stood up to torture partially out of his own internal strength and partially because people who fight in wars are trained to resist. We waterboard our own troops so they know what to expect, you know. That’s exactly why, all moral arguments about it aside, torture is a very, very unreliable way to get information.

477 LoquaciousLady  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:55:30pm

I think blowing up the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was an awful, terrible thing for us to do. Thousands of innocents died. But, on the other hand, should we have not done it because it was wrong? It was the right thing to do in the larger sense of the war situation. I’m finding this situation somewhere in that quagmire.

478 opnion  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:57:05pm

re: #455 ~Fianna

Fair point. I’m concerned that there’s controversy over this amongst generally very level-headed and intelligent people.

Are you not even a little worried that we’re equivocating on the particulars of threats to children?

Not really, if we dragged the kids into the room or made threatening videos with the chidren that would be one thing.
Threatening a terrorist with anything does not bother me.If he actually believes it great, get the intel.

479 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:57:06pm

re: #467 HippieforLife

It surprises me what anger this announcement has stirred up.

Every single day in our country children are mistreated and die.

To get on a high moral horse and say that we would never do (fill in the blank) is not true. People of all kinds are capable of all sorts of evil. No one person is perfect nor is one country perfect.

That’s what I’m most afraid of, actually. I’m not at all saying that we couldn’t do it. I’m just saying that we should make damn sure well that we DON’T do it.

480 right_on_target  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:57:09pm

re: #472 ~Fianna

Cattle prods in the anus? Hacking people’s limbs off until they talk? What if they played a tape of a child screaming and told the guy it was his kid? Where do you, personally, draw the line?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Where would YOU draw the line?
Give them the MIRANDA rights?

481 Perivayne  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:57:36pm

re: #469 ~Fianna

None, of course, but they used similar tactics - child soldiers, mass violations of the rules of warfare, etc.

So, we have to fight with one arm tied down and both legs in a sack so we can keep our white hats?

Nice moralistic high ground, but not one I would care to occupy. How could I look my neighbor in the eye after the loss of his loved ones? It’s easy to remain aloof and above the common in a hypothetical debate, Fianna. Most of us, though, seem to be down here in the trenches of regular life.

482 tradewind  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:58:25pm

re: #466 Picayune

This is straight out of a plot line from Season Three, I think it was,( could have been a different one) , of 24.
Jack Bauer set up a phony video feed while interrogating a terrorist and convinced him they were holding his wife and son at gunpoint. The jihadi didn’t seem to care what they did to his wife, but he caved when they appeared ready to shoot the child.
It wa all an elaborate ruse, and after CTU got the confession, they told the suspect what they had done. The reaction to that was pretty priceless.
It comes under the category of psychological duress, IMO. And it’s better than having something happen that can be prevented, since no one is physically harmed in the process.

483 jpkoch  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:59:20pm

My argument is that the “ticking bomb” scenario almost never happens, so the excuse that torture could net us info that would let us prevent deaths that are immanently about to happen is a straw man.

Two terror attacks were avoided using “strong interrogation” techniques. And remember all of the ruckus concerning waterboarding? It was only practiced three times on detainees.

484 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:59:21pm

re: #472 ~Fianna

Cattle prods in the anus? Hacking people’s limbs off until they talk? What if they played a tape of a child screaming and told the guy it was his kid? Where do you, personally, draw the line?

Exterme physical harm.

Discomfort (read waterboarding) OKAY
Lying (read “we’ve got your child/ family under surveilence ,,, we’ve captured Osama,,, we like you) OKAY
ACTUAL PHYSICAL damage ,, NOT OKAY

485 opnion  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:59:50pm

re: #466 Picayune

What if the Holder investigation revels that the “threat to children” worked in foiling the Jihad plot against the City of LA? The Bush Admin is on record stating that the integration methods prevented this planned attack.

Should we have allowed LA to get hit, due to the interrogation methodology? Had it been hit, what would be the attitude now, if the CIA had not used all means necessary to acquire the info from the “detainees”? We are splitting hairs, here.

Actually, I am agreeing with you.

486 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:00:49pm

re: #470 opnion

The CIA claims that waterboarding Khaled Sheik Mohamad produced intel that was used to thwart planned operations.

The problem with that argument is that it’s hard to prove a negative. In this case it’s likely that it helped, but we’ll never be able to say if we could have obtained that information another way.

Considering the time when that came out, the CIA also had a vested interest in finding something to justify torture.

487 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:01:45pm

re: #463 filetandrelease

For most people, that would be just about right.

But not for the damn government and CIA and other intelligence professionals. Really.re: #477 LoquaciousLady

I think blowing up the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was an awful, terrible thing for us to do. Thousands of innocents died. But, on the other hand, should we have not done it because it was wrong? It was the right thing to do in the larger sense of the war situation. I’m finding this situation somewhere in that quagmire.

So, what are you trying to say? That the next time we threaten a terrorists children and he doesn’t give us the info necessary, then let’s snuff those little buggers?

Is that what you are saying? Is that what you want? Should we follow through if we make the threat?

I don’t think so.

488 SixDegrees  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:02:00pm

re: #16 Charles

Ugh. Threatening to kill someone’s children, if that’s true, is something I can’t support at all.

Now I’m beginning to wonder if there’s more waiting to come out.

Repugnant - absolutely.

Illegal? I’m not certain. Ordinary cops, for instance, are allowed to lie to suspects in order to coerce information. I don’t know whether that extends to overt threats. And there may well be Federal regulations that forbid such actions. For the moment, however, I don’t know if this rises to the level of a crime or not.

489 Norm Chumpsky  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:03:12pm

An internal CIA report says interrogators threatened to kill 9/11 suspect’s children.

Wee-wee-wee all the way home…

First of all I doubt it, but if it’s true so what? I don’t care how much they scared them, or threatened them, or if they made them poop their pants thinking about some SEAL team paying a visit to the ‘ol homestead/cave. We’re not talking about a purse snatcher you can scare with talk about doing time, these are people that really would, and did, kill children and if it takes the threat of atrocities to make ‘em talk so be it. As long as we aren’t actually committing them I don’t care what an interrogator said.

490 Greengolem64  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:03:33pm

re: #446 ~Fianna

No, I don’t believe in the ticking bomb scenario.

If only it were that cut and dried. It would amaze you (corporate you…not just you specifically) what goes on EVERY SINGLE DAY in this war on terror that is NEVER heard about…but then again, most wouldn’t have the stomach for it. THAT is the problem with the US today…no intestinal fortitude when it comes to defending OURSELVES…or better yet, we hamstring ourselves by playing FAIR regardless of what the other side does. Since when was mortal combat fair? There is one outcome and one outcome only…some live and some die. Which side would you like to be on?

491 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:03:39pm

re: #484 sattv4u2

Exterme physical harm.

…Lying (read “we’ve got your child/ family under surveilence ,,, we’ve captured Osama,,, we like you) OKAY…

This kind of threat is meaningless. A threat like this is an honor for their children. Do you really think this would cause any terrorist to “spill the beans?”

492 LoquaciousLady  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:04:23pm

re: #487 Walter L. Newton

No, what I’m saying is that during war what would be considered normally wrong has different parameters. (e.g. lying to a detainee.)

493 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:04:28pm

re: #484 sattv4u2

Exterme physical harm.

Discomfort (read waterboarding) OKAY
Lying (read “we’ve got your child/ family under surveilence ,,, we’ve captured Osama,,, we like you) OKAY
ACTUAL PHYSICAL damage ,, NOT OKAY

Is there a scenario under which anyone reading would disagree with that?

The big problem with all this is the relativistic aspect. Is $someAction okay to save 1 life, 10 lives, 100 lives…

494 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:05:02pm

re: #489 Norm Chumpsky

An internal CIA report says interrogators threatened to kill 9/11 suspect’s children.

Wee-wee-wee all the way home…

First of all I doubt it, but if it’s true so what? I don’t care how much they scared them, or threatened them, or if they made them poop their pants thinking about some SEAL team paying a visit to the ‘ol homestead/cave. We’re not talking about a purse snatcher you can scare with talk about doing time, these are people that really would, and did, kill children and if it takes the threat of atrocities to make ‘em talk so be it. As long as we aren’t actually committing them I don’t care what an interrogator said.

This would be an empty threat, these people are animals, as you so aptly point out.

It is wrong.

495 gregb  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:05:16pm

re: #460 jill e

Just part of the plan to be rid of the CIA in such matters. Obama is creating his own elite interrogation group.

They’ll be using wet noodles.

Is it just me or was it more than a little odd when he sent FBI mediators halfway around the world to negotiate the release of that ship captain from the pirates?

Shades of things to come?

496 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:05:40pm

re: #53 sattv4u2

re: #47 sattv4u2


FIANNA

On that note, lets say we had KSM in custody on 9/10/01. Lets say his CIA interrogators “threatened” to harm his chidlren unless he was forthcoming with info. Lets say KSM said, “”OKAY ,, tomorrow morning 19 men will get on planes and aim them at the Twin Towers”

Worth it???

The ticking bomb argument is always fun to kick around. What if we actually hurt his kids on 9/10 and then he told us? Worth it?

But tis is not a case about morality, per se, it’s a case about legality.

497 opnion  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:05:57pm

re: #486 ~Fianna

The problem with that argument is that it’s hard to prove a negative. In this case it’s likely that it helped, but we’ll never be able to say if we could have obtained that information another way.

Considering the time when that came out, the CIA also had a vested interest in finding something to justify torture.


Look if you just discount the source because it is inconvenient to your arguement, this goes nowhwere. This cretin was a planner of 9/11 & the CIA got him to talk.
I do admire your ideals, but this not an academic exercise.
I can’t help noticing that since we appear to now be safe, people are only now getting fussy about how we were kept safe.

498 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:06:08pm

re: #492 LoquaciousLady

No, what I’m saying is that during war what would be considered normally wrong has different parameters. (e.g. lying to a detainee.)

It won’t make any difference, they don’t care about their kids, they would consider this as a chance for their kids to be heroes.

You want to stoop to their level. Evidently.

499 HippieforLife  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:07:17pm

re: #486 ~Fianna

So basically, are you saying that if the CIA claims something happened that you don’t believe that?

But if an unknown persons says that they threatened KSM’s children that you believe that?

Who do you believe?

500 Charpete67  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:08:28pm

re: #498 Walter L. Newton

It won’t make any difference, they don’t care about their kids, they would consider this as a chance for their kids to be heroes.

You want to stoop to their level. Evidently.

Walter…what is your limit for KSM…(no ticking time bomb scenario)…you only know he has valuable information…what is acceptable?

501 LoquaciousLady  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:08:36pm

re: #498 Walter L. Newton

I’m not arguing for it. I’m saying we have historically stooped to a different level as a nation. Some would argue that we keep some “moral high ground” as stated by their personal beliefs, but that has never been the case with this nation. I’m not saying a agree with it. I’m saying it has always happened, to pretend otherwise is looking as the past with rose-colored lenses.

502 LoquaciousLady  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:09:48pm

re: #501 LoquaciousLady

crap, forgive my massive typos in the last post.

503 gatorbait  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:09:53pm

re: #27 MandyManners

If an investigator knows that there is a bomb waiting to go off and he threatens to kill the suspect’s children, I’m okay with that.

I would not accept their actual murder, however.

504 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:10:10pm

re: #500 Charpete67

Walter…what is your limit for KSM…(no ticking time bomb scenario)…you only know he has valuable information…what is acceptable?

What is “KSM.” I just jumped back into this thread.

505 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:10:25pm

re: #63 Lincolntf

If the Government employees that screamed in my face about screwing my sister were ever brought up on charges, the Army would be down a few good Drill Sergeants.

And we waterboard guys in special ops training. And we starve Ranger recruits. Now, if we could just somehow figure out a way to make burning military personnel with cigarettes part of training, we’d be good to go.

//

506 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:11:03pm

re: #491 Walter L. Newton

This kind of threat is meaningless. A threat like this is an honor for their children. Do you really think this would cause any terrorist to “spill the beans?”

There’s actaully no way of knowing that. I’m sure KSM mindset changed
A) after he was caught
B) after he had been in custody for some time
C) after he was waterboarded
D) after any other number of interrogative tactics were used on him (I’m sure Good Cop/ Bad Cop was employed)
E) after LOTS of time

507 Charpete67  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:11:04pm

re: #504 Walter L. Newton

What is “KSM.” I just jumped back into this thread.

sorry…Khalid Sheik Mohammed…I believe he was the one threatened in the report.

508 SixDegrees  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:11:11pm

re: #495 gregb

Is it just me or was it more than a little odd when he sent FBI mediators halfway around the world to negotiate the release of that ship captain from the pirates?

Shades of things to come?

It’s a ploy to maintain deniability. The FBI answers, ultimately, to Congress. The CIA answers directly to the President. If the CIA does something questionable, 0 gets blamed. If the FBI does something questionable, it’s Congress’ problem, not 0s.

I’d put money on the notion that what each group does will be indistinguishable from what the other does.

509 Gang of One  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:11:30pm

re: #504 Walter L. Newton

What is “KSM.” I just jumped back into this thread.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [sp?] IINM.

510 Picayune  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:11:38pm

re: #473 jpkoch

CIA Director Leon Panetta is reported to have just threatened to resign over the Holder investigation, which had a deadline of today to issue his response.

511 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:11:43pm

re: #504 Walter L. Newton

What is “KSM.” I just jumped back into this thread.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed
From all reports he gave info after time in custody

512 Greengolem64  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:11:53pm

re: #505 SanFranciscoZionist

And we waterboard guys in special ops training. And we starve Ranger recruits. Now, if we could just somehow figure out a way to make burning military personnel with cigarettes part of training, we’d be good to go.

//

Hell…we waterboarded GI JANE!!! Demi Moore handled it just fine…
Maybe THATs what we should do…play VIDEOS of GI Jane being water boarded and torment the terrorists with THAT!

//

513 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:12:12pm

re: #76 victor_yugo

The criticisms of the current CiC have to do with power against the electorate. Not the same as power against those from without who intend to murder our citizens en masse.

Although, now that I think of it, I recall Golda Meir’s truism that “there will be peace in the Middle East when Arabs love their children more than they hate Israel.” If their hatred of Israel (and infidels in general) is so great, what good would verbalizing a threat against their children do?

I’ve seen a couple of repetitions of this, this thread. Do you think perhaps the interrogators might know as much as any of us about the culture of the people they questioned? Maybe even more?

514 Charpete67  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:12:34pm

re: #512 Greengolem64

Hell…we waterboarded GI JANE!!! Demi Moore handled it just fine…
Maybe THATs what we should do…play VIDEOS of GI Jane being water boarded and torment the terrorists with THAT!

//

…I think that’s like porn to them…///

515 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:12:56pm

re: #501 LoquaciousLady

I’m not arguing for it. I’m saying we have historically stooped to a different level as a nation. Some would argue that we keep some “moral high ground” as stated by their personal beliefs, but that has never been the case with this nation. I’m not saying a agree with it. I’m saying it has always happened, to pretend otherwise is looking as the past with rose-colored lenses.

