Analyst
Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Messages
- 131
- Reaction score
- 39
- Location
- Seattle, WA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
How to Make Terrorists Talk - Yahoo! News
I found this article to be a reasonable commentary on interrogation. It's a bit on the long side, but it's worth a read as it endeavors to capture both sides of the argument.
In particular, I was very impressed by Maddox and Alexander's ability to elicit information by understanding their quarry (see latter portion of the article). We are fortunate to have such skilled and persuasive patriots working on our behalf.
I do wonder, though, what the best tack is when time is against us. The article mentions that this doesn't happen often - but what about when it does, and tens, hundreds, or even thousands of people may die if we don't obtain the information we need? I think proponents of utilizing torture have a point when they say it only takes one time when we don't have the information we need for disaster to strike. It's abhorrent under normal circumstances, but I can't say with certainty that, were I an interrogator, I could confidently claim that there is NEVER a time when it's necessary.
I'll admit that I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make those kinds of decisions.
The most successful interrogation of an Al-Qaeda operative by U.S. officials required no sleep deprivation, no slapping or "walling" and no waterboarding. All it took to soften up Abu Jandal, who had been closer to Osama bin Laden than any other terrorist ever captured, was a handful of sugar-free cookies.
Abu Jandal had been in a Yemeni prison for nearly a year when Ali Soufan of the FBI and Robert McFadden of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service arrived to interrogate him in the week after 9/11. Although there was already evidence that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks, American authorities needed conclusive proof, not least to satisfy skeptics like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, whose support was essential for any action against the terrorist organization. U.S. intelligence agencies also needed a better understanding of al-Qaeda's structure and leadership. Abu Jandal was the perfect source: the Yemeni who grew up in Saudi Arabia had been bin Laden's chief bodyguard, trusted not only to protect him but also to put a bullet in his head rather than let him be captured. (See pictures of do-it-yourself waterboarding attempts.)
I found this article to be a reasonable commentary on interrogation. It's a bit on the long side, but it's worth a read as it endeavors to capture both sides of the argument.
In particular, I was very impressed by Maddox and Alexander's ability to elicit information by understanding their quarry (see latter portion of the article). We are fortunate to have such skilled and persuasive patriots working on our behalf.
I do wonder, though, what the best tack is when time is against us. The article mentions that this doesn't happen often - but what about when it does, and tens, hundreds, or even thousands of people may die if we don't obtain the information we need? I think proponents of utilizing torture have a point when they say it only takes one time when we don't have the information we need for disaster to strike. It's abhorrent under normal circumstances, but I can't say with certainty that, were I an interrogator, I could confidently claim that there is NEVER a time when it's necessary.
I'll admit that I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make those kinds of decisions.
Last edited: