Gitmo: Residue of The Evil Empire
Guantanamo Bay is one of the lasting "stains" of the Bush "Kabul" that has yet to be eradicated. This abomination is a symbol of all that is bad and evil in America. America is a country that must rise above terrorist and always act in benevolence and justice. After all this is a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles, we must always turn the other cheek, and if that isn't good enough for you then remember what would Jesus do?
Before we go on to condemn Gitmo can you tell me why it is so bad or evil? What has transpired in this secret facility? Do you know where Gitmo is located at? What its purpose is? Where is Abu Ghraib in relation to Gitmo?
The NYT ran 32 headline articles in a row on Abu Ghraib. I know keeping these prisons and incidences straight is difficult so let me refresh your memory. Abu Ghraib is the Central Baghdad Prison which held more than 15,000 Kurds, Shiites, and political prisoners against Saddam regime. During the Iraqi war the U.S. acquired this prison and took advantage of its location and security to hold prisoners, it held as many as 7,000 detainees. At the end of 2003 an unfortunate event occurred at the prison involving the abuse and inhuman treatment of some of those held. You might be shocked, in fact horrified to learn that this scandal involved U.S. soldiers numbering in the, 7! Yes, that is correct, this disgusting act involved 7 individuals that were already on their way to be tried. In 2004 the press caught wind of it and the NYT ran 32 headlines in a row on an act that involved 7 people! None of them were officers, all of them were prosecuted and condemned. Later that prison was shut down because of the attention it received.
So is Guantanamo Bay next to Abu Ghraib or some where in Iraq? Not even close. Guantanamo Bay is located in Cuba and is a U.S naval base. In 2002 it became a prime location to hold people related to the War on Terror. Many of these individuals were found in Afghan, but they have been found all around the world as well. These individuals received status as enemy combatants. What is the difference between a POW and enemy combatants? That is an excellent question. Our international laws come from the Geneva Convention and the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), which state that any enemy caught while wearing uniform is considered a POW and may be treated as a prisoner, humanely. A non combatant is a civilian, doctor, or chaplin and they must be treated humanely. Those who do not fall under either are spies, those who commit sabotage, those who participate in guerrilla warfare, and those who do not wear a uniform when fighting. Any army has the right to deal with these individuals under the fullest extent, for a long time that meant hanging or executing spies. Those who violate LOAC/Geneva Conventions are called enemy combatants, and are not entitled to the protections provided by these two laws, nor do they possess any rights. Many of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay were caught by our soldiers, aiding the terrorists with guns, bombs, and providing aid etc... The other detainees were captured by various intelligence agencies around the world including China and Pakistani ISI. Traditionally POW's and enemy combatants are held until the close of the war. Much of the proof against the "questionable" detainees is classified or top secret. The definition of top secret is secrets that could jeopardize individuals or national security.
So what are the dark secrets behind Gitmo? At the peak of Gitmo over 700 detainees were held, today it is a grand total of 245. 60 of those individuals cannot enter back into their country for fear of endangerment to them by the public or government. The travesties committed by this prison include the following: flushing a holy Koran down the toilet, oh wait, that was a story ran by the press that was proved to be false! The story led to an outrage in the Middle East causing American deaths to escalate. The truth is they are given 3 square meals a day, aloud to pray five times a day including an arrow pointing to Mecca, and there is a Koran in every cell. They can watch TV, play soccer, and take art lessons. When the prisoners want a Koran they are handed one by guards wearing gloves so as not to contaminant or defile the book, a practice which does not even exist in Islam.
Where are the travesties you say. Well there are some bad things that happen. Many of the detainees will throw feces at the soldiers, and they are often spit upon. Prisoners will try to pull the guard's arm and break it. Oh, one America soldier actually hit a prisoner with the butt of his walkie-talkie. A prisoner lashed out at his buddy and was biting the soldier's face, without even flinching this insubordinate soldier hit the prisoner with his communication device trying to break off the assault. That soldier was highly reprimanded and nothing happened to the prisoner! Want another horrible incident at Gitmo? How about a young woman around 20 years old who was a nurse caring for the prisoners. A detainee she was treating grabbed her head and smashed her face into the bars so many times that she had to have 16 reconstructive surgeries! Where was that headline in the news?! Nothing happened to the prisoner who did it, nothing, and you didn't here about it until Col Gordon Cucullu visited and recorded his experience at Guantanamo Bay 5 separate times. All that we hear about is how we are holding innocent people and torturing them. American Red Cross is adjacent to the prison to keep a close eye on the Gitmo, they have reported nothing! These innocent people have committed more than 400 acts of violence and plotted to kill guards. Meanwhile America is on record for having "tortured" how many? 1000's, 100's, no not even 5. Three notorious terrorist were "tortured". Did they have their eyes gauged out, or fingernails pulled, did they have to watch a beheading, or how about good old electrocution Rambo style? None of the above, they were put in uncomfortable positions, subjected to loud music & no sleep, and water-boarded. These men were being tightly supervised by numerous health experts, and psychologist to make sure we didn't put them in mental or physical danger.
Water-boarding is the unpardonable sin. Let's do a little test, can you even tell me what water-boarding is? How many levels/phases are there to it? Does it go on for days or even hours? Americans are so quick to condemn what they don't understand. Watch this video on water-boarding so you can condemn it justly.
MUST SEE DEMONSTRATION: http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/04/video-steve-harrigan-gets-waterboarded-on-fox/
Where did they come up with such a horrid idea? Our government looked at a program called SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape). It is something that all pilots, and special forces personal have to go through and it includes being water-boarded! The average victim lasts 14 seconds! Wait, we are torturing our own people?! Yes, if that is your definition of torture than indeed we are, you'll have to include Basic Training & my Field Training as well because under the current definition it was torture. What about all the stress and agony people suffer at colleges that is near traumatizing sometimes! What the pentagon decided with, is what I decided a few years back; if we do it to our own soldiers its not torture. Now that you know the facts you make your decision.
Why did we water-board these 3 terrorist? One of them was the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks, was it retribution, vengeance, hatred? Turns out that all 3 contributed to providing pertinent intel for our national security. After using all of the Army Field Manuel techniques and producing no results, the government resorted to water-boarding. Why did they have to do this? Read Strafor's latest security briefing. All of our intelligence agencies combined could not produce the intel needed, and they all failed during 9-11 attacks. Many of you know about the foiled attack on the Brooklyn Bridge, but what was just released from classified memo's was that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed knew of another planned attack on the west-coast of the U.S. After being water-boarded he provided all the intel the United States needed to stop and capture the terrorists. Do you even want to know how many more plots the government saved us from? It could be your city right now.
MUST READ
The bottom line for Guantanamo Bay is that it was a critical tool for the new War on Terror. A new enemy, with new rules, with no boundary or border, wearing no uniform to distinguish themselves from anyone else. From 2001 to the present Gitmo has provided us with crucial intel and a neutral location to store these enemies we are at war with. It also has largely served its purpose and no longer remains an essential part of the U.S.'s arsenal of weapons. Bush knew that, McCain knew that, and Obama knew that. In fact for years Bush pleaded for other nations to help him deal with the detainees, no one responded. Was this because they loathed the President? Maybe, but consider the following. The month Obama was sworn in the mighty EU held their annual meeting where the Ambassadors of each nation resolved to help Obama fulfil his Executive order, closing Gitmo. Problem was, not one nation put their money where their mouth was. Austria said not here and the rest of the nations followed suite. In Obama's world tour only France extended a finger to aid the U.S. with the Gitmo quandary by offering to take 1 prisoner. Our own nation may proclaim that holding the prisoners further is flat out wrong and unconstitutional, but state after state has said we would love to see the prisoners moved just not in our state.
Ironically what seemed to be the right thing to do, and gained the moral high ground has already turned into a nightmare. Even when the President does find a suitable location all that he will have done is move them from one location to the other. The detainees will most likely enter our prisons. Prisons that will jeopardise their lives living with other American inmates, unless they are confined to solitary confinement. They will be forced to live with the worst of mankind in all their filth. Gone will be the treatment of Korans, arrows to Mecca, and art classes. The detainees will be begging to be sent back to Gitmo once they are exposed to regular prisons with no special treatment. In the mean time the key issue for those against holding these "innocent" detainees is habeas corpus or holding them without cause. It will take some time for all 245 prisoners to get hearings and trails. Bush tried time after time to get military trials going and was stopped by lawyers appealing to the law for their clients. In fact some clients fired their lawyers for extending the process.
We must not blindly rush to conclusions about what is right or wrong. We live in complicated times with complicated issues. There are no easy answers, and for each decision we must ponder about the short-term & long-term consequences. Would we rather have two cities devastated, a military base taken out, and our nations symbols destroyed all because we wanted to be morally superior? This is a question worth contemplating seriously. Would it be worth being nice and "humane" if it cost your family, remember it did cost 1000's of people on 9-11. All programs implemented post 9-11 were for our safety. The creation of Homeland Security, FISA, monitoring money laundering, predator strikes, declaration of war on terror, enhanced interrogation techniques, and operations from Iraqi freedom to the Surge. For the most astute mind the Middle East is a complicated matter, no one can predict its future. There will ultimately be mistakes made, there always are. In WWII we had troops that parachuted directly into the enemies bases and were mowed down, we suffered 70% losses on that operation, 70%! Let us learn from our mistakes, correct them and go on. Not getting emotional, irrational, or blaming and condemning one person or group, but being rational, using our head and not our emotions. The terrorists are real and they aren't going away, we shouldn't be fighting with each other, we should be working together for the best solutions to keep our country safe.
Chris Fosburg 25 April 2009
Please write back and tell me what you think of my short essay. I try very hard to state hard facts and site my sources, but I also don't have hours to dedicate on an essay like this. This is my opinion that has evolved since these issues have broken out. I have listened to countless people on all sides debate the issues, and listen to the opinion of soldiers who have been water-boarded, and high officials. While it is true a lot of my links are fox-related please know that is because I know where to find these links, but I have also read and listened to dozens of other sources. If you like this let your spouses read this and fill free to send it to other family members.
John Doe:
A couple of problems with your essay.
You did read about how Abu Ghaib wasn't just 7 bad soldiers, right? Yeah, those orders came from the top. All the way up to Rumsfeld.
I'm glad that you mentioned that none of these prisoners have been CHARGED with anything. Didn't seem to bother you, though. Shocking since habeus corpus is older than the constitution.
The Military Commissions Act (based on the memo that was written my John Yoo, which basically invented the phrase "enemy combatants") has all but been deemed unconstitutional by our Supreme Court. Sorry, but the Geneva Conventions do apply to humans.
The crap about waterboarding KSM being successful is exacly that, crap. The dude that was supposed to be blowing up a building in LA didn't even have a passport. Plus there are reports that KSM gave him up BEFORE he was waterboarded.
"McCain knew it?" Come on Chris, in the presidential election John McCain said he was going to CLOSE Guantanamo. He also said that torture doesn't work, because he used to tell the interrogators anything to stop the pain when he was a POW.
Lastly I have a problem with your premise. You're saying Guantanamo is a necessary piece in the war on terror (wait, Bill says that we already won the terror war, I'm confused). Didn't the prisons at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib actually help recruiting for Al Queda? It sounds more like they are a critical piece if we want to lose this war.
Chris:
All of my definitions come straight from Government manuals and official documents. By definition if you break the Geneva standards you are not entitled to them, they become void. It may need to change or be morally wrong, but as it stood that was what it states. Believe it or not there are rules in war, almost always have been. The ironic thing is that the "bad guys" never play by them. In my AF class this gets to be a frustrating topic and some wonder why we even have the Geneva Convention, when its purpose was to make sure prisoners were treated fairly, unlike in Vietnam & China, and Al Qaeda.
Just because one article states that orders came from the top doesn't mean it is true. No I haven't read that, is it knew? If so where is it from? Do you know the context behind Abu Ghraib, it was at an intense time in the war in Iraq a lot of soldiers died. The commander of that prison was demoted, and like I said the military was in full swing to prosecute these soldiers before the media got hold of the story.
As for being "charged", by the definition if you are found as the enemy during a battle or war you can be detained for no other reason than you are aiding the enemy. Our poor soldiers are handcuffed to such ridiculous rules of engagement in the Middle East. They can't even fire unless they are being fired on. One time a native walked right in front of some soldiers with a gun and waved it around, then left. These soldiers often lose their lives because they don't know when someone will turn around a shot them. The terrorist know the rules of engagement at use them against our troops. Bottom line is there is a time and a place to sort out the fog of war, and it is not the public or media.
As for as the "McCain knew it, I think I wasn't clear. What I said was that all 3 men knew Guantanamo was a problem. One of my main points was that even though Obama called for Gitmo to close he hasn't solved the same problem Bush had of "charges".
Chris:
Here is an article to back up what I said
By Marc A. Thiessen
John Doe's comments on above article:
That is very interesting because I heard the opposite. I heard that he started to give info up and as soon as the torture was used, the interrogation regressed.
I also find it interesting that we have been told for years that Abu Ghraib was just a few "bad apples" and now we are finding out that those people were instructed to carry out those techniques. Authorized from the top as early as 2002! Wow. You have a lot to defend, bud, so let's hear it.
Chris:
Thank you for responding to my emails! I love it. I am surprised at your response to the finding of the Los Angeles plot. I thought that new fact would shock everyone. The left has been asking for proof that torture works, there was already a pretty strong case for it with the limited information we had. With the new memos, for me, it hits the nail in the coffin.
It is amazing how much we disagree on these issues, I still can't understand how or why we disagree so much. I will never defend Abu Ghraib, what went on there was horrible and an embarrassment, but I would double check your sources of where you heard about authorization to do those things. What those soldiers did were not techniques, they were angry, bored, and unsupervised individuals being as stupid as possible.
As for as interrogations go, the facts are the facts. Unless you are just going to call everyone who says something positive about water-boarding the 3 terrorists a lier, I don't know how you can argue with the results. One of the things Stratfor said in their article was that enhanced interrogation techniques by themselves don't really work. When they are done in sync with a ton of information on a specific subject they produce positive results That's how we stopped the Brooklyn Bridge & Los Angeles attacks.
PS: I didn't "hear" about my info, I researched from the Government & Military to talk radio guests and news articles.
John Doe:
I only have time to answer one of the questions you posed and it has to do with why America is so polarized. I have said it before and it comes down to biases. The truth is, we all have them. It doesn't matter if you get your info in an AF class, Political Science class, text book, news article or commentary, there is no such thing as an unbiased source. I truly believe the reason for that is business. Unbiased news is boring. Unbiased books and classes are boring, etc. They don't sell. In other words, you can't help but get a biased opinion about the "facts" no matter where you go. The fun thing about you and I is that we both pride ourselves in being informed, but from opposite sides of the spectrum (American Political spectrum), even though you don't like to admit it.
I was just tired, not offended. I usually roll my eyes when you begin a sentence saying, "Karl Rove..." so I have no room to say anything. That's a valid reason of why we disagree on a lot of issues. We abhore one another's sources as well as favorite commentary. It's healthy as long as we can disagree without being disagreeable.
I always enjoy a good debate. It is my opinion that in the world outside the gospel (but especially in politics) truth is subjective. I guess that's why the political world is so fun. There will always be opposition.
Chris:
I have no idea where you get your sources or if they are valid or not. What I wanted you especially to know is that this doesn't just come from Bill and Dennis Prager, although they provide data for me. These ideas and information come from news paper articles like the NYT, and dictionaries for definitions, my official AF manuel that goes over some of the laws, and government websites. I feel like you discredit my knowledge by thinking that I am just rehashing news commentaries. I tried to make it clear that I didn't have the time to site all of my sources, after all it was just an essay. But you shocked me when you basically called my data & research a lie. I hope your last comment was just because you are tired, you know me better than that. I enjoyed discussing these serious issues with you, but noticed I real problem of finding the truth. How can it be that 2 well informed people could have such a different view on the facts and truth? If we can't get the news from the news, where can we get it. That is not even getting to the opinions. Like Dennis always says, First tell the truth then give your opinion. Our discussions help me understand why America is so polarized. I enjoyed chatting with you, have a good night.
PS: Thanks again for reading my stuff
John Doe:
I only have time to answer one of the questions you posed and it has to do with why America is so polarized. I have said it before and it comes down to biases. The truth is, we all have them. It doesn't matter if you get your info in an AF class, Political Science class, text book, news article or commentary, there is no such thing as an unbiased source. I truly believe the reason for that is business. Unbiased news is boring. Unbiased books and classes are boring, etc. They don't sell. In other words, you can't help but get a biased opinion about the "facts" no matter where you go. The fun thing about you and I is that we both pride ourselves in being informed, but from opposite sides of the spectrum (American Political spectrum), even though you don't like to admit it.
I was just tired, not offended. I usually roll my eyes when you begin a sentence saying, "Karl Rove..." so I have no room to say anything. That's a valid reason of why we disagree on a lot of issues. We abhore one another's sources as well as favorite commentary. It's healthy as long as we can disagree without being disagreeable.
I always enjoy a good debate. It is my opinion that in the world outside the gospel (but especially in politics) truth is subjective. I guess that's why the political world is so fun. There will always be opposition.
Chris:
This was the first article I read on the new memos, waterboarding, and torture issue. I thought it was well written and explained a lot of unanswered questions before last week. Unfortuntalty I couldn't email it to my self at the tiime and I lost it.
John Doe:
These are quotes from your article:
that had wrung false confessions from Americans.
The top officials he briefed did not learn that waterboarding had been prosecuted by the United States in war-crimes trials after World War II and was a well-documented favorite of despotic governments since the Spanish Inquisition
some veteran trainers from the SERE program itself had warned in internal memorandums that, morality aside, the methods were ineffective.
False confessions came forth a couple other times in the article. Hearing that, how are you not skeptical that the Bush administration and the CIA are telling the truth when they say that waterboarding Abu Zubaydah and KSM worked and saved American lives? How do we know that they didn't make false confessions?
Chris:
Well first off, this was a report of what has occurred, nothing more or less. We don't know exclusively what is for sure. I have never claimed that this was an easy issue, and there is no cut an dry way about this. I also have stated that mistakes were made, when have they not? It is so easy for us to look back on any given situation and say what should have happened or what our leaders should have known. An example, at the time of the 9-11 attacks the FBI, CIA and other intelligence agencies just didn't know as much as we do today, yet some people condemn them anyway, saying 'they should have known, how could they not have seen this coming'.
I believe the officials when they say that they didn't know about prosecutions for war-crimes. How many of the military related personnel, who knew friends or had gone through SERE themselves, could have thought water-boarding was prosecuted after WWII.
What the Stratfor article analyzed was whether or not you could be effective using water-boarding or other methods. Their conclusion was "unless you have excellent intelligence to begin with, you will become engaged in developing baseline intelligence, and the person you are torturing may well know nothing at all...it actually undermines good intelligence." On the flip side of that they said "if you know that an individual is loaded with information, torture can be a useful tool."
They way I view the matter is that the US had enough information to know it didn't know enough to prevent an attack and needed help. The agencies had learned of certain individuals who had vast knowledge of operations, Khalid was one of those individuals. He had said repeatedly that something else was coming, and when questioned replied "You will see." Because the US did have a lot of information, we were just missing pieces of the puzzle, much of what Khalid told them could be verified or discarded by the agencies. I am inferring on this next part, but that would explain receiving false statements at first, then when Khalid had tested the US and found that they were on to him, he realized that he couldn't lie to them.
As far as the Bush Administration lying goes. I don't believe Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, or ex General Michael Hayden use water-boarding in anger. I don't believe them to be irresponsible people. Hayden was one of the most honest and open directors we have had in the CIA. Why would the Bush Administration use a number of harsh techniques against 3 former members of Al Qaeda? Revenge? No, they wanted to get something from him. Don't you think that they tried questioning him and offering him deals if we cooperated? Why would any of the Bush Administration lie about the effectiveness of water-boarding? So they could do it for fun? It just doesn't make logical sense.
The people who conduct interrogations in the agencies are highly qualified, not like the movies. There is a lot of sophistication to the process and they all know physical pain is one of the worst ways to get Intel. I learned that when I went through a SERE's course. But when techniques are used to gain psychological advantage it is all over, I learned that in SERE's too. On the side of this issue are 4 former CIA directors and Obama's own Chief National Security Advisor, opposed to the Director of the FBI.
