• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Osama Bin Laden is dead

And the bogus CIA propoganda falls down when confronted w/former insider experts who are able to speak freely.[/url]
Did the CIA actually say anything about waterboarding yielding tips? Or was it instead politicos?
 
Best quote from the article:

It is a misconception that ideologues don’t talk, he says. “The opinion that, ‘Oh, he’s such a fanatic, he won’t tell us anything' – that’s uninformed blathering by people who don’t understand the business,” Herrington adds. “The experience with those who worked with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and some of the other most senior terrorists is that they are narcissists and that they do want to talk – and talk and talk.”​

Somehow, I find it believable that some of these guys have an inflated sense of themselves.
 
And the bogus CIA propoganda falls down when confronted w/former insider experts who are able to speak freely

the ig's not free?

then why did ERIC HOLDER issue the report on the monday preceding aug 29?

more power to col herrington and his "handful of former intel officers"

were they there?

the ig talked talked to many who were

"One hotly debated piece of information was the alias of the courier – Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti – that intelligence officials gained from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was subjected to waterboarding 183 times," recounts csm

there's no argument about ksm offering up anything under duress, he didn't

he became "cooperative," "to an extraordinary extent," he went thru "transformation" and "reversal" and became langley's "preeminent source" only after "his spirit was broken in the month after his capture" when he was subjected to extremely harsh eit's in east europe

at this point, anyone who attempts to deny that eit's played an important role in the "transformation" of langley's preeminent source lacks credibility

the road to the courier led thru ksm, zebaydah, ghul and al libi---all were eit'd

it also appears to have relied on warrantless wiretapping

col herrington concludes by anguishing over the execution instead of capture of ubl

Interrogators, including Herrington, emphasize that they do not question the decisions of the Navy SEAL team operators to kill bin Laden. “It’s a hair-trigger moment. You can’t second guess that,” he says.

Recent statements from Obama administration officials, however, indicate that bin Laden was unarmed. “Lurking in the background is that if [special operators] were told to go in and kill this guy – and they clearly understood the marching orders – he could have wrapped himself in an American flag and had a white flag in both hands” and still been killed, Herrington says. “Have we come to the point where it is simply seen as too much trouble to capture? [That it’s] better to kill and avoid the theatrics that have accompanied the trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others?” he wonders.

“What I want to know is,” asks Herrington, “was it wise?

col herrington certainly is

wise, that is

kinda like hamlet, herrington thinks a lot, and deeply

but assassinations are good and belly slaps are bad?

ever heard of good cop/bad cop?

herrington sounds to me like he'd make an outstanding good cop, and that's worth something

like i said, more power to him

either way, america owes great thanks to president obama for not dismantling the anti terror policies of his predecessor---gitmo, detention, the patriot act---thus allowing our agents and soldiers to make this happen
 
Last edited:
Best quote from the article:

It is a misconception that ideologues don’t talk, he says. “The opinion that, ‘Oh, he’s such a fanatic, he won’t tell us anything' – that’s uninformed blathering by people who don’t understand the business,” Herrington adds. “The experience with those who worked with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and some of the other most senior terrorists is that they are narcissists and that they do want to talk – and talk and talk.”​

Somehow, I find it believable that some of these guys have an inflated sense of themselves.

You know, I think this is a really good point that I've not really considered before. But certainly, the key to getting people to talk is all about appealing to the person directly, who they are, what they're all about. Maybe this sounds like an odd comparison, but hopefully the point will come through....I'm a poker enthusiast. I play quite often, several times a week usually. I love the game. I'm not a super-star, but I'm a pretty decent player and have my days often enough when I can be quite tough. Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is that in poker, one of the most important things is to get people to tell you information, so that you can use that to your advantage. They can tell you things in alot of ways, and of course any good poker player will then learn how to avoid giving information. So what do you do? You then have to come back at him and bait him into giving you the information you want. You have to figure the person out. Figure out what makes him tick, so that you can convince him to do things that he ends up thinking are his idea. Get him to show his cards after you've made a tough fold. Get him to belie the strength of his hand based on the way he raises or calls. You just have to make sure that the way you do it is tailored around his personality. I'm sure a skilled government interrogator is well aware of this kind of thing.

Think about it for a moment....Has Al Qaeda ever attacked us without loudly claiming the responsibility? Has that ever been the smart thing to do? Of course not. But they love an audience.
 
Think about it for a moment....Has Al Qaeda ever attacked us without loudly claiming the responsibility? Has that ever been the smart thing to do? Of course not. But they love an audience.

Yeah, they denied being responsible for 9/11.
 
Think about it for a moment....Has Al Qaeda ever attacked us without loudly claiming the responsibility? Has that ever been the smart thing to do? Of course not. But they love an audience.

A terrorist attack is ineffective at it's purpose without the claim of responsibility....but, you don't know that they have not committed acts without claiming them.
 
But certainly, the key to getting people to talk is all about appealing to the person directly, who they are, what they're all about.
...
I'm sure a skilled government interrogator is well aware of this kind of thing.

Think about it for a moment....Has Al Qaeda ever attacked us without loudly claiming the responsibility? Has that ever been the smart thing to do? Of course not. But they love an audience.
As is noted in the IGs report, most of our skilled interrogators had retired or otherwise moved on when 9-11 hit. The report reveals a lot of scrambling to find manpower. They brought in people who were not experts in interrogation, but were experts in somewhat related fields.



Hanns Scharff was a renowned/infamous Nazi interrogator who was known for getting info out of Allied soldiers with unmatched skill. He was such a good interrogator that the US brought him here to teach our guys.
You might imagine that since he was a Nazi and presumable had access to whatever techniques he could dream up that he used grotesque and bizarre tortures to get people to talk. But instead he would use a game of chess or a walk around the grounds.


1) Educing Information
Interrogation: Science and Art Foundations for the Future
Intelligence Science Board National Defense Intelligence College
Washington, DC December 2006

(in particular this section)
KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Review: Observations of an Interrogator – Lessons Learned and Avenues for Further Research

2) KUBARK [CIA] Counterintelligence Interrogation
July 1963

3) Anything about Hanns Scharff
"hanns scharff" - Google Search

Hanns Scharff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
A terrorist attack is ineffective at it's purpose without the claim of responsibility....but, you don't know that they have not committed acts without claiming them.

Can you name any acts of terrorism against us for which we haven't identified a perpetrator?
 
"Bring me the head of Osama Bin Laden."
-- Mr. Gatty
 
Can you name any acts of terrorism against us for which we haven't identified a perpetrator?

the anthrax attacks

the tylenol poisonings in the early 80s
 
Didn't think you knew. Seriously, when do you start being embarrassed?

Responsibility

Why would I be embarrassed? I linked you to a legitimate news source, you're directing me to a conspiracy theory site. :lamo:lamo:lamo
 
the anthrax attacks

The FBI concluded that this was done by Bruce Ivins, and that he was working alone.

the tylenol poisonings in the early 80s

At which time Al Qaeda did not even exist. Not to mention, there's little evidence to suggest that this really qualifies as any kind of terrorism.
 
Why would I be embarrassed? I linked you to a legitimate news source, you're directing me to a conspiracy theory site. :lamo:lamo:lamo

Ahhhh... that site lists direct quotes from OBL denying responsibility.


Embarrassed yet? No!?! I didn't think so.
 
I can name a ton of Eco terrorist attacks that went unclaimed as well.

And that really sounds like Al Qaeda's M.O.?
 
Didn't even look at those quotes from OBL did you?

You lefties are simply pathetic when proven wrong.

You have a funny concept of "proof." Also, I'm not a leftie. Get your facts straight. Though I see how that could be difficult for someone who doesn't seem to understand what a fact is.
 
You have a funny concept of "proof." Also, I'm not a leftie. Get your facts straight. Though I see how that could be difficult for someone who doesn't seem to understand what a fact is.

Sure you are. You are just another in a long line of libs that either is embarrassed of admitting the fact, or you are lying to yourself. Either way, it is disengious.

J-mac
 
Moderator's Warning:
BDBoop and mac are now banned from this thread.
 
You have a funny concept of "proof." Also, I'm not a leftie. Get your facts straight. Though I see how that could be difficult for someone who doesn't seem to understand what a fact is.

You're the poster boy for dishonest debaters.

Centrist my a**. You aren't fooling anyone.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Ron Mars is now banned from this thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom