Waterboarding memo revealed

[Steinway]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/1 ... 88008.html

[keaggy220]

Thank God we had a President who was serious about gaining crucial information from a handful of ultra bad guys at a critical time. My hat is off to Bush for the way he handled this situation. He made some tough choices and they paid off big in the was against terrorism.

I'm not sure why the ACLU wanted these documents released but I can tell you for a fact who is getting the most benefit from the released documents....

[Steinway]

What a brave and noble man Bush was to have condoned this torture activity. He has made all Americans safer from the threat of terrorism, hasn't he?

This will be one of his grand legacies and he will be remembered forever for decisions like this one.

[slofstra]

Thank God we had a President who was serious about gaining crucial information from a handful of ultra bad guys at a critical time.

There are just so many things wrong with that statement.
1) No crucial information was gained. If it was, they would have Osama, and they still don't.
2) It wasn't "a handful of ultra bad guys"; it was a very wide net, and more than a few innocents were caught in it.

It seems like more was lost than gained by suspending any form of due process. The USA should make up its mind as to what it is doing. If it is at war with Iraq, and acting as an invading army, then such tactics may be justified. If it is there to win the hearts and minds of the citizens of that country, and restore proper rule and good government, then such tactics are not.

[keaggy220]

Thank God we had a President who was serious about gaining crucial information from a handful of ultra bad guys at a critical time.

There are just so many things wrong with that statement.
1) No crucial information was gained. If it was, they would have Osama, and they still don't.
2) It wasn't "a handful of ultra bad guys"; it was a very wide net, and more than a few innocents were caught in it.

It seems like more was lost than gained by suspending any form of due process. The USA should make up its mind as to what it is doing. If it is at war with Iraq, and acting as an invading army, then such tactics may be justified. If it is there to win the hearts and minds of the citizens of that country, and restore proper rule and good government, then such tactics are not.

Obviously we define crucial information differently. I've read water boarding was performed on 3-7 war criminals and enhanced interrogation on 33. The number really doesn't matter to me anyway.

Iraq is a huge success - so I'm not following you on any harm the interrogations had with our winning effort.

[Barry]

1) No crucial information was gained. If it was, they would have Osama, and they still don't.

How could you possibly know that no crucial information was gained by any of these techniques? Catching Osama wasn't the sole objective. Preventing further attacks was certainly another one; and I'd be surprised if nothing was gained from any prisoners that helped in that endeavor.

[keaggy220]

What a brave and noble man Bush was to have condoned this torture activity. He has made all Americans safer from the threat of terrorism, hasn't he?

This will be one of his grand legacies and he will be remembered forever for decisions like this one.

Well I know you are being facetious, but I do believe Bush was brave in his decisions concerning interrogation and there is no question he made us safer. I do believe Bush made a tremendous amount of mistakes domestically, but I believe Iraq will go down as pure brilliance.

[Steinway]

What a brave and noble man Bush was to have condoned this torture activity. He has made all Americans safer from the threat of terrorism, hasn't he?

This will be one of his grand legacies and he will be remembered forever for decisions like this one.

Well I know you are being facetious, but I do believe Bush was brave in his decisions concerning interrogation and there is no question he made us safer. I do believe Bush made a tremendous amount of mistakes domestically, but I believe Iraq will go down as pure brilliance.

What a remarkable conclusion about Bush's Iraq adventure. If one counts the lives lost, the gigantic cost to us and the Iraqi people over all these years, it seems to me that the term "pure brilliance" is an amazing stretch.

I also find the term "brave" hardly descriptive of Bush's persona.

[keaggy220]

What a brave and noble man Bush was to have condoned this torture activity. He has made all Americans safer from the threat of terrorism, hasn't he?

This will be one of his grand legacies and he will be remembered forever for decisions like this one.

Well I know you are being facetious, but I do believe Bush was brave in his decisions concerning interrogation and there is no question he made us safer. I do believe Bush made a tremendous amount of mistakes domestically, but I believe Iraq will go down as pure brilliance.

What a remarkable conclusion about Bush's Iraq adventure. If one counts the lives lost, the gigantic cost to us and the Iraqi people over all these years, it seems to me that the term "pure brilliance" is an amazing stretch.

I also find the term "brave" hardly descriptive of Bush's persona.

War is hell and it will always have a high cost. So in that regard the Iraqi war was typical. It's the end result that matters.

[slofstra]

Thank God we had a President who was serious about gaining crucial information from a handful of ultra bad guys at a critical time.

There are just so many things wrong with that statement.
1) No crucial information was gained. If it was, they would have Osama, and they still don't.
2) It wasn't "a handful of ultra bad guys"; it was a very wide net, and more than a few innocents were caught in it.

It seems like more was lost than gained by suspending any form of due process. The USA should make up its mind as to what it is doing. If it is at war with Iraq, and acting as an invading army, then such tactics may be justified. If it is there to win the hearts and minds of the citizens of that country, and restore proper rule and good government, then such tactics are not.

Obviously we define crucial information differently. I've read water boarding was performed on 3-7 war criminals and enhanced interrogation on 33. The number really doesn't matter to me anyway.

Iraq is a huge success - so I'm not following you on any harm the interrogations had with our winning effort.

I'm talking about the suspension of any form of due process and detention off U.S. soil in Guantanamo.

Iraq was a huge disaster until at least mid 2007. This was followed by a 'sea change' in US strategy to win hearts and minds and protect the Iraqi people. The jury is still out on whether it was too little too late or not. (I'll have a better idea myself when I finish The Gamble).

[slofstra]

1) No crucial information was gained. If it was, they would have Osama, and they still don't.

How could you possibly know that no crucial information was gained by any of these techniques? Catching Osama wasn't the sole objective. Preventing further attacks was certainly another one; and I'd be surprised if nothing was gained from any prisoners that helped in that endeavor.

I'm sure some information was gained by this method. I very much doubt that information gained prevented attacks on US soil. If you want to dispute that point, I'll discourse further. It's likely that such information helped the US to complete the capture of the villain card deck. The question is whether the cost was worth it. The cost would be in winning hearts and minds in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. It's now acknowledged that the overall policy and resulting military strategy in Iraq was an unmitigated disaster until mid 2007.

[slofstra]

What a brave and noble man Bush was to have condoned this torture activity. He has made all Americans safer from the threat of terrorism, hasn't he?

This will be one of his grand legacies and he will be remembered forever for decisions like this one.

Well I know you are being facetious, but I do believe Bush was brave in his decisions concerning interrogation and there is no question he made us safer. I do believe Bush made a tremendous amount of mistakes domestically, but I believe Iraq will go down as pure brilliance.

No one within three levels of command of Bush would think of his approach, if he had one, as "pure brilliance". I do give him credit for acknowledging the situation straight up and changing course along with a wholesale change in personnel in early 2007.
Presidents aren't generally known for their brilliance in any case. A good President knows how to hire brilliant people and if he's really good, when to fire them.

[JackC]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21338.html

There is no good reason to disclose all of this. Why should we educate the people we capture about interrogation techiques?

Obama is worse that I ever thought possible in every area.

[Corlyss_D]

What a brave and noble man Bush was to have condoned this torture activity. He has made all Americans safer from the threat of terrorism, hasn't he?

This will be one of his grand legacies and he will be remembered forever for decisions like this one.

Moral preening, on your part and on that of the Obama administration. Most administrations have the good sense not to reveal these kinds of memos for 40-50 years, long after the personnel involved are in their graves. Not this amateurish crowd that sees everything in terms of their own political advantage. I consider this move by the administration nothing short of treason, by the constitutional definition of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Unfortunately, when the President does it, it may be stupid to the point of being dim-witted, but will never be judged treason. Equally unfortunately, stupidity is not an impeachable offense.

Torture is in the eye of the beholder. I don't consider it torture unless the guy dies under questioning before he gives up the information. You libs would rather say "So sorry!" and blame the intelligence system for failures to prevent such events as 9/11 than take reasonable precautions against loss of life. Your willingness to sacrifice you fellow Americans to your bloated sense of moral superiority makes me sick. See my signature.

[keaggy220]

Thank God we had a President who was serious about gaining crucial information from a handful of ultra bad guys at a critical time.

There are just so many things wrong with that statement.
1) No crucial information was gained. If it was, they would have Osama, and they still don't.
2) It wasn't "a handful of ultra bad guys"; it was a very wide net, and more than a few innocents were caught in it.

It seems like more was lost than gained by suspending any form of due process. The USA should make up its mind as to what it is doing. If it is at war with Iraq, and acting as an invading army, then such tactics may be justified. If it is there to win the hearts and minds of the citizens of that country, and restore proper rule and good government, then such tactics are not.

Obviously we define crucial information differently. I've read water boarding was performed on 3-7 war criminals and enhanced interrogation on 33. The number really doesn't matter to me anyway.

Iraq is a huge success - so I'm not following you on any harm the interrogations had with our winning effort.

I'm talking about the suspension of any form of due process and detention off U.S. soil in Guantanamo.

Iraq was a huge disaster until at least mid 2007. This was followed by a 'sea change' in US strategy to win hearts and minds and protect the Iraqi people. The jury is still out on whether it was too little too late or not. (I'll have a better idea myself when I finish The Gamble).

Suspension of due process for a time is pretty much required during war.

Iraq was a huge success early on - it was during the insurgency that we struggled. I would argue that even while we struggled there were benefits to the American people - and in fact the world. Every potential terrorist was recruited to move into Iraq to eventually be mowed down by coalition troops. Granted there were a lot of them so it took us a couple of years to kill them all, but they're dead now - so mission accomplished. I prefer this to having the potential terrorist being recruited to attack Canada, Europe or the U.S.

The only way Iraq will fail at this point will be total mismanagement at the hands of Obama. There is no way he will allow that to happen. Can you imagine? Obama is on record saying that Iraq is the least of his problems.

[Steinway]

What a brave and noble man Bush was to have condoned this torture activity. He has made all Americans safer from the threat of terrorism, hasn't he?

This will be one of his grand legacies and he will be remembered forever for decisions like this one.

Moral preening, on your part and on that of the Obama administration. Most administrations have the good sense not to reveal these kinds of memos for 40-50 years, long after the personnel involved are in their graves. Not this amateurish crowd that sees everything in terms of their own political advantage. I consider this move by the administration nothing short of treason, by the constitutional definition of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Unfortunately, when the President does it, it may be stupid to the point of being dim-witted, but will never be judged treason. Equally unfortunately, stupidity is not an impeachable offense.

Torture is in the eye of the beholder. I don't consider it torture unless the guy dies under questioning before he gives up the information. You libs would rather say "So sorry!" and blame the intelligence system for failures to prevent such events as 9/11 than take reasonable precautions against loss of life. Your willingness to sacrifice you fellow Americans to your bloated sense of moral superiority makes me sick. See my signature.

Corlyss..

How gracious of you to define torture that way. Also, your comments about we liberals willing to sacrifice our fellow Americans is the Mt.Everest of Chutzpah. The sacrifices of our young people were offered up by Bush/Cheney, two real American heroes.

[Steinway]

What a brave and noble man Bush was to have condoned this torture activity. He has made all Americans safer from the threat of terrorism, hasn't he?

This will be one of his grand legacies and he will be remembered forever for decisions like this one.

Moral preening, on your part and on that of the Obama administration. Most administrations have the good sense not to reveal these kinds of memos for 40-50 years, long after the personnel involved are in their graves. Not this amateurish crowd that sees everything in terms of their own political advantage. I consider this move by the administration nothing short of treason, by the constitutional definition of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Unfortunately, when the President does it, it may be stupid to the point of being dim-witted, but will never be judged treason. Equally unfortunately, stupidity is not an impeachable offense.

Torture is in the eye of the beholder. I don't consider it torture unless the guy dies under questioning before he gives up the information. You libs would rather say "So sorry!" and blame the intelligence system for failures to prevent such events as 9/11 than take reasonable precautions against loss of life. Your willingness to sacrifice you fellow Americans to your bloated sense of moral superiority makes me sick. See my signature.

Corlyss..

How gracious of you to define torture that way. Also, your comments about we liberals willing to sacrifice our fellow Americans is the Mt.Everest of Chutzpah. The sacrifices of our young people were offered up by Bush/Cheney, two real American heroes.

I was thinking about your wonderful description of justifying torture, and thought back to 1951 in Korea, where two of the crews in my outfit were shot down and captured. I was lucky to have survived that problem, but I'm really comforted to know that if I had been captured, anything the North Koreans would have subjected me to would have been okay with you, as long as I didn't die.

You are a remarkable person and very fortunate to be able to sit in front of your computer in Utah and tell us what's good and bad about things like fighting wars, torture and the agony of so many people in the real world.

[JackC]

What a brave and noble man Bush was to have condoned this torture activity. He has made all Americans safer from the threat of terrorism, hasn't he?

This will be one of his grand legacies and he will be remembered forever for decisions like this one.

Moral preening, on your part and on that of the Obama administration. Most administrations have the good sense not to reveal these kinds of memos for 40-50 years, long after the personnel involved are in their graves. Not this amateurish crowd that sees everything in terms of their own political advantage. I consider this move by the administration nothing short of treason, by the constitutional definition of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Unfortunately, when the President does it, it may be stupid to the point of being dim-witted, but will never be judged treason. Equally unfortunately, stupidity is not an impeachable offense.

Torture is in the eye of the beholder. I don't consider it torture unless the guy dies under questioning before he gives up the information. You libs would rather say "So sorry!" and blame the intelligence system for failures to prevent such events as 9/11 than take reasonable precautions against loss of life. Your willingness to sacrifice you fellow Americans to your bloated sense of moral superiority makes me sick. See my signature.

Corlyss..

How gracious of you to define torture that way. Also, your comments about we liberals willing to sacrifice our fellow Americans is the Mt.Everest of Chutzpah. The sacrifices of our young people were offered up by Bush/Cheney, two real American heroes.

I always love it when the anti-war crowd starts crowing aboyt their deep concernn for the lives of our troops, as if saving the lives of American troops had anything at all to do with their cause.

[Steinway]

Thank God we had a President who was serious about gaining crucial information from a handful of ultra bad guys at a critical time.

There are just so many things wrong with that statement.
1) No crucial information was gained. If it was, they would have Osama, and they still don't.
2) It wasn't "a handful of ultra bad guys"; it was a very wide net, and more than a few innocents were caught in it.

It seems like more was lost than gained by suspending any form of due process. The USA should make up its mind as to what it is doing. If it is at war with Iraq, and acting as an invading army, then such tactics may be justified. If it is there to win the hearts and minds of the citizens of that country, and restore proper rule and good government, then such tactics are not.

Obviously we define crucial information differently. I've read water boarding was performed on 3-7 war criminals and enhanced interrogation on 33. The number really doesn't matter to me anyway.

Iraq is a huge success - so I'm not following you on any harm the interrogations had with our winning effort.

I'm talking about the suspension of any form of due process and detention off U.S. soil in Guantanamo.

Iraq was a huge disaster until at least mid 2007. This was followed by a 'sea change' in US strategy to win hearts and minds and protect the Iraqi people. The jury is still out on whether it was too little too late or not. (I'll have a better idea myself when I finish The Gamble).

Suspension of due process for a time is pretty much required during war.

Iraq was a huge success early on - it was during the insurgency that we struggled. I would argue that even while we struggled there were benefits to the American people - and in fact the world. Every potential terrorist was recruited to move into Iraq to eventually be mowed down by coalition troops. Granted there were a lot of them so it took us a couple of years to kill them all, but they're dead now - so mission accomplished. I prefer this to having the potential terrorist being recruited to attack Canada, Europe or the U.S.

The only way Iraq will fail at this point will be total mismanagement at the hands of Obama. There is no way he will allow that to happen. Can you imagine? Obama is on record saying that Iraq is the least of his problems.

Mission accomplished, Keaggy??

18 American kids died yesterday in Iraq. Try telling their loved ones about the accomplished mission.

[Steinway]

What a brave and noble man Bush was to have condoned this torture activity. He has made all Americans safer from the threat of terrorism, hasn't he?

This will be one of his grand legacies and he will be remembered forever for decisions like this one.

Moral preening, on your part and on that of the Obama administration. Most administrations have the good sense not to reveal these kinds of memos for 40-50 years, long after the personnel involved are in their graves. Not this amateurish crowd that sees everything in terms of their own political advantage. I consider this move by the administration nothing short of treason, by the constitutional definition of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Unfortunately, when the President does it, it may be stupid to the point of being dim-witted, but will never be judged treason. Equally unfortunately, stupidity is not an impeachable offense.

Torture is in the eye of the beholder. I don't consider it torture unless the guy dies under questioning before he gives up the information. You libs would rather say "So sorry!" and blame the intelligence system for failures to prevent such events as 9/11 than take reasonable precautions against loss of life. Your willingness to sacrifice you fellow Americans to your bloated sense of moral superiority makes me sick. See my signature.

Corlyss..

How gracious of you to define torture that way. Also, your comments about we liberals willing to sacrifice our fellow Americans is the Mt.Everest of Chutzpah. The sacrifices of our young people were offered up by Bush/Cheney, two real American heroes.

I always love it when the anti-war crowd starts crowing aboyt their deep concernn for the lives of our troops, as if saving the lives of American troops had anything at all to do with their cause.

Jack..

Have you ever been in combat? Have you ever been shot at? Have you ever had the experience of killing another human being?

Are you accusing me of lying about my concern for American lives lost and that I have a different agenda?

[JackC]

Thank God we had a President who was serious about gaining crucial information from a handful of ultra bad guys at a critical time.

There are just so many things wrong with that statement.
1) No crucial information was gained. If it was, they would have Osama, and they still don't.
2) It wasn't "a handful of ultra bad guys"; it was a very wide net, and more than a few innocents were caught in it.

It seems like more was lost than gained by suspending any form of due process. The USA should make up its mind as to what it is doing. If it is at war with Iraq, and acting as an invading army, then such tactics may be justified. If it is there to win the hearts and minds of the citizens of that country, and restore proper rule and good government, then such tactics are not.

Obviously we define crucial information differently. I've read water boarding was performed on 3-7 war criminals and enhanced interrogation on 33. The number really doesn't matter to me anyway.

Iraq is a huge success - so I'm not following you on any harm the interrogations had with our winning effort.

I'm talking about the suspension of any form of due process and detention off U.S. soil in Guantanamo.

Iraq was a huge disaster until at least mid 2007. This was followed by a 'sea change' in US strategy to win hearts and minds and protect the Iraqi people. The jury is still out on whether it was too little too late or not. (I'll have a better idea myself when I finish The Gamble).

Suspension of due process for a time is pretty much required during war.

Iraq was a huge success early on - it was during the insurgency that we struggled. I would argue that even while we struggled there were benefits to the American people - and in fact the world. Every potential terrorist was recruited to move into Iraq to eventually be mowed down by coalition troops. Granted there were a lot of them so it took us a couple of years to kill them all, but they're dead now - so mission accomplished. I prefer this to having the potential terrorist being recruited to attack Canada, Europe or the U.S.

The only way Iraq will fail at this point will be total mismanagement at the hands of Obama. There is no way he will allow that to happen. Can you imagine? Obama is on record saying that Iraq is the least of his problems.

Mission accomplished, Keaggy??

18 American kids died yesterday in Iraq. Try telling their loved ones about the accomplished mission.

They were not Americans, so you can relax.

[slofstra]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21338.html

There is no good reason to disclose all of this. Why should we educate the people we capture about interrogation techiques?

Obama is worse that I ever thought possible in every area.

Because the disclosure of actual information counteracts the rumour and innuendo flying around about the CIA and the US.

[JackC]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21338.html

There is no good reason to disclose all of this. Why should we educate the people we capture about interrogation techiques?

Obama is worse that I ever thought possible in every area.

Because the disclosure of actual information counteracts the rumour and innuendo flying around about the CIA and the US.

So Obama did this because once the memos are released they will confirm that the world is wrong about the CIA and the US???? You're joking right?

[slofstra]

Suspension of due process for a time is pretty much required during war.

That is true when you are at war with another sovereign country.

Are you folks saying that the USA is at war with Iraq, or any other country?

Every potential terrorist was recruited to move into Iraq to eventually be mowed down by coalition troops.

You're just making this up. How many potential terrorists do you think there are? There are billions. They are also potential non-terrorists.

[slofstra]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21338.html

There is no good reason to disclose all of this. Why should we educate the people we capture about interrogation techiques?

Obama is worse that I ever thought possible in every area.

Because the disclosure of actual information counteracts the rumour and innuendo flying around about the CIA and the US.

So Obama did this because once the memos are released they will confirm that the world is wrong about the CIA and the US???? You're joking right?

It's a propaganda battle. Most people don't see in black and white.

[slofstra]

I consider this move by the administration nothing short of treason, by the constitutional definition of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Unfortunately, when the President does it, it may be stupid to the point of being dim-witted, but will never be judged treason. Equally unfortunately, stupidity is not an impeachable offense.

It'd be interesting who you define as "the enemy". It's possible that your view is at odds with US foreign policy. Last I checked the US had not declared war on any sovereign nation.

[JackC]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21338.html

There is no good reason to disclose all of this. Why should we educate the people we capture about interrogation techiques?

Obama is worse that I ever thought possible in every area.

Because the disclosure of actual information counteracts the rumour and innuendo flying around about the CIA and the US.

So Obama did this because once the memos are released they will confirm that the world is wrong about the CIA and the US???? You're joking right?

It's a propaganda battle. Most people don't see in black and white.

Oh yeah, that is why there was so much debate among Dems about whether the Bush adminstration used torture, it was not black and white.

[keaggy220]

Thank God we had a President who was serious about gaining crucial information from a handful of ultra bad guys at a critical time.

There are just so many things wrong with that statement.
1) No crucial information was gained. If it was, they would have Osama, and they still don't.
2) It wasn't "a handful of ultra bad guys"; it was a very wide net, and more than a few innocents were caught in it.

It seems like more was lost than gained by suspending any form of due process. The USA should make up its mind as to what it is doing. If it is at war with Iraq, and acting as an invading army, then such tactics may be justified. If it is there to win the hearts and minds of the citizens of that country, and restore proper rule and good government, then such tactics are not.

Obviously we define crucial information differently. I've read water boarding was performed on 3-7 war criminals and enhanced interrogation on 33. The number really doesn't matter to me anyway.

Iraq is a huge success - so I'm not following you on any harm the interrogations had with our winning effort.

I'm talking about the suspension of any form of due process and detention off U.S. soil in Guantanamo.

Iraq was a huge disaster until at least mid 2007. This was followed by a 'sea change' in US strategy to win hearts and minds and protect the Iraqi people. The jury is still out on whether it was too little too late or not. (I'll have a better idea myself when I finish The Gamble).

Suspension of due process for a time is pretty much required during war.

Iraq was a huge success early on - it was during the insurgency that we struggled. I would argue that even while we struggled there were benefits to the American people - and in fact the world. Every potential terrorist was recruited to move into Iraq to eventually be mowed down by coalition troops. Granted there were a lot of them so it took us a couple of years to kill them all, but they're dead now - so mission accomplished. I prefer this to having the potential terrorist being recruited to attack Canada, Europe or the U.S.

The only way Iraq will fail at this point will be total mismanagement at the hands of Obama. There is no way he will allow that to happen. Can you imagine? Obama is on record saying that Iraq is the least of his problems.

Mission accomplished, Keaggy??

18 American kids died yesterday in Iraq. Try telling their loved ones about the accomplished mission.

After D-Day tens of thousands of American troops died, but the outcome was already decided. So what's your point?

In a few months I plan on doing a little research to track the number of U.S. casualties since Obama handed our enemy the U.S. play book. I hope what I'm thinking is wrong.

[Barry]

I consider this move by the administration nothing short of treason, by the constitutional definition of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Unfortunately, when the President does it, it may be stupid to the point of being dim-witted, but will never be judged treason. Equally unfortunately, stupidity is not an impeachable offense.

It'd be interesting who you define as "the enemy". It's possible that your view is at odds with US foreign policy. Last I checked the US had not declared war on any sovereign nation.

Who says enemies have to be in the form of sovereign nations? We've clearly been dealing with some enemies that don't fit that description in recent years.

[JackC]

I consider this move by the administration nothing short of treason, by the constitutional definition of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Unfortunately, when the President does it, it may be stupid to the point of being dim-witted, but will never be judged treason. Equally unfortunately, stupidity is not an impeachable offense.

It'd be interesting who you define as "the enemy". It's possible that your view is at odds with US foreign policy. Last I checked the US had not declared war on any sovereign nation.

Who says enemies have to be in the form of sovereign nations? We've clearly been dealing with some enemies that don't fit that description in recent years.

Precisely. It makes me ill when I think of the horror that was 9/11, which was not perpetrated by a "sovereign nation", and now see that people are still willing to consider the Islamic terror movement as if it were just the acts of a few like-minded crinimals chatting on the net.

It's looking more and more as if Pakistan is about to come apart, at which point the risk of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of these "criminals" will become very real indeed. Good luck to us trying to track them down. By that time there will be every little left of the CIA, and all what is left will be able to do will be to give miranda warnings to anyone we might catch.

[keaggy220]

Suspension of due process for a time is pretty much required during war.

That is true when you are at war with another sovereign country.

Are you folks saying that the USA is at war with Iraq, or any other country?

Every potential terrorist was recruited to move into Iraq to eventually be mowed down by coalition troops.

You're just making this up. How many potential terrorists do you think there are? There are billions. They are also potential non-terrorists.

You'll have to explain your comment about a sovereign nation.

My statement regarding terrorists was hyperbole, but it's common knowledge that Islamic extremists are responsible for most incidents of terror and coalition troops have killed tens of thousands of these extremists in the theater.

[slofstra]

I consider this move by the administration nothing short of treason, by the constitutional definition of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Unfortunately, when the President does it, it may be stupid to the point of being dim-witted, but will never be judged treason. Equally unfortunately, stupidity is not an impeachable offense.

It'd be interesting who you define as "the enemy". It's possible that your view is at odds with US foreign policy. Last I checked the US had not declared war on any sovereign nation.

Who says enemies have to be in the form of sovereign nations? We've clearly been dealing with some enemies that don't fit that description in recent years.

Absolutely correct. And doing a horrible job as Iraq has made clear. Using conventional warfare techniques against insurgencies. The whole idea of a "War on Terror" strategy is turning out to be a huge mistake, as Chanukah's post on Pakistan makes clear. Basically, thanks to the USA the western world now has a billion terrorists instead of a few thousand. Guantanamo got you information on a few terrorists and created an order of magnitude more new ones.

The approach did not change with Obama, but it changed earlier. With General Patraeus approach in Iraq of trying to win hearts and minds. Is it too little too late? I can't wait to finish the book.

[slofstra]

Suspension of due process for a time is pretty much required during war.

That is true when you are at war with another sovereign country.

Are you folks saying that the USA is at war with Iraq, or any other country?

Every potential terrorist was recruited to move into Iraq to eventually be mowed down by coalition troops.

You're just making this up. How many potential terrorists do you think there are? There are billions. They are also potential non-terrorists.

You'll have to explain your comment about a sovereign nation.

My statement regarding terrorists was hyperbole, but it's common knowledge that Islamic extremists are responsible for most incidents of terror and coalition troops have killed tens of thousands of these extremists in the theater.

Most Iraqi citizens are not terrorists. If you are truly at war with another sovereign nation, obviously the rules change on what you can or can't do, and you quite justifiably have considerable latitude in using violence. At the other extreme, if you are involved in a policing or peace-keeping action then the hope is that some form of due process is involved in determining and separating malignant forces from the rest of the population. The problem with the USA is that they have been talking out of both sides of their mouth. On the one hand they say they're in Iraq to help the ordinary person, in effect a policing action. On the other hand the US has said they're engaged in a "war", which provides licence for all kinds of extraordinary violent action. It became quite apparent that as a result of the US approach in Iraq that the entire nation had descended into pure anarchy; in particular Shi-ites were cleansing the Sunni's with the US keeping their hands off completely.
For example, US and Shi-ite patrols would go through an Iraqi Sunni neighbourhood and confiscate all the weapons found. Then later at night the Shi-ites would go back in on their own and kill the now defenceless Sunnis. These were not isolated episodes. The Shi-ites cleaned out most of the Sunni neighbourhoods in Iraq.

The problem with the US approach is that they were attempting to use conventional warfare techniques to solve what was really a policing/ peace-keeping problem which had to be solved in co-operation with the Iraqi's.
Strategies like Guantanamo totally destroy attempts to build trust when dealing with a population struggling with insurgency actions.

[Barry]

The approach did not change with Obama, but it changed earlier. With General Patraeus approach in Iraq of trying to win hearts and minds.

I think I just told you that a couple weeks ago on here.

I've said all along that Bush and the others in his administration and the military that were responsible for planning the post-invasion portion of the Iraq operation were brutally incompetent in that endeavor. What we may disagree on is whether the underlying problem was the decision to go into Iraq in the first place or the terrible job of planning for going into Iraq (or lack of planning as the case may be). We'll never know what things would look like in Iraq and that wider region today had the right number of troops been sent with a proper counter-insurgency strategy under the generals who have the most expertise in that strategy in the first place. Things were sure looking good in the early months of the war before it became apparent that we weren't prepared for an insurgency and that we had lost control of the situation on the ground. Iran had shelved their nuke program (if the CIA estimate released a couple years ago is to be believed), Libya gave up its WMD program and came back to the real world, and a couple other nations in that region started talking about democratic reforms.

As to your question on whether the change to Petraeus and his new strategy was too late, I don't think you'll get the answer in that or any other book. Only time will tell. Very few people were willing to accept that we could get from where we were in 2004-2006 to where we are now in Iraq. So saying with any certainty what Iraq will look like and whether they'll be allied with us a decade or a generation from now is a fool's game.

[slofstra]

The approach did not change with Obama, but it changed earlier. With General Patraeus approach in Iraq of trying to win hearts and minds.

I think I just told you that a couple weeks ago on here.

I've said all along that Bush and the others in his administration and the military that were responsible for planning the post-invasion portion of the Iraq operation were brutally incompetent in that endeavor. What we may disagree on is whether the underlying problem was the decision to go into Iraq in the first place or the terrible job of planning for going into Iraq (or lack of planning as the case may be). We'll never know what things would look like in Iraq and that wider region today had the right number of troops been sent with a proper counter-insurgency strategy under the generals who have the most expertise in that strategy in the first place. Things were sure looking good in the early months of the war before it became apparent that we weren't prepared for an insurgency and that we had lost control of the situation on the ground. Iran had shelved their nuke program (if the CIA estimate released a couple years ago is to be believed), Libya gave up its WMD program and came back to the real world, and a couple other nations in that region started talking about democratic reforms.

As to your question on whether the change to Petraeus and his new strategy was too late, I don't think you'll get the answer in that or any other book. Only time will tell. Very few people were willing to accept that we could get from where we were in 2004-2006 to where we are now in Iraq. So saying with any certainty what Iraq will look like and whether they'll be allied with us a decade or a generation from now is a fool's game.

The problems turned out to be strategic issues, not tactical ones. Of course, bad strategy invalidates the tactics. No such things as good tactics with a bad strategy. I think the faults in the strategy may run as deep as deciding to have a "War on Terror". But that's highly tentative on my part, and with some recent thinking on that point I find that a lot of ground has already been covered on that issue.
See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror
See also: http://www.icj.org

Well, I haven't finished the book, so I don't know how much of an answer I will get, as you indicate. There's also the question of how much of an answer the book's author thinks he has, as opposed to what he actually has. Years of experience in business has made me skeptical of the benefits of the "sea change" approach. And this book does have a sales pitch-ey feel to it.
But when I finish the book I'll at least be closer to the present overall state of knowledge which I readily admit I don't hold a candle to you on. (Not that superior knowledge is a guarantee of coming up with the right answer).

I really recommend this book; anyone who spends time posting on these topics here will just lap it up.

[RebLem]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21338.html

There is no good reason to disclose all of this. Why should we educate the people we capture about interrogation techiques?

Obama is worse that I ever thought possible in every area.

What you are saying is that liars should have the presumption of virtue and truth tellers the presumption of disloyalty. You are saying, in effect, that Republicans have the right to lie and Democrats don't have any right to tell the truth or defend their policies, even when one of them got elected president with 365 electoral votes. That strikes me as morally perverse in the extreme.

[John F]

Torture is in the eye of the beholder.

Until you gouge out his eyes. Are you saying that what Cornwall does to Gloucester in that harrowing scene in "King Lear" isn't torture? If it isn't, what's the point?

I don't consider it torture unless the guy dies under questioning before he gives up the information.

By definition, torture is the inflicting of physical and mental agony on a living person, whether he/she lives or dies from it. In your view, then, there's really no such thing as torture. It is to laff.

You libs would rather say "So sorry!" and blame the intelligence system for failures to prevent such events as 9/11 than take reasonable precautions against loss of life. Your willingness to sacrifice you fellow Americans to your bloated sense of moral superiority makes me sick. See my signature.

So Machiavelli is your guiding star? I should think that would put you at odds with liberals, conservatives, anybody who believes that the conduct of people and nations has a moral dimension and that the difference between right and wrong exists and matters. If you are truly amoral, then, as your signature proclaims, I can see why any attempt to raise moral issues would "make you sick." But really, that's your problem.

You are speaking about at least two people here, myself and evidently Cliftwood, and possibly more, who have put our own lives on the line serving our country, your country, in times of war. I'm not saying this to claim moral superiority over anyone, but to show how offensive it is for you to lecture us about "sacrificing you fellow Americans" [sic], when it is ourselves who we actually did once offer to sacrifice. If Americans owe their safety in any way to the armed forces, then for part of your life at least, you have owed your own safety to us, personally. What do you say to that?

[Barry]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21338.html

There is no good reason to disclose all of this. Why should we educate the people we capture about interrogation techiques?

Obama is worse that I ever thought possible in every area.

What you are saying is that liars should have the presumption of virtue and truth tellers the presumption of disloyalty. You are saying, in effect, that Republicans have the right to lie and Democrats don't have any right to tell the truth or defend their policies, even when one of them got elected president with 365 electoral votes. That strikes me as morally perverse in the extreme.

That may be what YOU are saying, but don't pawn it off on anyone else. Keeping these types of matters classified was a bi-partisan undertaking throughout the entire Cold War. It's certainly consistent with your usual line of reasoning though.

[JackC]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21338.html

There is no good reason to disclose all of this. Why should we educate the people we capture about interrogation techiques?

Obama is worse that I ever thought possible in every area.

What you are saying is that liars should have the presumption of virtue and truth tellers the presumption of disloyalty. You are saying, in effect, that Republicans have the right to lie and Democrats don't have any right to tell the truth or defend their policies, even when one of them got elected president with 365 electoral votes. That strikes me as morally perverse in the extreme.

Maybe you had better stop trying to rephrase what I say, because you don't seem to have a clue what it is.

[Barry]

I don't consider it torture unless the guy dies under questioning before he gives up the information.

By definition, torture is the inflicting of physical and mental agony on a living person, whether he/she lives or dies from it. In your view, then, there's really no such thing as torture. It is to laff.

I'm less hesitant than Corlyss to admit that at least waterboarding is a form of torture. I don't think arguing about the definition of the word is fruitful. The more relevant point, IMO, is that all forms of torture are not equal. Comparing stripping someone and putting them in a small cell with a bug for a couple hours or slapping someone to the kinds of things that were done to Senator McCain or the POWs held by the Nazis and Japanese and plenty of modern countries as well is a bogus argument.

The memos made clear that in ALL cases, there was to be NO physical agony; and only in the most extreme cases, when important information about future attacks is thought to be possessed, is mental "agony" to be used; and I'm referring to waterboarding, since I think it's fair to call simulated drowning a form of mental agony. I suppose you can argue that some of the other things mentioned amount to mental "agony," but I think it's stretching the word a bit. They are minor forms of torture for the most part that are intended to scare and make the prisoner uncomfortable; not place him in "agony." And when we've got a prisoner who our intelligence officials believe has information that could be relevant to saving American lives, I don't think that making them uncomfortable or scaring them, AFTER less harsh methods are tried and fail, is unreasonable. It can become a liablility when it's aired publicly though for obvious propaganda-related reasons.

And I'll stress that I think these methods should be permissible ONLY in cases where we think we have someone with important information about future activities. They shouldn't ever be used as a form of punishment.

[RebLem]

What a brave and noble man Bush was to have condoned this torture activity. He has made all Americans safer from the threat of terrorism, hasn't he?

This will be one of his grand legacies and he will be remembered forever for decisions like this one.

Moral preening, on your part and on that of the Obama administration. Most administrations have the good sense not to reveal these kinds of memos for 40-50 years, long after the personnel involved are in their graves. Not this amateurish crowd that sees everything in terms of their own political advantage. I consider this move by the administration nothing short of treason, by the constitutional definition of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Unfortunately, when the President does it, it may be stupid to the point of being dim-witted, but will never be judged treason. Equally unfortunately, stupidity is not an impeachable offense.

Torture is in the eye of the beholder. I don't consider it torture unless the guy dies under questioning before he gives up the information. You libs would rather say "So sorry!" and blame the intelligence system for failures to prevent such events as 9/11 than take reasonable precautions against loss of life. Your willingness to sacrifice you fellow Americans to your bloated sense of moral superiority makes me sick. See my signature.

So, in other words, a crown of thorns is OK? Maybe Cheney missed the boat by not clearing those Roman soldiers in time for Good Friday?

As for personal risk, I live about 6 miles from the largest storage depot for nuclear weapons, about 6,000 of them, in fact, on the planet. They are somewhere inside the Sandia Mountains, very near the Albuquerque International Sunport (that's what we call our commercial airport) and Kirtland AFB. It is considered a potential major terrorist target. I'm in a lot more danger than anyone in, say, Logan, Utah.

[nut-job]

Authorizing waterboarding of an acknowledged terrorist is one thing. The Bush administration did far worse, subjecting innocent people to torture. For instance, a Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, was interdicted at a US airport, sent to Syria where he was detailed for a year and subject to torture (real torture). All this because he had some contact with someone else who was suspected of contacts with terrorists. He was arrested because someone else who was probably being tortured was shown a photo of Arar and said he recognized him. Arar was subsequently cleared by the government of Canada, which also confirmed that he was tortured in Syria. Then there's Abu Garib...

[Steinway]

Nutjob..

You have to assume, based on the posts so far on the subject of torture to prisoners, that there a people on this forum who agree with the Corlyss doctrine, namely, as long as the recipient doesn't die, anything goes.

It's interesting to quote John McCain, who, when asked about his thinking regarding torture, said, " America must not use this. It's not about the terrorists, it's about us".

Try to imagine, if you can, being an American soldier, captured by the enemy such as a terrorist group, or the Taliban, knowing that people who feel like Corlyss have no problem with your captors doing anything their sick minds can conjure up to get you to speak up, just short of your dying.

Comforting thought, isn't it?

[Steinway]

Torture is in the eye of the beholder.

Until you gouge out his eyes. Are you saying that what Cornwall does to Gloucester in that harrowing scene in "King Lear" isn't torture? If it isn't, what's the point?

I don't consider it torture unless the guy dies under questioning before he gives up the information.

By definition, torture is the inflicting of physical and mental agony on a living person, whether he/she lives or dies from it. In your view, then, there's really no such thing as torture. It is to laff.

You libs would rather say "So sorry!" and blame the intelligence system for failures to prevent such events as 9/11 than take reasonable precautions against loss of life. Your willingness to sacrifice you fellow Americans to your bloated sense of moral superiority makes me sick. See my signature.

So Machiavelli is your guiding star? I should think that would put you at odds with liberals, conservatives, anybody who believes that the conduct of people and nations has a moral dimension and that the difference between right and wrong exists and matters. If you are truly amoral, then, as your signature proclaims, I can see why any attempt to raise moral issues would "make you sick." But really, that's your problem.

You are speaking about at least two people here, myself and evidently Cliftwood, and possibly more, who have put our own lives on the line serving our country, your country, in times of war. I'm not saying this to claim moral superiority over anyone, but to show how offensive it is for you to lecture us about "sacrificing you fellow Americans" [sic], when it is ourselves who we actually did once offer to sacrifice. If Americans owe their safety in any way to the armed forces, then for part of your life at least, you have owed your own safety to us, personally. What do you say to that?

John..

You know , of course, that folks like you and me are labeled here as among the ones who want to bring down America, and the self-proclaimed patriots, who sit in front of their computers in comfort and spend a considerable amount of their time dissing our new President are hoping his work to salvage America will fail and approve of every impediment thrown in his way by the Republicans.

You think they give a damn about what our military service means?

[JackC]

Nutjob..

You have to assume, based on the posts so far on the subject of torture to prisoners, that there a people on this forum who agree with the Corlyss doctrine, namely, as long as the recipient doesn't die, anything goes.

You can assume anything you like, if it is more comforting to you, but it has nothing to do with the truth.

A better alternative might be to read what people actually say and let people speak from themselves.

[Barry]

Washington Post
The CIA's Questioning Worked
By Marc A. Thiessen
Tuesday, April 21, 2009

In releasing highly classified documents on the CIA interrogation program last week, President Obama declared that the techniques used to question captured terrorists "did not make us safer." This is patently false. The proof is in the memos Obama made public -- in sections that have gone virtually unreported in the media.

Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that "the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques." The memo continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' " Once the techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."

Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles." KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. The memo explains that "information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the 'Second Wave.' " In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York.

The memo notes that "nterrogations of [Abu] Zubaydah -- again, once enhanced techniques were employed -- furnished detailed information regarding al Qaeda's 'organizational structure, key operatives, and modus operandi' and identified KSM as the mastermind of the September 11 attacks." This information helped the intelligence community plan the operation that captured KSM. It went on: "Zubaydah and KSM also supplied important information about al-Zarqawi and his network" in Iraq, which helped our operations against al-Qaeda in that country.

All this confirms information that I and others have described publicly. But just as the memo begins to describe previously undisclosed details of what enhanced interrogations achieved, the page is almost entirely blacked out. The Obama administration released pages of unredacted classified information on the techniques used to question captured terrorist leaders but pulled out its black marker when it came to the details of what those interrogations achieved.

Yet there is more information confirming the program's effectiveness. The Office of Legal Counsel memo states "we discuss only a small fraction of the important intelligence CIA interrogators have obtained from KSM" and notes that "intelligence derived from CIA detainees has resulted in more than 6,000 intelligence reports and, in 2004, accounted for approximately half of the [Counterterrorism Center's] reporting on al Qaeda." The memos refer to other classified documents -- including an "Effectiveness Memo" and an "IG Report," which explain how "the use of enhanced techniques in the interrogations of KSM, Zubaydah and others . . . has yielded critical information." Why didn't Obama officials release this information as well? Because they know that if the public could see the details of the techniques side by side with evidence that the program saved American lives, the vast majority would support continuing it.

Critics claim that enhanced techniques do not produce good intelligence because people will say anything to get the techniques to stop. But the memos note that, "as Abu Zubaydah himself explained with respect to enhanced techniques, 'brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardship." In other words, the terrorists are called by their faith to resist as far as they can -- and once they have done so, they are free to tell everything they know. This is because of their belief that "Islam will ultimately dominate the world and that this victory is inevitable." The job of the interrogator is to safely help the terrorist do his duty to Allah, so he then feels liberated to speak freely.

This is the secret to the program's success. And the Obama administration's decision to share this secret with the terrorists threatens our national security. Al-Qaeda will use this information and other details in the memos to train its operatives to resist questioning and withhold information on planned attacks. CIA Director Leon Panetta said during his confirmation hearings that even the Obama administration might use some of the enhanced techniques in a "ticking time bomb" scenario. What will the administration do now that it has shared the limits of our interrogation techniques with the enemy? President Obama's decision to release these documents is one of the most dangerous and irresponsible acts ever by an American president during a time of war -- and Americans may die as a result.

The writer, a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, served in senior positions in the Pentagon and the White House from 2001 to 2009, most recently as chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02818.html

[nut-job]

I am not impressed with the vague claims that we are safer because we torture. Even if this were true, I would rather walk around with a slightly greater risk than than know that my country is torturing people on my behalf. The idea that we are willing to torture and slaughter to maintain our own security is not civilized, it is the law of the jungle, and unworthy of our country.

[Barry]

I am not impressed with the vague claims that we are safer because we torture. Even if this were true, I would rather walk around with a slightly greater risk than than know that my country is torturing people on my behalf. The idea that we are willing to torture and slaughter to maintain our own security is not civilized, it is the law of the jungle, and unworthy of our country.

You're obviously entitled to feel that way. But a lot of people think that when American lives are in the balance (and as the Stratfor piece that Corlyss posted indicates, that was certainly the belief that everyone was operating under after 9/11), our leaders should put those lives ahead of the discomfort of prisoners who we reasonably believe have information that about pending attacks. Of course, it's always going to be difficult to prove a negative (if we didn't use these relatively minor forms of torture, such and such would have happened), but if the CIA had their hands on KSM prior to 9/11 and were reasonably certain he had information on a pending attach on the U.S., I'd certainly hope that they wouldn't use a strict prohibition against even forms of torture than don't seriously harm the prisoners.

[Steinway]

The CIA's Questioning Worked
By Marc A. Thiessen
Tuesday, April 21, 2009

In releasing highly classified documents on the CIA interrogation program last week, President Obama declared that the techniques used to question captured terrorists "did not make us safer." This is patently false. The proof is in the memos Obama made public -- in sections that have gone virtually unreported in the media.

Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that "the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques." The memo continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' " Once the techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."

Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles." KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. The memo explains that "information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the 'Second Wave.' " In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York.

The memo notes that "nterrogations of [Abu] Zubaydah -- again, once enhanced techniques were employed -- furnished detailed information regarding al Qaeda's 'organizational structure, key operatives, and modus operandi' and identified KSM as the mastermind of the September 11 attacks." This information helped the intelligence community plan the operation that captured KSM. It went on: "Zubaydah and KSM also supplied important information about al-Zarqawi and his network" in Iraq, which helped our operations against al-Qaeda in that country.

All this confirms information that I and others have described publicly. But just as the memo begins to describe previously undisclosed details of what enhanced interrogations achieved, the page is almost entirely blacked out. The Obama administration released pages of unredacted classified information on the techniques used to question captured terrorist leaders but pulled out its black marker when it came to the details of what those interrogations achieved.

Yet there is more information confirming the program's effectiveness. The Office of Legal Counsel memo states "we discuss only a small fraction of the important intelligence CIA interrogators have obtained from KSM" and notes that "intelligence derived from CIA detainees has resulted in more than 6,000 intelligence reports and, in 2004, accounted for approximately half of the [Counterterrorism Center's] reporting on al Qaeda." The memos refer to other classified documents -- including an "Effectiveness Memo" and an "IG Report," which explain how "the use of enhanced techniques in the interrogations of KSM, Zubaydah and others . . . has yielded critical information." Why didn't Obama officials release this information as well? Because they know that if the public could see the details of the techniques side by side with evidence that the program saved American lives, the vast majority would support continuing it.

Critics claim that enhanced techniques do not produce good intelligence because people will say anything to get the techniques to stop. But the memos note that, "as Abu Zubaydah himself explained with respect to enhanced techniques, 'brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardship." In other words, the terrorists are called by their faith to resist as far as they can -- and once they have done so, they are free to tell everything they know. This is because of their belief that "Islam will ultimately dominate the world and that this victory is inevitable." The job of the interrogator is to safely help the terrorist do his duty to Allah, so he then feels liberated to speak freely.

This is the secret to the program's success. And the Obama administration's decision to share this secret with the terrorists threatens our national security. Al-Qaeda will use this information and other details in the memos to train its operatives to resist questioning and withhold information on planned attacks. CIA Director Leon Panetta said during his confirmation hearings that even the Obama administration might use some of the enhanced techniques in a "ticking time bomb" scenario. What will the administration do now that it has shared the limits of our interrogation techniques with the enemy? President Obama's decision to release these documents is one of the most dangerous and irresponsible acts ever by an American president during a time of war -- and Americans may die as a result.

The writer, a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, served in senior positions in the Pentagon and the White House from 2001 to 2009, most recently as chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

Thus sayeth a Hoover Institution contributor and chief speechwriter for George Bush.

[nut-job]

I am not impressed with the vague claims that we are safer because we torture. Even if this were true, I would rather walk around with a slightly greater risk than than know that my country is torturing people on my behalf. The idea that we are willing to torture and slaughter to maintain our own security is not civilized, it is the law of the jungle, and unworthy of our country.

You're obviously entitled to feel that way. But a lot of people think that when American lives are in the balance (and as the Stratfor piece that Corlyss posted indicates, that was certainly the belief that everyone was operating under after 9/11), our leaders should put those lives ahead of the discomfort of prisoners who we reasonably believe have information that about pending attacks. Of course, it's always going to be difficult to prove a negative (if we didn't use these relatively minor forms of torture, such and such would have happened), but if the CIA had their hands on KSM prior to 9/11 and were reasonably certain he had information on a pending attach on the U.S., I'd certainly hope that they wouldn't use a strict prohibition against even forms of torture than don't seriously harm the prisoners.

You use lots of complicated locution to obscure what you are really saying. If American lives are in the balance, lets sacrifice the lives of non-Americans. In this I am not referring only to the torture of a few admitted terrorists masterminds, but to many many others who have been tortured, some of whom have died, under the policy of "extraordinary rendition" and the tens or hundreds of thousands who died in Bush's "preemptive war." Actions to protect Americans are not morally justifiable when the number of innocent non-Americans who loose their lives as "collatoral damage" vastly exceeds the losses that supposedly being preempted.