And that’s not what I am arguing. And thast’s not what I am pretending. But I am saying that I don’t agree with threatening children. Period.

Someone has to keep a high moral ground, even if it is an doomed concept. I don’t care, I won’t stoop to their level. If our country does it, I can’t stop it, I can only state my opinion.

But what I am hearing here on this thread that it is morally alright to stoop to this level, no matter what.

Not my way.

516 Greengolem64  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:13:25pm

re: #514 Charpete67

…I think that’s like porn to them…///

Exactly!!!

:)

517 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:14:22pm

re: #497 opnion

Look if you just discount the source because it is inconvenient to your arguement, this goes nowhwere. This cretin was a planner of 9/11 & the CIA got him to talk.
I do admire your ideals, but this not an academic exercise.
I can’t help noticing that since we appear to now be safe, people are only now getting fussy about how we were kept safe.

Oh, I was fussy about it back then, too.

I think it’s always wise to weight the source and its motivations when considering evidence. I’m not saying that people never break under torture and spill the secrets. Different people have different levels of pain tolerance, conditioning, belief in their cause, etc. I do think that the chance of getting BAD information increases.

We don’t use torture or any other method of coercion in our legal system because we accept as a society that people will often just tell someone what they want to know to get away from something that’s painful or frightening.

I don’t like the idea of things like this slipping in to the CIA’s playbook. Part of my argument is moral - I definitely feel that this is wrong and unAmerican. But there’s also a realization that power once given can’t easily be taken back, and sooner or later someone’s going to push the envelope with a US citizen.

The Army, the Police, the CIA and FBI and all those other groups are made up of a vast majority of good, decent people who want to do a good job doing a lot of things and dealing with a lot of people that the rest of us want to stay as far away from as possible. But there are people in those organizations who are not good people and who are power-hungry and like to have and wield authority over others. A bully with a badge is bad enough. A bully with a badge and any idea that they can say things about your kid or do things to your kid should scare the hell out of anyone sane.

518 tradewind  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:14:34pm

re: #503 gatorbait

I can’t imagine that we have any moral imperative to be honest with these sumbitches. If it takes threatening them with a lie… go for it. It’s not as if we’re on the honor system. And their threats to kill our children are not lies… they are promises.

519 anotherindyfilmguy  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:14:36pm

re: #16 Charles

Ugh. Threatening to kill someone’s children, if that’s true, is something I can’t support at all.

Now I’m beginning to wonder if there’s more waiting to come out.

There is a world of difference between threats made to intimidate and actions being carried out. I have a feeling this is a fishing expedition designed to turn into a witch hunt and gut the CIA.

520 filetandrelease  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:14:45pm

re: #487 Walter L. Newton

Really, I am just going to disagree with you on that one. IMO, it is entirely possible the interrogator had reason to believe this idle threat would be effective, and on the other hand, the terrorist might have believed the threat not idle.

While at this time, the reverse would most likely be true.

521 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:16:06pm

re: #506 sattv4u2

There’s actaully no way of knowing that. I’m sure KSM mindset changed
A) after he was caught
B) after he had been in custody for some time
C) after he was waterboarded
D) after any other number of interrogative tactics were used on him (I’m sure Good Cop/ Bad Cop was employed)
E) after LOTS of time

Then, as you said yourself “There’s actaully no way of knowing that.” So, you “A” through “E” points are meaningless.

All I know is this. It would be against MY moral compass to threaten anyones children like being suggested on this thread. I don’t know nothing for sure (and neither do you) except what I know is my bottom line.

It’s interesting how everyone know what KSM was thinking, doing and feeling and how he would react.

522 ~Fianna  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:16:36pm

re: #499 HippieforLife

So basically, are you saying that if the CIA claims something happened that you don’t believe that?

But if an unknown persons says that they threatened KSM’s children that you believe that?

Who do you believe?

I believe that the political reality needs to be considered in the case of the CIA’s disclosure, just as the political reality needs to be considered in the timing of today’s release.

This is why investigations are good. If it happened, it needs to be stopped. If it didn’t happen, we’ll know.

523 LoquaciousLady  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:16:37pm

I guesre: #515 Walter L. Newton

And that’s not what I am arguing. And thast’s not what I am pretending. But I am saying that I don’t agree with threatening children. Period.

Someone has to keep a high moral ground, even if it is an doomed concept. I don’t care, I won’t stoop to their level. If our country does it, I can’t stop it, I can only state my opinion.

But what I am hearing here on this thread that it is morally alright to stoop to this level, no matter what.

Not my way.

Agreed. I don’t think that children should be used against their parents. However, I just don’t see the justification for charging interrogators in for this. I think we would need to hold criminal investigations for veterans of previous engagements as well. I think it’s a poor precedent.

524 Picayune  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:17:41pm

re: #485 opnion

I know, I was talking to a wider audience that’s hung up on the details while enemies actively plot to kill us.

525 Dad O' Blondes  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:18:15pm

The ticking time bomb almost never happens…

How do you know?

The “fly fully-fueled jet planes into occupied office towers” scenario almost never happens either. But it did happen. And after it happened, we get the great “pointing fingers” scenario — which always happens.

Here’s the deal — and it’s the real deal: if the US doesn’t do, what it has to do, in order to protect it’s citizens and interests, then there are fanatics who will kill you, or me, or anybody.

The US, through its own self-perceived moral requirements, imposes laudable strictures on its military and security branches to do the right thing. And we do — ALMOST ALWAYS.

I choose US over THEM.

.

526 lostlakehiker  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:19:18pm

re: #242 LGoPs

Terrorists who are perfectly willing to kill themselves while killing innocents don’t pass my humanity test. They wouldn’t understand being treated humanely - they would spit on it as proof of weakness. They would more readily understand fear and terror.
The Roman treatment would be the more appropriate.

Loose-sphincter gibbering panic might be fun to watch in a terrorist, but you learn nothing from it. Terrorists can be lied to more subtly than by telling them you’re going to kill their family.

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Unless there’s a gawdawful rush to get something, be it true or false, out of the man right quick, why not use the slow tools that erode wariness and resolve?

There’s ways to undercut a man and bring him around without putting a gun to his head or hooking electrodes to sensitive parts, and without making threats that anybody high enough up to be a useful target of interrogation would know we wouldn’t follow through on.

527 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:20:20pm

re: #521 Walter L. Newton

Then, as you said yourself “There’s actaully no way of knowing that.” So, you “A” through “E” points are meaningless.

All I know is this. It would be against MY moral compass to threaten anyones children like being suggested on this thread. I don’t know nothing for sure (and neither do you) except what I know is my bottom line.

It’s interesting how everyone know what KSM was thinking, doing and feeling and how he would react.

Not at all. KSM gave info BECAUSE of points A thru E. Do you think he would have given info if he was in a Club Fed with no interogative sessions? Do you think he would mhave just freely talked about plans he knew of UNLESS he was “coerced”?

528 opnion  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:21:54pm

re: #517 ~Fianna

Oh, I was fussy about it back then, too.

I think it’s always wise to weight the source and its motivations when considering evidence. I’m not saying that people never break under torture and spill the secrets. Different people have different levels of pain tolerance, conditioning, belief in their cause, etc. I do think that the chance of getting BAD information increases.

We don’t use torture or any other method of coercion in our legal system because we accept as a society that people will often just tell someone what they want to know to get away from something that’s painful or frightening.

I don’t like the idea of things like this slipping in to the CIA’s playbook. Part of my argument is moral - I definitely feel that this is wrong and unAmerican. But there’s also a realization that power once given can’t easily be taken back, and sooner or later someone’s going to push the envelope with a US citizen.

The Army, the Police, the CIA and FBI and all those other groups are made up of a vast majority of good, decent people who want to do a good job doing a lot of things and dealing with a lot of people that the rest of us want to stay as far away from as possible. But there are people in those organizations who are not good people and who are power-hungry and like to have and wield authority over others. A bully with a badge is bad enough. A bully with a badge and any idea that they can say things about your kid or do things to your kid should scare the hell out of anyone sane.


Your points are good, but this is not a law enfocement issue with constitutional rights.
Thes guys are the worst of the worst & a conversation with them about civil liberties would not be very satisfying.
They need to be killed or captured & I really won’t be overly sensitive about how we get intel.
No cattle prods or maiming etc, but empty threats? Absolutely .

529 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:22:13pm

re: #521 Walter L. Newton

It’s interesting how everyone know what KSM was thinking, doing and feeling and how he would react.

[Link: www.time.com…]

530 opnion  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:24:42pm

re: #522 ~Fianna

I believe that the political reality needs to be considered in the case of the CIA’s disclosure, just as the political reality needs to be considered in the timing of today’s release.

This is why investigations are good. If it happened, it needs to be stopped. If it didn’t happen, we’ll know.

Todays release of the info helps nobody but our enemies. A news report this morning claims that Paneta is furious & went ballistic.
Obama still wants to run against the Bush Administration & wants a diversion from his own failures.

531 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:24:57pm

If the CIA isn’t found to be slaughtering innocents wholesale, this will have a political backlash like the country has never seen before.

This is an onslaught on our intelligence gathering agencies, the people that protect our national security, the people that have actually stopped further terrorist attacks here at home… There is an expectation that the CIA interrogators are going to have to go into morally blurry areas to protect us from foreign attacks, so much so, that it’s entered popular culture (ie. 24 - Jack Bauer).

To get the public to see this as justifiable, they better have something big, VERY BIG, not scary threats big… I’m talking “rape room and mass graves” big or “rusty hand drill into the forehead” big or “cut off their genitals and make them eat them” big! Otherwise BOOM! the President, Congress, the Prosecutors, everyone involved in this will be universally hated and voted out.

532 kansas  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:24:58pm

I suppose this is going to happen again. I fear we are in for a painful lesson in history. This is truly evil. Don’t click on it if you can’t handle the truth.

[Link: www.hasbara.us…]

533 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:26:22pm

re: #526 lostlakehiker

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

KSM gave up actionable info because he was waterboarded/ isolated/ coerced
NOT because he was put up in a Hyatt with 200 cable channles and 24/7 room service

534 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:37:52pm

re: #477 LoquaciousLady

I think blowing up the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was an awful, terrible thing for us to do. Thousands of innocents died. But, on the other hand, should we have not done it because it was wrong? It was the right thing to do in the larger sense of the war situation. I’m finding this situation somewhere in that quagmire.

An invasion would have killed more on both sides.
We would have continued firebombing Japanese cities, which caused far more casualties than the nuclear bombs.
In wartime, you cannot use the absolute “killing is wrong” argument unless you want to surrender or get killed or worse.

535 latingent  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:38:14pm

This is why I like it here. At first glance I would naturally be highly offended at threats pointed at children, being a grandfather and all, but after reading the posts and gleaning what I could I now tend to disagree. Intent being the operative word, I now tend to agree that the threat of harm is much different than the actual harm that could be stopped in the face of murderous terrorism. These people would kill our children with absolute glee. So, if scaring the living shit out of a known asshole by lying to him saves one American child I say go for it. But using this event to obfuscate for a health care debate gone bad is chickenshit.

537 sattv4u2  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:41:22pm

re: #535 latingent

These people would kill our children with absolute glee

Not only would they kill our chidren with absolute glee, our chidren would be their PRIMARY targets if given a chance

538 tradewind  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:44:16pm

re: #443 Rexatosis

Almost all of them know someone (or of someone by 1 degree of separation) killed on 9/11.

…and judging by their subsequent behavior, almost all of them were on a slow- release sodium pentathol drip throughout the entire experience.

539 latingent  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:46:43pm

re: #537 sattv4u2

I now understand this, but I still dont think we`d have this thread if the health care debate had gone well for Obama. This wont turn out like they want it to though, people now know what they`re doing.(pandering to his base when the going gets tough).

540 Achilles Tang  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:47:37pm

For all the press that this is getting, here anyway, does anyone know if this was an isolated comment by one pissed off interrogator, or is there much more to it?

541 Athos  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:47:39pm

Congressman Peter Hoekstra, senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee issues a statement on this issue:

“Attorney General Holder should know that as he increases the focus on America’s past counterterrorism efforts, he is distracting from the CIA’s current counterterrorism efforts. Having recently been forced to drop cases due to prosecutorial misconduct at DOJ, the attorney general argued that these were rare instances and not part of a broader problem. The same can be said of the CIA, where the agency initiated the investigation, reported cases of misconduct and disciplined the officers involved.

“It is important to note that incidences of inappropriate, unauthorized conduct cited in the 2004 IG report were dealt with. The unauthorized conduct has been exhaustively reviewed in the past, including by the committee. That the Obama administration apparently is planning to reopen these cases after thorough review by nonpartisan prosecutors raises serious questions.

“President Obama has said repeatedly that he wants to move forward, but his Justice Department seems intractably stuck in reverse. The message from the administration is completely confused, and the men and women at the CIA who we ask to protect our nation have been left in the lurch.

“The attorney general needs to stop his zealous attempt to make this out to be a systemic problem, when unlike cases such as the 2001 Peru shoot down, the CIA IG did not find evidence that there was a systemic problem. Disgruntled lawyers at DOJ, having lost the debate that America’s counterterrorism efforts should be focused on prevention not prosecution, need to put an end to this bureaucratic turf battle.

“The American people have made it clear, they want the CIA to focus on exactly what its mission should be—disrupting and defeating our nation’s enemies and preventing the next attack.”

I am trying not to see this as an effort towards distraction around challenges the Administration is having with its base and in pushing through elements of their domestic policy - but as a continuation of the core counterterrorism battle - is it a police / criminal matter or are counterterrorism efforts warfare to be conducted as a war, with a different set of rules. (In WW2, in both ETO and PTO, our war effort clearly operated with a different set of rules - with both sides frequently granting or getting little quarter in the effort to win.)

It is just difficult to not see the political ramifications around these actions and the impact of taking our eyes off of the ball…

542 Captain Stormfield  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:47:48pm

Does anyone feel manipulated? Look at the level of rhetoric this trial balloon has has elicited from all here - and really it’s a non-story. What a touch point. Not that any innocent children were actually threatened but that an interrogator was heard making this cause and effect threat to a really evil example of humanity. All of the theorizing about right or wrong is not germane to the release of this “maybe happened horrible deed”; what is important is that it is serving its purpose. Folks, I’ve been reading this blog for a number of years and I have always been impressed with the intelligent and often humorous level of give and take within the community and also the fervor that Charles addresses his areas of concern, but this should be taken for what it is and the Obama administration has floated this to energize his base and distract from his failings. You should be much more concerned with his willingness to destroy.

543 mjwsatx  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:49:11pm

I say threaten to grab their kids, tie ‘em up, sit ‘em in front of a TV and force them to watch MTV for 18 hours a day while feeding them sausage pizzas. That’ll really scare the crap of ‘em.

Threats are not the same as actual harm. We can’t physically torture and now we can’t mentally torture either?? Can we still ask pretty please??

I hope that the next President - the next conservative President - does to Holder what he is now doing to the CIA.

544 Achilles Tang  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:51:08pm

re: #542 Captain Stormfield

First ding. What took you so long? You don’t sound shy.

545 Captain Stormfield  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:53:36pm

re: #544 Naso Tang
I’ve been busy racing comets and lost my way back to the Wart.

546 infidel4ever  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 3:01:11pm

Obama doing what he does best: undermining America’s ability to defend itself.

And nobody talks about healthcare anymore. Look at the shiny thingee in my hand…

547 Baelzar  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 3:02:41pm

Why…why are we freaking out over verbal threats?

Are those torture now, too?

Policemen can lie to you, legally. They can make things up out of whole cloth, tell you your own family is giving you up and working against you, tell you they’re searching your house, whatever…but we can’t threaten terror suspects?

Don’t give me this “chirrens!” crap. This is not torture. Come on.

548 offsetview  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 4:07:59pm

Guys we need to keep our eye on the manipulation The messiah is doing here. Let’s do a news dump on the July numbers on Friday after he jets off with the family for vacation. Then on Monday drops this bomb,and he does not have to step to a podium and answers any of these questions till a later date! It is as dubious and intentional as it gets. Just remember health care is the lynch pin. He gets this in it’s present form you can kiss our freedom of choice goodbye.

549 Wendya  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 4:15:34pm

re: #539 latingent

I now understand this, but I still dont think we`d have this thread if the health care debate had gone well for Obama. This wont turn out like they want it to though, people now know what they`re doing.(pandering to his base when the going gets tough).

From what I have read, it was used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

People might want to read up a little on his history before they start freaking out. This is the guy who was the principle architect of the Sept 11 attacks. The same man who admitted decapitating Daniel Pearl. The first thing he did after he was captured was demand a lawyer. Had he been brought back to the USA and mainstreamed into our legal system, our intelligence services would never have gotten a shred of intelligence from him.

550 LeslieG  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 4:18:24pm
UPDATE at 8/24/09 11:40:29 am:

This text message just came in over my iPhone:

“Breaking (2:32pm EDT): An internal CIA report says interrogators threatened to kill 9/11 suspect’s children.”

That’s terrible!! And I used to think the “tummy slap” was horrendous.

551 shortshrift  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 4:24:07pm

re: #515 Walter L. Newton

And that’s not what I am arguing. And thast’s not what I am pretending. But I am saying that I don’t agree with threatening children. Period.

Someone has to keep a high moral ground, even if it is an doomed concept. I don’t care, I won’t stoop to their level. If our country does it, I can’t stop it, I can only state my opinion.

But what I am hearing here on this thread that it is morally alright to stoop to this level, no matter what.

Not my way.

The children themselves were not threatened. The moral high ground is safe.

552 Kenneth  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 4:29:41pm

Breaking (2:32pm EDT): An internal CIA report says interrogators threatened to kill 9/11 suspect’s children.

This just in: 9/11 terrorists murdered US children.

553 tradewind  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 4:35:05pm

re: #515 Walter L. Newton

It’s hardly stooping. It’s a barely perceptible curtsey.
Not using every tactic available short of actual torture would be stupid.

554 hopperandadropper  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 5:18:01pm

re: #442 ~Fianna

Wow. You’re equating saying something with actually doing it. In the course of a sequenced, ramp-up-the-pressure interrogation where the objective is to disorient the subject and induce fear and uncertainty, when you know you’re talking to someone who planned a heinous act of mass murder, if you gain a little extra edge by misleading the subject into thinking you might do something heinous to him or his, then go ahead.

555 Ojoe  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 5:20:27pm

The country will remember this BS if we are hit again, yes it will.

The administration is taking a big chance politically.

Oohhh, I cannot stand what they are doing to my country.

556 vestalmiss  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 5:27:42pm

Barry is laughing his ass off at Martha’s vineyard. Yelling dance puppets dance at the top of his lungs.

Keep your eye on the ball folks. Turning this government into a socialist system is the goal of Barry, Nancy and the gang at kos,move on etc…

557 Promethea  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 5:32:14pm

Maybe it would be a good time to review Belmont Club’s “Three Conjectures.”

Protecting our country is not a game. People talk as if it’s some kind of theoretical exercise.

Obama and his cronies are playing a dangerous game with our national security. If our enemies think we are weak, a lot of people will die, including children.

558 rwdflynavy  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 5:45:05pm

The thing about the torture or enhanced interrogation techniques that I have always found interesting is that if they don’t work, why do we spend so much time training our troops to resist torture?

559 Kenneth  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:21:20pm

re: #75 Charles

Bullshit. There’s a whole lot you can do to interrogate even a hardened Al Qaeda terrorist without descending to the level of threatening the lives of children.

I believe it is important we make a distinction here.

The children were not directly threatened, that is, the children themselves were not told a threat. What is alleged to have happened is that a threat was told to the terrorist that his children would be harmed. At no time were the children harmed or threatened. No threats were made to the children.

It would be criminal to actually threaten their children, but I do not see any crime or moral problem in making a threat to these terrorists that their children would be harmed.

560 napjim  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:21:21pm

re: #508 SixDegrees

re: #495 gregb


It’s a ploy to maintain deniability. The FBI answers, ultimately, to Congress. The CIA answers directly to the President. If the CIA does something questionable, 0 gets blamed. If the FBI does something questionable, it’s Congress’ problem, not 0s.

I’d put money on the notion that what each group does will be indistinguishable from what the other does.

Might want to retake 9th grade civics. The FBI is part of the Justice Department that reports to the Attorney General who reports to the President. Congress has oversight responsibility over both the CIA and FBI, but no direct authority over either.

That’s not the reason. It’s back to January 19, 2000 and Terrorism is a Criminal Matter. Good luck to us all.

561 Kenneth  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:23:30pm

re: #17 ~Fianna

Are you really arguing that it’s EVER okay to threaten someone’s children?

Really?

The children were not threatened. The threat was told to the terrorist. At no time were the children under any threat nor were the children told of any threat to them.

562 Kenneth  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:25:41pm

re: #157 Charles

If it’s being a ‘wee-wee man’ to be against government agents threatening the lives of children, well, that’s me then. Mr. Wee Wee.

Government agents did not threaten the lives of children. The agents lied to the terrorists by telling the terrorists that their children were under threat. No threats were made to the children.

563 Kenneth  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:28:27pm

re: #22 ~Fianna

That makes no sense. That’s just barbarism.

What’s the difference between that and what the Taliban does?

The Taliban actually murders children, including the children of innocent civilians. The CIA is accused of telling a few terrorists that their children are under threat. The CIA never threatened the children, nor did they murder the children.

Now can you see the difference?

564 FrogMarch  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:31:08pm
“Having read the CIA report in its entirety, I am struck once again by how humane our treatment of captured terrorists was intended to be, and generally was. The handful of incidents highlighted by press accounts of the report came to light precisely because they were reported as deviations from the treatment of detainees that had been authorized by DOJ lawyers. As a threshold matter, it is important to note that the allegations that have been reported in the press are just that–allegations, sometimes based on hearsay. The CIA’s Inspector General singled out two incidents for special investigation, both of which involved the same debriefer–not a trained interrogator… . One aspect of the IG’s report that has been absent from most press accounts is its account of the effectiveness of these early interrogations by the CIA… . The report also notes that six years ago, the incidents it describes were referred to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution, and DOJ determined that there was nothing there that merited prosecution. For Barack Obama and Eric Holder to reverse that decision six years later, in hopes of political gain, is deeply contemptible.”

from powerline

565 Kenneth  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:31:37pm

re: #57 Charles

Sorry, but I will never believe it’s a good idea to authorize government agents to threaten anyone’s children. Terrorist or not. It’s simply wrong.

Some of you people who support that are also the ones who criticize Obama for wanting to give the government too much power. Why would you trust that same government to have free agents with the authority to threaten children?

The children were not threatened. The CIA agents TOLD the terrorists that the children were threatened. No threats were told to the children. When you understand what actually happened, you see that the children did not suffer under any threat.

566 Kenneth  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:32:48pm

re: #68 Charles

This is the first time I’ve ever heard that terror suspects’ children’s lives were threatened, by the way.

They weren’t.

567 FrogMarch  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:32:57pm

re: #557 Promethea

Maybe it would be a good time to review Belmont Club’s “Three Conjectures.”

Protecting our country is not a game. People talk as if it’s some kind of theoretical exercise.

Obama and his cronies are playing a dangerous game with our national security. If our enemies think we are weak, a lot of people will die, including children.

Indeed.
This is about the perpetual Obama campaign and his dwindling approval.
Screw. this. nation.

568 Kenneth  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:37:33pm

re: #170 Ringo the Gringo

You don’t think that the kids would traumatized?

C’mon.

You misunderstand what is alleged to have happened. The children were told nothing. The CIA did not have the children. The threats were were told to the terrorists. The CIA lied to the terrorists to make them believe their children were threatened. The children themselves were never threatened.

569 Dad O' Blondes  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:38:42pm

The White House, postdated September 12, 2001

“TO ALL CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY EMPLOYEES, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY EMPLOYEES, APPROPRIATE MILITARY AUTHORITIES:

This is a direct order from the United States Commander-In-Chief.

In the event an enemy/terrorist combatant is delivered into your appropriate custody, you are hereby authorized and ordered to use any and all means necessary to extract information and intelligence which, in your opinion alone, can be used by the United States to forestall, delay and/or prevent further terrorist attacks on the American people, and/or the nation and her interests.

Further, you are ordered to implement appropriate practices which can be utilized to accomplish the goal stated above immediately, if not sooner.

Thank you for your service to our great country. Good luck — and good hunting.

GWB.

Let’s see Holder prosecute that.

.

570 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:47:42pm

CIA threatens terrorist about doing ill will to his child.

Terrorist, “I’ve already strapped the bomb to him and have someone ready to detonate in case he / she backs out, what more could you do that I already haven’t?”

/…?

571 Sloppy  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:53:07pm

Someone above referenced Sherman’s march to the sea as an example, similar to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of American brutality in war. Sherman and his guys tore up a lot of property in Georgia, but I believe that if you look it up you’ll find that there were astonishingly few casualties. Uncle Billie often gets a bad rap.

572 jpkoch  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:56:17pm

re: #16 Charles

Ugh. Threatening to kill someone’s children, if that’s true, is something I can’t support at all.

Now I’m beginning to wonder if there’s more waiting to come out.

Charles,
There’s a world of difference between threatening one’s family during interrogation and actually doing it. Your line of thanking would make SEARs training of our special forces and aircrews illegal. I’m not sure that your aware of the amount of “abuse” our special forces operators and aircew members are subjected to. Beatings are par for the course, but threatening wives, sons, and daughters is another thing entirely. Obama is making it almost illegal to interrogate terrorists on the same level that our own people are trained to withstand.

As of today, the President announced that we will not interrogate anyone beyond what is described in the Army Manual for Interrogations (which is a joke). We are unsafer as a consequence.

573 Dad O' Blondes  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 7:09:10pm

This on my i-phone:

Panetta to resign CIA post after profanity laced tirade with Obama administration operatives.

DJIA begins to crash anew on the anniversary of Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy filing: 9/14/09.

.

574 GGMac  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 7:12:21pm

re: #48 karmic_inquisitor

We were and have been at war with an enemy that has and does see no act as unjustified in bringing about our destruction with the surviving parties either made to convert or live as inferiors (and often, as in Saudia Arabian treatment of non Arab Muslim domestic workers - both).

Those were and are the stakes.

At this point the possibility of Al Qaeda bringing about our destruction seems remote. Now that we have experience fighting and counteracting them and now that we have passed the phase where “all Muslims might rise up,” the threat of AQ has diminished significantly. That is due in large part to our success in fighting them.

So this exercise in justice that we are about to embark on is really about self reflection. It is about what self image we want to maintain. Essentially, we are going to examine punishing those who were given the task (and obviously a great deal of leeway) of defending us for having taken things too far. For having imposed a type suffering (regardless of whether it was effective or not) on “the other”.

This is not about making amends to “them” - it is about making ourselves feel better and hoping that the world joins us in that emotion. And we do it with sharpened hindsight from the comfort of knowing that the threat is no longer imminent.

Meanwhile “the other” still plots and would gladly kill the children of anyone who would do their cause harm.

Aren’t we wonderful?

Seems like the Great Apology Tour is being taken to a new and very imprudent level.

575 CTUCandyVendor  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 7:50:30pm

re: #356 Salamantis

The reason to not threaten these guys’ children is because it is dumb, and it is dumb because it would not work, and anyone weho knows jack shit about the jihadi mindset would KNOW that it would not work. They would consider their children to be dying martyrs’ deaths, and to thus be assured Paradise, and themselves to be willing to sacrifice their children for Allah, so they would eventually be allowed by Him to join them there.

A jihadi win-win all the way around.

Why do people constantly act as if a terrorist is not capable of loving his own children, and at the same time ready to kill other peoples children? Has history not shown humans to have this capacity time and again? This “don’t use this or that because it is ineffective anyways” argument is false. I am sure they (terrorists) come with varied capacities to love their children. The guy who wears the strap on, is also very different from the leaders and “masterminds” that make the plans and give the orders. I would also argue that the higher ranking they are, the more value this threat has. The same argument against waterboarding being ineffective, as they will say anything to make it stop, also ignores the fact that it is seldom done, and often held in reserve for individuals who are well known jihadis with a very high probability of having intel. People against harsh techniques, always build their arguments around the notion that simply “suspicious looking” people are randomly grabbed, and threatened or waterboarded, for information, and therefore it will be unreliable, and the techniques should be discarded 100% from the play book.

If we captured Osama Bin Laden, today, and needed to find out everything he knew, would you argue that threatening his family should not be used to gain that information? Would you argue that waterboarding would not be effective in gaining that information? The arguments I am hearing suggest neither techniques would be condoned or justified in this scenario. I say that’s BS, and I say you all know it is, even if you refuse out of pride, or whatever, to acknowledge that the right tools are necessary for the right job, and when applied properly will generate the results that saves lives. It is not black and white people. These techniques are only used in circumstances when the target is known to have intel. Not used on the pizza guy who delivered pies to the apartment of a known terror cell. This place sounds like code pink lately. What the hell is happening around here?

576 CTUCandyVendor  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 8:08:13pm

re: #396 right_on_target

Ask the average college kid who the worst world leader was in the past 100 years. Most will answer Bush.

Hitler?
Stalin?
Pol Pot?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You’re right! I had asked my son’s friend if he knew about the “Killing Fields” of Cambodia and Pol Pot. He didn’t know it existed, but his remark was “kewl” ! He thought about a computer game with violent mayhem.
That’s a sick reply, and I told him so.

It’s not real to them (death), and hating Bush is simply fashionable. Most kids base their opinions on nothing more then what seems popular, or makes them “feel” sophisticated, or look rebellious.

577 CTUCandyVendor  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 8:37:22pm

re: #412 ~Fianna

I don’t see the effect of a threat unless we’re prepared to carry it out, and I don’t like the idea of giving our government permission to even consider using people’s children as weapons or to consider maiming and murdering people.

Threaten them with the things that we can do under law - trial and execution, imprisonment, loss of privileges, etc.

You are clearly 100% driven by the image of a threatened child, not driven by a need to protect a terrorist from feeling actual fear. It’s not that you do not see how a threat can be effective, as obviously you yourself feel threatened by the threats made against a terrorist. You are terrified the government will start grabbing children, and blowing their heads off. Well, something must be said to remove this fear from your mind! Let’s then build an argument that all threats at

578 Nexx9  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 8:37:58pm

What I read on my ppc6700 on powerline blog entitled “THE CIA REPORT: WHAT DOES IT SAY?” shows that a lot of the news reports by AP and the like were mere cherry-picking with much of the context left out. Fact mixed with non-fact. Eye-opening read. an excerpt:

“As a threshold matter, it is important to note that the allegations that have been reported in the press are just that—allegations, sometimes based on hearsay. The CIA’s Inspector General singled out two incidents for special investigation, both of which involved the same debriefer—not a trained interrogator.”

Plus ca change …

Nex

579 Ojoe  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 8:42:13pm

re: #575 CTUCandyVendor

I say that’s BS, and I say you all know it is, even if you refuse out of pride, or whatever, to acknowledge that the right tools are necessary for the right job, and when applied properly will generate the results that saves lives. It is not black and white people. These techniques are only used in circumstances when the target is known to have intel.

Agree 100%.

And Holder must know this too, or he is a massive fool. I think he is cynically playing politics by appealing to the sanctimonious and the smug.

And at any rate, in the real world, if these techniques are needed they will be used, no matter what disgusting politics has been played around them in the past.

The real damage being done now is that Holder is making us look weak in the eyes of our enemies, and weakness invites attack.

580 CTUCandyVendor  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 8:54:09pm

Hmm. My post above was snipped short. Weird. I was contesting the argument that a threat has no power, and trying to point out that the argument being made is false.

Fianna Logic is as follows:

A threat will not be taken seriously, unless we show we are willing to execute on that threat.

If we make the threat, we may have this ridiculous child like face saving pressure, and actually make good on the threat.

Therefore, we should never bluff, lie, or in any way lead a terrorist to feel threatened in any way outside of the bounds of the law, because he will always see right through it, and if he calls us on it, we will be forced to show him how serious we are, and the government will start shooting kids to simply prove how tough we are.
Example:
Terrorist: “Go ahead, do it!”
Interogator: “Well, ugh, I… Okay!! I will! “

Since the outcome in Fianna World is ALWAYS a) terrorist will always see through our threat, and b) the government will respond by making good on the threat just to show them we “mean business” and save face, then c) by allowing threats to be issued like this, we will be sanctioning the murder of children, and therefore d) we should never make threats of any kind, in order to stop ourselves from killing children.

Did I miss anything?

581 Ojoe  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 9:08:20pm

re: #573 Dad O’ Blondes

Panettta is no fool. He’s Jesuit educated and graduated summa cum laude from Santa Clara University in political science.

582 Ojoe  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 9:10:40pm

re: #580 CTUCandyVendor

What is “Fianna”?

583 Ojoe  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 9:13:32pm

re: #580 CTUCandyVendor

Oh, I looked up thread an found Fianna.

584 Seax  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 9:41:42pm

Re # 63

So what about be dragged naked behind an APC through the Jungle as part of a “simulated intregation by enemy forces”?
SAS selection of a friend who actually passed and became part of the
Squadron.

585 Syrah  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 10:42:31pm

re: #166 karmic_inquisitor

I have no problem with an investigation if it isn’t used as a political circus. But here it is, an investigation less than an hour old, and it is a political circus. Hat is off to Rahm Emmanuel - we will now endure a perpetual national shaming. I wonder what our penance will have to be?

Sack-cloth and ash.

586 leftover54  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:55:49pm

re: #30 sattv4u2

If anyone’s keeping score - put me down as agreeing with you.
Maybe I put too much trust and faith in our people out there fighting the good fight but, I would find it very hard to believe these threats were anything more than just trying to scare the living sh*t out of these dirtbags. Does anyone really believe they had any intention of actually following through ? C’mon. Lets not starting second guessing these people. For crying out load there’s a Chris Farley movie ‘Tommy Boy in which a female
character yells out to a group of you boys (who are making fun of Farleys characters weight) that went something lie:
“I know where you live and when I get done with you your own mothers won’t recognize you”. The next line she tells Farley that she just said this for effect. And this is a damn comedy ! I don’t recall the American public marching en masse to have this movie pulled from theaters - in fact it’s in regular rotation on cable to this day. Any sane person ‘gets’ the writers didn’t come up with this scene in seriousness. She wouldn’t actually harm a hair on any of these kids heads (the writers did insure she explained this). She scared the kids and they ran away - mission accomplished (yeah, don’t remind me that ‘its just a movie idiot’ - I know, not my point).
OK, forget movies and what the American public can handle in pop culture -
How about flame throwers against enemy combatants ?
How about dropping 2 atomic bombs over densely populated cities ? How about the fire bombing of Dresden ? Do they sit any better with you ? Man, we are doomed. And we deserve it.
Does anyone ever try imagining what one might be capable of just after 9/11 ? If you have family (kids) living in the NYC or DC area, worried out of your mind that while you’re abroad, back at home, at any minute another attack might just well be in the making and your kids might die as the 9/11 victims did ? Damn, and you can’t imagine yourself in the interrogators position, growing increasingly desperate, having failed to get intel.up to this point, you can’t imagine yourself maybe becoming a little unglued ? Maybe you throw caution to the wind and start using ‘words’ to get the
enemy to talk. Oh the frickin’ humanity !! What the hell is going on in this country ?? I’ve spent my entire life not second guessing Truman’s decision. I think I can get past this one too. I HOPE that if anything comes of this some of you are ready to march (as in protest) on the Capital. There was a time in this country, I know, I lived trough it, that a kid might dream of the day he was old enough to become a soldier, a Special Agent or even the POTUS. Who the hell would bother anymore ?
Ungrateful. If I knew the scum bucket sitting in front of me liley had knowledge of an imminent attack and he just wasn’t talkin’ - I won’t tell you what I’d be prepared to do.
I’d be fired, probably jailed (and probably medicated too).
Waterboarding - as a child I was ‘dunked’ (yeah, thinking I was going to drown) at the community pool, neighbors pools etc., etc. probably a dozen times…and I retaliated too. Part of growing up.
To think these poor bastards had to suffer through same !
Once, twice maybe three or four times ! These are sociopaths. Child killers. Butchers. They’d cut your freakin’ head off and sit down to dinner 5 minutes later.
A 20’ length of underwater fireworks fuse and some catheter tubing… now that’s torture. We really need to keep this stuff in perspective.
‘Sticks and stones…”

587 leftover54  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 12:12:03am

re: #57 Charles

As I read it, they didn’t threaten the children. They threatened the terrorist(s). If they had threatened the terrorists children (minors) to elicit info. then I would have a problem with it.

588 Syrah  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 12:17:36am

They are going to try to redo the Church Committee of the 70’s. The hard-Dem-left will have their Auto de fé, complete with the burnings at the metaphorical stake.

589 mattm  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 12:18:07am

re: #36 JammieWearingFool

I’m thinking Obama’s crew saw that Rasmussen index of -14 approval yesterday and figured it’s time to play the Bush-Cheney cards again. Anything to distract from Bambi’s disastrous performance in office.