Even though I do not view water-boarding as torture, it definitely rides the line. I don't believe that it should be used regularly, and if it has been then that is something that needs correcting. I even recognize that water-boarding may not produce positive results every time, neither do interrogations. I do consent to the view that it should be up to the President to make that decision. I believe that it is morally wrong for the President not to do all he can to protect the citizens of the United States of America, including if there is a chance of getting vital info from American torture. That option should not be chosen likely, and used rarely if ever, but I leave it up to the President to make that decision. I have always said that if you give this to the American people to vote, it would become a lot more personal, after all it is their families they are thinking about, and most Americans would vote yes to protect them.
Sorry I didn't mean to write so much on this.
Have a great night
John Doe:
I want to reply to this section:
As far as the Bush Administration lying goes. I don't believe Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, or ex General Michael Hayden use water-boarding in anger. I don't believe them to be irresponsible people. Hayden was one of the most honest and open directors we have had in the CIA. Why would the Bush Administration use a number of harsh techniques against 3 former members of Al Qaeda? Revenge? No, they wanted to get something from him. Don't you think that they tried questioning him and offering him deals if we cooperated? Why would any of the Bush Administration lie about the effectiveness of water-boarding? So they could do it for fun? It just doesn't make logical sense.
I have not accused them of lying on this issue per se, but I was quite annoyed that the memos define many of these techniques as "torture" and yet we were told "the United States DOES NOT TORTURE" many times by the Bush administration. It is one thing to suggest that the definition of torture changed. Waterboarding was not considered by them to be torture, but is now by Obama and Holder. However, the memos written as the Bush administration is looking for harsh techniques defines those techniques as torture. I mean, I understand how one would disagree with a legal opinion because it happens all the time, but at the time when we were told "the United States DOES NOT TORTURE" that statement was rather controversial because there existed legal memos that proved otherwise. I'm not calling them liars, but they definately told their version of the "truth." Again subjectivity and biases poke their way in to the "truth."
Sure the administration wanted to get info out of Al Qaeda. I'm not suggesting that they were pursuing revenge and I haven't read or heard that. I'm not sure I would blame them if they did...as long as they allowed the families of the 9/11 victims to conduct the torture (totally kidding). As far as lying about the effectiveness of water-boarding, it has nothing to do with allowing them to do it at their pleasure. Rather, it was to justify previous action. I truly believe that we went too far and we realized it, so rather than admitting that we made a mistake, we justify the means with an exaggerated ends.
I have two questions that I feel you haven't answered one concerning "harsh interrogation techniques" and the other concerning Guantanamo?
1. How do you keep from getting bad intel?
You kinda touched on this one saying that the torture needs to be preceeded by other techniques, etc. I'm curious.
2. I remember you defending Guantanamo calling it a "necessary tool" in the war on terror. The problem I see is that Al Qaeda loves that we have Guantanamo open because it has become another reason to hate America and becomes a recruiting tool for them. How do you maintain this "tool" without jeopardizing our efforts in the middle East
Always a pleasure, bud.
best
Chris:
WARNING: This is a lot longer than I planned- it took me a long time to write it, so I hope you at least get something out of it, enjoy.
It is one thing to suggest that the definition of torture changed. Waterboarding was not considered by them to be torture, but is now by Obama and Holder. However, the memos written as the Bush administration is looking for harsh techniques defines those techniques as torture
You know, I really have to thank you, you forced me to read the 4 memos. I have to warn you they are, for the most part, very dry and full of legal jargon. I read 10 different articles on water-boarding (WB) and interrogation, and the 4 CIA memos to see if I could find somewhere that the Bush administration did in fact call WB torture. Here is my assessment. I could not find one article where the Bush crew called the techniques torture. The memos themselves do not once refer to WB as torture.
What I did find in the memos was the word torture used over and over again. Thus, they can rightfully be called the torture memos, but for a completely different reason. All of the memos recognize that the harsh techniques (HT) used must never cross into torture. The memos were adamant that torture was not to be used. The four memos spread from 2002 to 2005 or 06. You can tell from the years, the progression of debate over methods used. The last memo mentions the HT and dedicates a couple of paragraphs to WB. They recognize that other countries use similar methods that are clearly torture. The memos make it clear that they condemn torture and want to make a distinction between the US interrogations and other countries methods of torture.
