Cookies work better than waterboarding - true story - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmac2012 · #1 05-29-2009, 03:22 PM

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1901491,00.html

The assumption that Jihaddists have crossed over to some nether region of irreversible, pyschotic devotion to mayhem becomes self-fulfilling when the mindset and methods of his Lordship, Dick Cheney are applied.

Most of these characters are lost souls. That's why the promise of 70 virgins in exchange for turning yourself and others into pureed flesh actually gets traction.

Story here, dude was diabetic, was certain the Americans were straight from the devil. Interrogator gives him sugar free cookies, dude opens up like large print book.

Abu Jandal's guards were so intimidated by him, they wore masks to hide their identities and begged visitors not to refer to them by name in his presence. He had no intention of cooperating with the Americans; at their first meetings, he refused even to look at them and ranted about the evils of the West. Far from confirming al-Qaeda's involvement in 9/11, he insisted the attacks had been orchestrated by Israel's Mossad. While Abu Jandal was venting his spleen, Soufan noticed that he didn't touch any of the cookies that had been served with tea: "He was a diabetic and couldn't eat anything with sugar in it." At their next meeting, the Americans brought him some sugar-free cookies, a gesture that took the edge off Abu Jandal's angry demeanor. "We had showed him respect, and we had done this nice thing for him," Soufan recalls. "So he started talking to us instead of giving us lectures."

Dee8go · #2 05-29-2009, 03:27 PM

Amazing! So, you're suggesting that sugarfree cookies catch more flies than vinegar?

DieselAddict · #3 05-29-2009, 03:32 PM

Certainly one of those inconvenient true stories!

DieselAddict · #4 05-29-2009, 03:37 PM

Especially note this paragraph:

Quote:

Soufan, now an international-security consultant, has emerged as a powerful critic of the George W. Bush — era interrogation techniques; he has testified against them in congressional hearings and is an expert witness in cases against detainees. He has described the techniques as "borderline torture" and "un-American." His larger argument is that methods like waterboarding are wholly unnecessary — traditional interrogation methods, a combination of guile and graft, are the best way to break down even the most stubborn subjects. He told a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee that it was these methods, not the harsh techniques, that prompted al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah to give up the identities of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla. Bush Administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, had previously claimed that Abu Zubaydah supplied that information only after he was waterboarded. But Soufan says once the rough treatment began — administered by CIA-hired private contractors with no interrogation experience — Abu Zubaydah actually stopped cooperating.

bob_98sr5 · #5 05-29-2009, 03:40 PM

i'm trying to understand something here: when its waterboarding and a policy of the previous administration that you don't personally like, the results/information is suspect. but when there's no non-physical or mental torture involved and it fits your own political ideology, the information extracted from it is without reproach?

how do you know for sure?

my beef is this: dont take away any tools to extract information. cookies and the nice approach work for some, but not others.

Mistress · #6 05-29-2009, 03:41 PM

torture not necessary- just force feed them pickled pigs feet....

Dee8go · #7 05-29-2009, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob_98sr5

i'm trying to understand something here: when its waterboarding and a policy of the previous administration that you don't personally like, the results/information is suspect. but when there's no non-physical or mental torture involved and it fits your own political ideology, the information extracted from it is without reproach?

how do you know for sure?

my beef is this: dont take away any tools to extract information. cookies and the nice approach work for some, but not others.

For some a plate of cookies or a big, hot fudge sundae, sitting just beyond the prisoner's reach might be enough to get them to spill their guts.

cmac2012 · #8 05-29-2009, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob_98sr5

i'm trying to understand something here: when its waterboarding and a policy of the previous administration that you don't personally like, the results/information is suspect. but when there's no non-physical or mental torture involved and it fits your own political ideology, the information extracted from it is without reproach?
how do you know for sure?

my beef is this: dont take away any tools to extract information. cookies and the nice approach work for some, but not others.

Not sure what you mean. "No non-physical torture" means "physical torture," right?

Treating people like expendable dirt is never good. When they're in your custody as in this case, degrading, demeaning, or hurting them is a bit like putting a cat in a microwave.

DieselAddict · #9 05-29-2009, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob_98sr5

i'm trying to understand something here: when its waterboarding and a policy of the previous administration that you don't personally like, the results/information is suspect. but when there's no non-physical or mental torture involved and it fits your own political ideology, the information extracted from it is without reproach?

how do you know for sure?

my beef is this: dont take away any tools to extract information. cookies and the nice approach work for some, but not others.

I only care about the truth. Even though I'm opposed to torture on legal/moral grounds, if there was evidence that it has produced valuable information I'd be more open to it. Read the whole article if you want to know more. It appears that the experts in the interrogation field are opposed to torture on practical grounds, simply because it's counter-productive and not intelligent.

Quote:

TIME spoke with several interrogators who have worked for the U.S. military as well as others who have recently retired from the intelligence services (the CIA and FBI turned down requests for interviews with current staffers). All agreed with Soufan: the best way to get intelligence from even the most recalcitrant subject is to apply the subtle arts of interrogation rather than the blunt instruments of torture. "There is nothing intelligent about torture," says Eric Maddox, an Army staff sergeant whose book Mission: Black List #1 chronicles his interrogations in Iraq that ultimately led to the capture of Saddam Hussein. "If you have to inflict pain, then you've lost control of the situation, the subject and yourself."

cmac2012 · #10 05-29-2009, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I only care about the truth. Even though I'm opposed to torture on legal/moral grounds, if there was evidence that it has produced valuable information I'd be more open to it. Read the whole article if you want to know more. It appears that the experts in the interrogation field are opposed to torture on practical grounds, simply because it's counter-productive and not intelligent.

Would we accept testimony in any US courtroom that was obtained by torturing a prisoner? I don't think so. Primarily because it would be unreliable. IMO.

DieselAddict · #11 05-29-2009, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Would we accept testimony in any US courtroom that was obtained by torturing a prisoner? I don't think so. Primarily because it would be unreliable. IMO.

That's another problem with torture. Any info obtained with it is inadmissible in court. Kind of makes a weak case against the suspect, doesn't it?

MTI · #12 05-29-2009, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mistress

torture not necessary- just force feed them pickled pigs feet....

Only Real American Heroes Need Apply

Honus · #13 05-29-2009, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob_98sr5

i'm trying to understand something here: when its waterboarding and a policy of the previous administration that you don't personally like, the results/information is suspect. but when there's no non-physical or mental torture involved and it fits your own political ideology, the information extracted from it is without reproach?...

This is like a broken record (an expression that is quickly becoming obsolete, I suppose).

Every criticism of Bush and his policies is not based on politics or hatred of Bush. The criticism is often based on a good faith belief that he screwed up.

If you listen to the Brian Kilmeade types, it's as if anyone who opposes torture doesn't care about saving American lives. He and his ilk are too arrogant to accept the notion that people who disagree with him love this country as much as he does.

So the answer to your question is no, it's not all about politics. Opposition to waterboarding and other such techniques is based on (a) morality and (b) a desire to protect America. There are knowledgeable, patriotic people who think that torture endangers our national security. Why can't you accept that good faith difference of opinion? Why do you go directly to ad hominem?

Quote:

how do you know for sure?

my beef is this: dont take away any tools to extract information. cookies and the nice approach work for some, but not others.

I'm sure that's true.

Honus · #14 05-29-2009, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

That's another problem with torture. Any info obtained with it is inadmissible in court. Kind of makes a weak case against the suspect, doesn't it?

Admissibility is not the highest priority when the goal is to prevent an attack.

tankdriver · #15 05-29-2009, 04:45 PM

I saw a show on PBS about conscientious objectors. One of them was an interrogator at Gitmo. He had a detainee he talked religion with. The detainee convinced the guy that Christianity was not in line with what the interrogator was doing, and the interrogator eventually filed for CO status.

It's amazing what talking can accomplish.