I bet most people could care less about Bush/Cheney with Obamas handling of the Economy and Healthcare. Someone saying something mean to a suspected terrorist does not compare to you loosing your job or a loved one suffering because the government f**ked up health care.

590 leftover54  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 12:18:14am

re:587:
I’m presuming the threats were not made in front of the children nor were the children ever made aware of the threats. I may be presuming wrong and, if I find this is the case, my opinion of these actions will change. A major difference to be sure.

591 Reluctant Democrat  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 10:02:04am

re: #1 JammieWearingFool

I think maybe it’s more than that. By releasing this hot smoking sliver of information, the AG has assured Obama of a break from the negative news about his programs. On blogs, over the dinner table, in congressional offices, this week it will be all CIA arguments. I predict a new Church Commission within six months.

I won’t comment on its merits; I don’t know enough to do that.

592 last turnip  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 10:24:55am

Obama said he would not “look back” and would not go after the CIA. He told the CIA this. Was he lying, or did he just change his mind? He is on vacation now, and will probably claim later that he was not involved in this at all…somebody else’s decision. It may distract people from the real issues, the deficit, health care, unemployment, etc. Or it may be that this act will be interpreted in the full context of all his actions thus far. Have you been watching Rasmussen lately? 29% strongly approve of Obama now, and 40% strongly disapprove. Back in January, it was 44% strong approval and only 16% strong disapproval. People are watching, and they are not liking what they see.

593 smaug6  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 12:55:23pm

A thing of beauty and truth. It concerns me that Charles is unable to see the difference between threatening terrorists(monsters) and kids. What is wrong with his reasoning?re: #586 leftover54

594 Spartacus50  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 8:07:57pm

re: #16 Charles

Ugh. Threatening to kill someone’s children, if that’s true, is something I can’t support at all.

Now I’m beginning to wonder if there’s more waiting to come out.

This anonymous “9/11 terrorist suspect” cited in the article is none other than Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (remember when we used to simply call him KSM?). Furthermore, his children were not threatened; the interrogators threatened KSM that his children would be harmed as a means of extracting info. The CIA didn’t call up kids at night.

More obfuscation and redirection from the media.

595 tatterdemalian  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 11:19:33pm

Well, now that the terrorists know that any CIA agent that even so much as threatens their family members will eventually be reprimanded or possibly even fired, no threat will be able to move them any more. Thanks for that, media!

Clearly we shall have to rely on Charles’ expertise on extracting information from terrorists in the future. Maybe we can hire psychics to read their auras?

596 spiderx  Wed, Aug 26, 2009 12:49:10am

re: #594 Spartacus50

This anonymous “9/11 terrorist suspect” cited in the article is none other than Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (remember when we used to simply call him KSM?). Furthermore, his children were not threatened; the interrogators threatened KSM that his children would be harmed as a means of extracting info. The CIA didn’t call up kids at night.

More obfuscation and redirection from the media.

I agree that telling KSM that his children would be killed if he did not talk is ok. It’s not over the line. The fact that telling him that did not bring any great intelligence is another thing.(as far as we know)

would you support torturing his children in front of him to get him to talk?

597 spiderx  Wed, Aug 26, 2009 1:04:47am

re: #595 tatterdemalian

Well, now that the terrorists know that any CIA agent that even so much as threatens their family members will eventually be reprimanded or possibly even fired, no threat will be able to move them any more. Thanks for that, media!

Clearly we shall have to rely on Charles’ expertise on extracting information from terrorists in the future. Maybe we can hire psychics to read their auras?

I think telling a terrorist suspect that you are going to kill their children is, while immoral, not as reprehensible as say torturing the actual suspect. Because for the simple fact that even the terrorist knows that America is too moral a nation to kill the children of it’s enemies. I don’t think a terrorist suspect would believe it. But once you take a suspect and you object them to inhumane treatment- extreme stress positions, extreme heat and cold, waterboarding. Once you subject them to that I think that threat of killing their children may not be a fantasy to them.

I only wonder if any intelligence gained from all that could not have been gained legitimately. Listen to our professional military interrogators, the retired ones that are allowed to speak. To a man they say that torture techniques do not give us valuable intel and that traditional interrogation methods work.

598 tatterdemalian  Wed, Aug 26, 2009 8:27:32am

re: #597 spiderx

I think telling a terrorist suspect that you are going to kill their children is, while immoral, not as reprehensible as say torturing the actual suspect. Because for the simple fact that even the terrorist knows that America is too moral a nation to kill the children of it’s enemies.

So the only reason you would support telling a captured Al-Qaeda member such a thing is because we’ve clearly and carefully informed them that we won’t actually do it? You do realize that reduces the threat to nothing more than a stupid joke, and renders it useless for actually extracting anything but bluster at best (and convincing, carefully rehearsed lies at worst) from the detainees they’re trying to interrogate?

No wonder the interrogators had to pretend to be Egyptians rather than Americans to get any useful information out of the detainees. Ah, but that’s “torture” and wrong too (and also useless now that Master of Interrogation Techniques Eric Holder has revealed it to the world).

But surely there has to be SOME way to extract actionable intelligence from detainees without violating their rights to privacy of information! The experts are resigning from the CIA rather than seeking them out just because they’re old, fossilized, and lazy, I’m sure.

Our children will have to actually butcher terrorists’ families before any terrorist will believe any threats American interrogators make, ever again. I doubt they will look fondly back on us for keeping our hands clean at the expense of theirs, especially when we didn’t actually have to torture anyone. All we had to do was not let the terrorists know that we wouldn’t resort to “torture,” and we couldn’t even manage that.

599 spiderx  Wed, Aug 26, 2009 1:07:45pm

re: #598 tatterdemalian

So the only reason you would support telling a captured Al-Qaeda member such a thing is because we’ve clearly and carefully informed them that we won’t actually do it? You do realize that reduces the threat to nothing more than a stupid joke, and renders it useless for actually extracting anything but bluster at best (and convincing, carefully rehearsed lies at worst) from the detainees they’re trying to interrogate?

No wonder the interrogators had to pretend to be Egyptians rather than Americans to get any useful information out of the detainees. Ah, but that’s “torture” and wrong too (and also useless now that Master of Interrogation Techniques Eric Holder has revealed it to the world).

But surely there has to be SOME way to extract actionable intelligence from detainees without violating their rights to privacy of information! The experts are resigning from the CIA rather than seeking them out just because they’re old, fossilized, and lazy, I’m sure.

Our children will have to actually butcher terrorists’ families before any terrorist will believe any threats American interrogators make, ever again. I doubt they will look fondly back on us for keeping our hands clean at the expense of theirs, especially when we didn’t actually have to torture anyone. All we had to do was not let the terrorists know that we wouldn’t resort to “torture,” and we couldn’t even manage that.

I don’t support telling a detainee that we will kill his children for the simple fact it’s not a good interrogation technique.

We have tortured detainees. Water boarding is torture.

600 hamm172  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:34:21pm

Whatever. I really don’t care if it’s true or not. Hindsight is 20/20, and when I remember the mood of the nation immediately after 9/11, you second guessers were all pooping your pants about “Why did Bush-Hitler let this happen?”

Now from the safety of eight-years-later (and no further terror attacks on U.S. soil- talk about things that make you go, hmmm? ) you’re looking for more shit to blame on the last administration instead of working to prevent the current one from making more mistakes than they demonstrably have made already.

Y’all make me sick.

601 AuldTrafford  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 2:15:15pm

re: #599 spiderx

We have tortured detainees. Water boarding is torture.

Sorry, haven’t had a chance to read the whole thread. Where was it decided just what the official definition of “torture” is; I’d like to see it. Thanks.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 126 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 289 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1