What I was most impressed with is how seriously they took WB and other HT. There was constant pressure not to torture, specific guidelines on how to conduct WB and other HT, and restrictions on who qualified for all HT. WB was discontinued in 2003 and discriminated by Pres. Bush in 2005. What these memos tell me is how responsible everyone handled this fine line. Here is the site to view memo 4, and some keywords using "find" to use (longest memo).
keywords: torture & water-boarding (especially after p 25)
1. How do you keep from getting bad intel?
This is a vital question. Before I get into it I want to ask some other important questions. First: Did our intel help us on 9-11? Can we get good intel by asking the terrorist what we want to know? Can we get good intel by using the Army Field Manuel? Second: How do we know it is good? The answer to the first is yes we can get good intel from the enemy, however it isn't likely. The answer to the second question is we don't. Using HT/torture on the enemy has no guarantees either. There is no guarantee from any method or sources that provide good intel every time. Then should we even bother trying to get critical information from them? I say yes, when a situation calls for it.
The question then becomes how do we verify the intel we gain from the enemy? This is where all of the resources come in like puzzle pieces creating a picture. We have satellites, UAV's, ground intel, spies, inside sources, phone calls, computer records, money transfers, intel officers, and all our agencies, and other government info, as well as other tools. All of these tools and resources act as redundancies and filters to check new intel. Look what Tennent said about HT:
."George Tenet, who served as CIA director under Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, believes the enhanced interrogations program saved lives. He told CBS's "60 Minutes" in April 2007: 'I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us'."
One thing the memos make clear is that WB and HT are not to be performed unless an attack is imminent, meaning we are only missing a few more pieces of the puzzle. Interrogators are highly trained experts in cohersing the enemy to deluging vital information for what ever reason. Usually the higher up enemies are harder to break. The goal the whole time is to get the enemy to work with the interrogators.
One of the prime interrogators on the Sadaam Team talked about how most of the time they tried to work with the prisoners, one of his most effective threats was arresting the prisoner's relatives if they didn't talk. The soldier actually said that that is how they got the intel that finally tracked down Sadaam, and it was time crucial. The main tactic that revealed that vital info was the fear of the prisoner's family. When too much pressure (mental & physical) is applied prisoners will not be useful. However, when the right amount of pressure and fear is used it can be a very effective means to obtaining intel. The key is getting the prisoners to trust their interrogator. It is the interrogators job to measure and expose the weakness of those he is interrogating. Everyone has a breaking point, it is just a matter of applying the correct amount of pressure. An example of this is using caterpillars to gain intel. Most of the HT are harsh, and uncomfortable, and can really suck after a while. More than causing permanent damage or threaten their life, the HT become really inconvenient. This is an incentive for the enemy to divulge the needed intel so they can be rewarded. In discussing the effectiveness of HT Blair wrote:
"High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa'ida organization that was attacking this country."
Given that WB was used only for imminent danger, the possible gains outweigh the negatives of WB. By combining all intelligence with the information gained from the prisoner, and narrowing it down to specific details we can limit the possibility for errors. The new intel gained can be checked, and if it turns out bad, they can act on that too, by letting the prisoner know it was bad intel. We will learn more once the records of these cases are declassified and released to the public.
2. How do you maintain this "tool" without jeopardizing our efforts in the Middle East?
This is another excellent question and there are no easy answers. The purpose of the 9-11 Commission was to find out what went wrong and correct it. This was the conclusion of the Commission:
"We failed in understanding the necessity of human intelligence. We failed in understanding the surge of terrorist acts around the world...It was a failure of government, and we failed the American people and those who lost their lives."
Importance of human intel:
After the Commission, 2 primary things happened: 1. The creation of Homeland Security- providing an environment for intel to flow through different agencies. 2. Creation of detention centers- where the US could have access to human intelligence. Other programs were created that followed this theme, such as FISA, and monitoring money laundering.
