Morale Article Index : Current 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Protecting The Rights Of Terrorists
   Next Article → YEMEN: Sudden Death Deadline
April 15, 2011: Since Obama replaced Bush as president two years ago, the U.S. has greatly reduced the interrogation of captured terrorists. Since then, these interrogations only get done, if at all, in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. no longer captures Islamic terrorists in other countries, much less interrogates them. Instead, the U.S. has increased its use of missiles to kill Islamic terrorists wherever they are found. Other countries still capture major terrorists (often with the help of multimillion dollar U.S. rewards, which are still good) and torture useful information out of the bad guys. The U.S. quietly takes advantage of this information, although it's the official U.S. position that torture does not work. The historical record says otherwise, but that's an issue that is simply not discussed in the U.S. anymore.

All this is because Obama got elected, in part, by criticizing the Bush policy of using intense interrogation (called torture by Obama supporters), and Obama ordered that there be no more of that sort of thing. To further make the point, the U.S. government continues an investigation aimed at identifying CIA personnel who could be prosecuted for torture during the Bush years. Thus American intelligence personnel are reluctant to use torture unless they have written orders from very senior people to do so.

In addition, Afghanistan was ordered to take over the interrogation and prosecution of Islamic terrorists captured by American troops in Afghanistan. The rule was that these captured terrorists were now a police matter that the Afghan judicial system could handle. The Afghans have 96 hours to either indict and take custody of the suspect, or the suspect was set loose by the Americans. The U.S. had the option to take custody after 96 hours, but that meant sending the terrorists to an American prison at Baghram, and this was discouraged by the U.S. government except in extreme cases. Thus even a Taliban suicide bomber, captured after his bomb vest failed to go off, got cut loose after 96 hours. The basic problem is that the Afghan judicial system is very thin on the ground, and prosecutors and jailors are easily bribed or intimidated. This sort of thing has been bad for morale in Afghanistan, especially since troops are discouraged from just killing terrorists caught in the act, if there is any chance of taking them alive.

When questioned on these policies, U.S. government officials promise changes and insist they are monitoring the situation.

Next Article → YEMEN: Sudden Death Deadline
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
davidhughes       4/15/2011 11:13:16 AM
Oh please!! Here we go again - the usual political baffledook in what is supposed to be a serious site on military affairs. But since it is supposed to be military a nice simple response:
 
Every professional military intelligence operative will tell you (except when running for political office) that torture does not produce viable information - for the highly documented reason that when in great pain you greatly blab. Obama is simply doing what all his professional intelligence advisors told him to do, reversing his predecessor who seems by all accounts to have relied on the opinions of both lawyers and of sadists drummed out of the CIA and FBI.
 
And the reason why the Afghans cut known terrorists with bomb vests loose (and where that interesting piece of utterly unattributed news comes from I do not know) is either because they were 'not proven' or because of lack of staff - and the reason for the latter is that none of the NATO countries has been able to fund or provide people that can be used by the Afghans. Here in Canada a bunch of mounties were sent over - naturally they were useless as a) they could not speak Pushtu and b) the military (NATO) would not let them 'off the leash'. Most returned in a great sulk.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Vulture       4/15/2011 8:24:01 PM
enhanced interrogation does work... on groups of people. As a way to get confirmation.
 
 
and against a true jihadi not a simpleton/dupe, it is the only method of extraction
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       4/15/2011 10:12:53 PM
The real problem is the ?Press? comingled torture with enhanced interrogation called it all torture.  In some places there was a lot of flat out torture, but that was not what is meant by enhanced interrogation.

When properly done enhanced interrogation is often very subtle, such as laying a hand on the shoulder of a suspect, especially if it was a highly trained suspect that believed that the intelligence officer was not allowed to physically touch him, just to let him know that the rules can change.  Extreme methods, such as threats of extraordinary rendition and water boarding, would only used when dealing with individuals that flat out refuse to talk to the interviewers at all, i.e. all they do is sit there and glare at the interviewers, or sing psalms, etc.  Once they started talking to the interviewers there is no further need, all it takes is time to winkle out everything they know.
 
Quote    Reply

DavidE    One famous case   4/16/2011 2:09:20 PM
There is historical documentation that proves that torture does work, when
applied intelligently.  It is not an example anyone would wish us to associate
ourselves with, but it is there.  

In World War II, the Nazis would torture spying suspects, this is well known
and documented.  What is more interesting is that they had success in rolling up
Russian spy networks this way.  In particular, the famous "Red Orchestra" network
was unraveled this way, and it is well documented because the head of the 
network, Leopold Trepper, survived the war, and went back through the Nazi archives
to see what became of all of his former colleagues.  It is definitely true that some of them
did not break, in particular the more motivated ones (Communists and Jews were
more likely to hate them, and less likely to survive if they cooperated).  But plenty did
cooperate under torture, or the threat of it, and it was all carefully noted in their archives.  

It is clearly true that suspects will tell you anything to stop the pain, so torturers
can only ask verifiable questions (e.g. "where is the arms cache?"), rather than
things which can't be verified (e.g. "who is your contact in Moscow?").  Presumably this
is true without torture, too. But the Nazis made it work.  It remains for us to decide 
how far down this road we want to go.  

I, for one, wouldn't want to be firing up the testicle crushers for every poor slob who comes
through the door, and if we can get by with more subtle techniques, that's obviously better. 
I don't want the world thinking of us as Nazi torturers, I also don't want us to be pushovers.
And for some guys, e.g. KSM, it's hard to draw that line.
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       4/16/2011 2:27:48 PM
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       4/17/2011 12:22:06 PM
Well, use of drone or cruise missile based on wrong intel will rather sooner than later produce more civilian casualties. "Humanitarians" should take that into account.
 
DG
 
 
Quote    Reply

gandolf       4/18/2011 5:30:39 AM
by simply taking torture out of the question is a win for the enemy , electing obama was a win for terrorists as well, america appears to be weak thanks to the leftards, tell you the truth i question obamas loyalty to anything but golf
 
Quote    Reply