EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 17, 2010 19:32:25 GMT -5
"1. Most accounts say that Abdulmutallab talked right away.
This is the problem. If you recall, Abdulmutallab was questioned on the scene for a famous 50 minute period before he lawyered up. The initial querying was done by local law-enforcement/local FBI and not the White House's high-value interrogation group that was never notified or consulted at the time. Allegedly, according to Brennan and Holder, he provided all he knew then ... and that's how a reasonable person could conclude that we knew then that it was safe to move him into the U.S. criminal justice system.
Skip forward five or six weeks (after the White House has come under fire for its initial handling of the Christmas Day bomber) and Brennan claims that Abdulmutallab is talking and cooperating and providing us valuable information, once again proving that "the system worked."
This is where you have a conflict - if in late January/early February, Abdulmutallab has information to provide and our nation's senior counterterrorism expert is describing it as valuable, would it not have been better to get to that information when it was freshest, i.e., the evening of December 25, 2009??
What actionable intelligence was lost by the five-to-six week delay after Abdulmutallab was mirandized? (It's a rhetorical question, I don't think anyone but AQAP can answer it)."
Well said.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 17, 2010 20:03:40 GMT -5
"First off, torture is always morally wrong and never permitted." Wrong. Apply the general principles of the just war theory: the good achieved far, far outweighs what would normally be a bad inflicted.
"You seem to believe that there is a direct causal connection between more force used on a suspect or detainee and the amount of useful information that person gives up." Yes I do and it's based on common sense rather than some anonymous "interrogation professionals". You can find an "interrogation professional" to take whatever side you want on this subject. For those who claim we are likely to get false information from what you call torture (wrong, usually), why do you think you will not get false information if you do not "torture"?
"Calling waterboarding torture is opinion, not fact." Agree 100%.
I stand by my original post as long as you realize I admitted a bit of exaggeration in it. The responses, for the most part, made me more convinced than ever that many posters on this subject still believe we were in a seminar rather than fighting a real war - in real time. Interrogators in events like the Abdulmutallab incident need to obtain all available information now, not at a later time, guided by a lawyer.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Feb 17, 2010 20:33:40 GMT -5
Oh common sense. Well you totally win then. Thanks for conceding you have no factual reason for believing what you do, and again exposing the conservative bias against facts and expertise. This is what I don't get. If you're so fine with torture, why are you so intent on declaring waterboarding not to be torture? It seems to me that you're not doing such a good job hiding your moral culpability here. And it's weird that you cite just war theory, as the Church specifically said the Iraq War did not meet the criteria. Furthermore, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops' statement on torture is thus: And the Catechism states: These seem to be fairly unambiguous statements. Face it, ed, you're just another cafeteria Catholic. And Boz, to use a favorite of yours, your basically arguing of what the meaning of "is" is. Weak.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 17, 2010 20:52:19 GMT -5
Bando, I have even more confidence now that the opponents of torture just want to turn this country into a theology seminar.
I also find interesting the position of folks who are practically litigating the counterfactual issue of what would have happened but for the mirandizing of the underwear bomber. Apparently they know something his interrogators did not. Seems like you could find that kind of analysis in a garden variety torts class or a slip and fall shop nevermind the law seminars that these same folks seem to dislike.
I would be more inclined to support the position were it not wrapped in the "Obama is weak" talking point, particularly in light of how the shoebomber was handled (without criticism from the right) and recent revelations about Bush's reaction to the pre-9/11 NIE ("All right. You've covered your ass now.").
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Feb 17, 2010 22:47:23 GMT -5
Well we went back to screaming on this thread over torture.
But before that, thanks for all the contributions on the effects of mirandizing potential terror suspects. It was actually an interesting and informative discussion for us non-lawyer types.
I will still throw myself out a third-story window if I'm stuck talking to 3 lawyers at a party, mind you, but in this forum I enjoyed it.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Feb 18, 2010 9:34:02 GMT -5
"If I were in charge, we'd be interrogating him. And we'd interrogate him and interrogate him and interrogate him...and then we'd shoot him in the head."
-- Glenn Beck on Taliban leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, recently captured in Pakistan
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Feb 18, 2010 13:16:58 GMT -5
Bando wrote:
Oh common sense. Well you totally win then. Thanks for conceding you have no factual reason for believing what you do, and again exposing the conservative bias against facts and expertise.
Oh, come on. Nonsensical fluff is one thing, but this kind of hogwash is a bit much.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Feb 18, 2010 14:29:31 GMT -5
OK, we've just seen a guy in Texas crash his plane into a federal building there. Should we round up everybody associated with him, hold them indefinitely without Miranda rights, and used "enhanced interrogation" on them to gain any info on future attacks they might have planned?
How about Timothy McVeigh? Did the Clinton administration make a huge mistake and put our national security at risk by giving him the right to remain silent and not waterboarding him?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Feb 18, 2010 14:51:26 GMT -5
This is a false analogy.
In the case of the Christmas bomber, it was the perpetrator who was the key, not "everyone associated with him." (Though, since he is associated with an organization with which we are at war, I'd imagine yes, we'd like to get our hands on some of those people and hold/interrogate them.)
In this case, we cannot hold the perpetrator, since he is dead. Had he survived, and had there been any evidence linking him to any such organization, rather than simply to a whack job suicide note, then I'd also say yes; hold and interrogate him.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 18, 2010 15:42:33 GMT -5
I think the conservative activist and security expert who plotted to tamper with phones at a federal building and those connected with a Homeland Security Committee member is more of a generalized threat and prime candidate for detention, waterboarding, and the like than this isolated madman. Certainly we can't be so sure that there aren't other plots unless waterboard him and pursue other methods.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Feb 18, 2010 15:45:55 GMT -5
This is a false analogy. In the case of the Christmas bomber, it was the perpetrator who was the key, not "everyone associated with him." (Though, since he is associated with an organization with which we are at war, I'd imagine yes, we'd like to get our hands on some of those people and hold/interrogate them.) In this case, we cannot hold the perpetrator, since he is dead. Had he survived, and had there been any evidence linking him to any such organization, rather than simply to a whack job suicide note, then I'd also say yes; hold and interrogate him. What about McVeigh then? He was closely associated with like-minded people, and did not act alone. It took us months to find Nichols, who, for all we knew, could have been planning another attack. Should we have waterboarded McVeigh to find info on Nichols' wearabouts?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
|
Post by TC on Feb 18, 2010 15:51:21 GMT -5
I think the conservative activist and security expert who plotted to tamper with phones at a federal building and those connected with a Homeland Security Committee member is more of a generalized threat and prime candidate for detention, waterboarding, and the like than this isolated madman. Certainly we can't be so sure that there aren't other plots unless waterboard him and pursue other methods. Oh, c'mon, I think he's a complete Edited and should have the book thrown at him, but O'Keefe isn't a terrorist. He was trying to make an example of people for faulty security procedures. Those procedures worked. It should work both ways though, he should be made an example of for why you don't screw with security procedures.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 18, 2010 15:57:55 GMT -5
I think that's probably the case, but we can't know for sure unless we can get people to beat him up, hook him up to an electric charge, and waterboard him. In the absence of actionable intelligence, we should repeat the procedure 183 times until we get what we want to hear. Surely we gave up some valuable information about the plot and other similar plots/ideas, where he received logistical support, and the like, by giving him his Miranda warning.
Note that my position is mostly tongue in cheek, but I am having a tough time identifying where the line is drawn when a law enforcement official first arrives at the scene. We did not know Abdulmutallab was an Al Qaeda terrorist until the interrogation began in earnest. We did not know today's madman was an isolated idiot until long after the attack took place. If he lived, what do we do? Wait until we determine through our own channels as to whether to torture him or to ask him questions as an isolated idiot acting alone? This is why the issue is so vexing IMO. For the people who wanted to torture Abdulmutallab, when does that torture begin without knowledge of who he is or his personal background - and what happens if you end up torturing someone who is more of an isolated extremist? The argument is very easy in hindsight but less so with what is known at the time of an attack/incident. To the reply that we would just know, the answer is no we didn't with certainty, as I recall the significant lapse in time on 12/24 between the initial report and the political fallout/hand-wringing. The later-released facts of the interrogation seem to back this up. Abdulmutallab could have been any number of things, Al Qaeda one among a list of many given the volume of chatter that intelligence officers likely deal with. In those circumstances, hard for an FBI officer to think it through and decide to throw a field manual out the window. I query whether we would get that same information had we tortured him immediately, and this is something that is as unprovable as the assertion that we would have gotten something had we not read him a Miranda warning.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 21, 2010 14:40:08 GMT -5
General Petraeus made some important comments today about the use of torture, including "whenever we've perhaps taken expedient measures, they've turned around and bitten us in the backside." His support for closing Gitmo is likewise striking and commendable. Maybe Liz Cheney will cut a video about how he lets terrorists win or she may know something that General Petraeus does not about winning the War on Terror. www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/21/petraeus-takes-on-cheneyi_n_470608.html
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,272
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 21, 2010 15:27:50 GMT -5
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Feb 22, 2010 22:29:12 GMT -5
Yet Another Taliban Leader CapturedEXCERPTS
February 22, 2010 ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — In another blow to the Taliban senior leadership, Pakistani authorities have captured Mullah Abdul Kabir, a member of the group’s inner circle and a leading military commander against American forces in eastern Afghanistan, according to a Pakistani intelligence official. ... The Pakistani intelligence official also confirmed the arrest of another Taliban official: Mullah Mohammed Yunis, the Taliban’s shadow governor of Zabul Province. The official gave no details of Mullah Yunis’s arrest. He is the third Taliban governor to be detained in Pakistan in recent weeks.
Together, the arrest of Mullah Kabir, Mullah Baradar and the others appeared to mark a shift in Pakistani behavior. Although the motive remains unclear, the change is significant.
“This indicates Baradar was not a one off or an accident but a turning point in Pakistan’s policy toward the Taliban,” said Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow of Brookings Institution and a former C.I.A. official. “We still need to see how far it goes, but for Obama and NATO this is the best possible news. If the safe haven is closing then the Taliban are in trouble.”
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on Feb 22, 2010 22:58:11 GMT -5
Yet Another Taliban Leader CapturedEXCERPTS
February 22, 2010 ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — In another blow to the Taliban senior leadership, Pakistani authorities have captured Mullah Abdul Kabir, a member of the group’s inner circle and a leading military commander against American forces in eastern Afghanistan, according to a Pakistani intelligence official. ... The Pakistani intelligence official also confirmed the arrest of another Taliban official: Mullah Mohammed Yunis, the Taliban’s shadow governor of Zabul Province. The official gave no details of Mullah Yunis’s arrest. He is the third Taliban governor to be detained in Pakistan in recent weeks.
Together, the arrest of Mullah Kabir, Mullah Baradar and the others appeared to mark a shift in Pakistani behavior. Although the motive remains unclear, the change is significant.
“This indicates Baradar was not a one off or an accident but a turning point in Pakistan’s policy toward the Taliban,” said Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow of Brookings Institution and a former C.I.A. official. “We still need to see how far it goes, but for Obama and NATO this is the best possible news. If the safe haven is closing then the Taliban are in trouble.” Looks like they are capturing one and turning that into two. Capturing two and turning that into four.....well done. Hopefully this is a big break and we get a ton of intel
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 22, 2010 23:03:02 GMT -5
It sure seems like they are closing in on Mullah Omar. Someone has to know what the heck that guy looks like. Congrats are in order for Pakistani intelligence and law enforcement, among others.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Feb 22, 2010 23:06:43 GMT -5
It sure seems like they are closing in on Mullah Omar. Someone has to know what the heck that guy looks like. Congrats are in order for Pakistani intelligence and law enforcement, among others. You're not only condoning torture but actually PRAISING the torturers? Oh wait, I guess it's okay if they're making Team Obama look good.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 22, 2010 23:20:25 GMT -5
Rosslyn - My position is and has been that I do not want our military or other institutions/personnel to torture. Your aside fails for any number of reasons, including the following:
1. Unless you have a security clearance or some info beyond the NYT article, you have no idea right now where this tip came from. It could be completely independent of the Baradar capture (and any torture that he or anyone else may have faced) given what is in the NYT article. The prisoner's whereabouts could have been gleaned from documents seized at the site of the Baradar capture, for example. It could have been plain luck. It could have been a tip from a family member. He may have even been captured before Baradar.
2. I simply do not care if this makes Obama look good or not even if some (wrongly) call this Obama's War (instead of America's War). The goal here is to win the War on Terror, and the sooner and faster these Taliban leaders are found and detained, the safer we'll be. I'm a little tired of the "We captured the #2 guy" politics that has taken root in this country such that all of these WOT actions are read through the lens of who wins and loses. This is why I agreed with Biden's approach a week or so ago. These are uncategorical victories in the WOT rather than some occasion for a partisan sideshow.
I respect generally that Pakistan is sovereign, and the Taliban is more of a threat to them than it is to us. They can make their own decision as to torture just as this country, through its government, has made the decision to reject torture. I certainly prefer that Pakistan decide likewise, but I am not about to slam the clearly beneficial outcome here because of it just as I hope you wouldn't slam the results were they not due to torture.
I'm open to any argument that torture provides information in this country that lawful methods do not (haven't seen it yet), but I think Gen. Petraeus's comments quoted above are fairly clear and authoritative on the subject. To the extent that you think torture is to credit here, there may be an issue of assuming that which you intend to prove.
|
|