Guantanamo became a prime location for gaining human intelligence, with 200 to 700 prisoners to chose from. One Colonel who has visited Gitmo 4 times and talked to many of the interrogators, has called Guantanamo the greatest repository for human intelligence. "The several interrogators I spoke with confirmed the use of approved interrogation techniques that focus mainly on trust-building and mutual respect to persuade detainees to talk." I know it is hard to remember but WB has only been done on 3 individuals, there are still 237 prisoners left to interrogate. 'Interrogate' has become a dirty word even though that is what the police and FBI do when they question suspects. The majority of interrogations are built on establishing a relationship with the prisoners. These are the words of Col. Cucullu, who visited 4 times:
"Interrogators, who have spent months and years building a rapport with the detainees, listen patiently to all of this and more. The detainees sit in upholstered love seats or recliners, usually munching on food brought by the interrogators and paid for out of their own pockets. They gobble up McDonald's and Subway sandwiches; one matronly interrogator is especially popular for the home-baked chocolate chip cookies she brings to the interrogation booth."
The Chief Interrogator at the Prison of Guantanamo is John Doe Rester, who has been doing interrogations for 35 years. Rester says that they have gained a lot of intel from the detainees.
"Why even bother to interrogate these guys? "Because they tell us of things that have enormous strategic value," says Rester. Background on al Qaeda recruiting, training, money-laundering, bogus front charities, bomb-making, sleeper-cell placement, types of operations, organizational long-term goals and objectives, and details of leadership personalities all come from Guantanamo interrogations."
Weekly Briefing from the soldiers at Gitmo:
Guantanamo has been a critical tool in gathering human intelligence on the War on Terror. Not only that, but reports claim we are still getting a ton of strategic intel from them. The information gained there has helped create the terror programs we now use, including FISA, and we have located recruitment camps thanks to their info.
To answer the second part of your question: doesn't Gitmo jeopardize our efforts in the Middle East? Remember I am the guy who gave a briefing on the war of ideas and my assessment on what I think Obama has been doing in regards to the Middle East. Having said that, the impact that Gitmo has on the war is theoretical on both sides. Sayyid Qutb was one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, and contributing founder of using Jihad as a military means. He went to school at the University of Northern Colorado in the 1950's! Qutb was so shocked by the sexual promiscuity & love of money in the U.S. that he turned back to a religion he had almost forgotten. Did Guantanamo contribute to why Islamic terrorists have continually attacked us, leading up to the World Trade Center? No matter what we do the extremists and those who join them will never accept us. Do 32 headlines about Abu Ghraib hurt us? The NYT leaked the money laundering program, which immediately became ineffective, and they leaked info an the surveillance programs. Diane Feinstein, in March came out in a hearing an announced that we were conducting Predator strikes in Pakistan. I think our media does far more damage to relations with the Middle East and has hurt us tactically in obtaining the intelligence that was lacking before 9-11.
As to the rest of the Muslim World, does Gitmo look bad for us? The answer is yes,but the next question is how bad? I don't think anyone can tell you for sure. Would Gitmo eliminate our chances to work with the Middle East, no. Having said all that, I believe that Gitmo has served its purpose. The PR mess in legal and political matters ties up all the intel we gain. I am suspicious however, of what will become of those detainees. I believe that Obama was told in definite terms how effective FISA was, thus he has expanded it. I believe that he may end up doing something similar with the detainees once he learns how much they contributed. Watch his actions not his words.
I hope this has answered your questions as to my reasoning. On a more personal note, I have gained a lot of my reasoning and conclusions from listening to soldiers just tell their story. Listening to the Chief interrogator in the hunt for Sadaam was eye opening for me. I like the military perspective because most of the time they come from a non political view and more of ''this is what happened to me' experience. I think it is worth reading their stories. One more thing, my LDS neighbor in Spokane was an Amy Interrogator in Iraq. I don't know a lot about his experiences, but he did share with the ward some of them, most of it was gospel based stuff. Still, I would love to get his persecutive and story on what he experienced.
PS: I noticed a theme in this long drawn out explanation, interrogation. Interrogators are very interesting to study. They are also key to obtaining human intelligence.
Thanks for reading, sorry it was so long, but I enjoyed researching and writing it, even if it did take all day.
Bye
