When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
30 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
eaglewingz08
14 years ago
Yes, Clinton’s DoJ putting in the Gorelick firewall between CIA intelligence and FBI prosecution and detection of terrorists, i.e. ‘upholding our values’ really made us safer on 9/11. Imagine what would have happened on that date if we had in place those dastardly Bushitlerhalliburtonvader policies? Why maybe the terrorists might have been caught and then the left and democraps would be bemoaning those neocon libelous attacks and islamophobia against harmless airplane students merely seeking a better life in this country and that such a plot was fanciful in the extreme and could not possibly have succeeded if attempted.
@eaglewingz08: Right you are eaglewingz. Obama’s speech was SOOO September 10th. I’m sure I’m not the only one who recalled how well that mindest worked out for us.
What irked me about Obama’s Naval Academy speech was yet another slam at the Bush Administration. The implication is clear:
“As long as I am your commander in chief, I will only send you into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary, and with the strategy, the well-defined goals, the equipment and the support that you need to get the job done,”
This is the guy who’s supposed to be the Great Uniter? Post-partisanship? Finding common ground and working together?
Just words…
Old Trooper
14 years ago
I have seen Gorelick’s handiwork. The 911 Commission Report was a farce and a CYA job of extraordinary half truths and a Partisan effort. The Gorelick Firewall was defended and the critical lack of cooperation between Intelligence Agencies and Federal Government Agencies charged with National Security was poorly addressed.
I do not see Panetta’s CIA as anything but ineffective due to Obama’s policy decisions and threats of indictments for agents or operatives that pursue aggressive Intel collection techniques. Obama’s claims of American Values, a Moral High Ground and Pelosi’s attempt to deny being briefed on EIT has tied the hands of those that kept America safer post 911. I cannot use the term Safe because America’s destruction is still the goal of Islamic groups, world wide.
Justice Systems vary greatly across the globe. The Holder/Obama Justice System will be non-punitive, fail to administer justice for the victims of Terrorism and be apologetic in nature. The Geneva Conventions will be generally disregarded by the Pretender’s Regime which is a travesty. Giving US Constitutional Rights to non-citizens and murdering SOBs is not acceptable or within the powers granted to the three branches of US Government by any US Law.
The partisan Traitors in Congress blocked an investigation into Pelosi’s statements to the bootlicking Media that qualify as perjury if they were offered as sworn testimony.
Cheyney was right and America is less safe now than before 911 and will be so until after the next attack.
JohnMcClane
14 years ago
From someone who interrogated Iraqi prisoners in Iraq:
As a senior interrogator in Iraq (and a former criminal investigator), there was a lesson I learned that served me well: there’s more to be learned from what someone doesn’t say than from what they do say. Let me dissect former Vice President Dick Cheney’s speech on National Security using this model and my interrogation skills.
First, VP Cheney said, “This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately… it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do.” He further stated, “It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so.” That is simply untrue. Anyone who served in Iraq, and veterans on both sides of the aisle have made this argument, knows that the foreign fighters did not come to Iraq en masse until after the revelations of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. I heard this from captured foreign fighters day in and day out when I was supervising interrogations in Iraq. What the former vice president didn’t say is the fact that the dislike of our policies in the Middle East were not enough to make thousands of Muslim men pick up arms against us before these revelations. Torture and abuse became Al Qaida’s number one recruiting tool and cost us American lives.
Secondly, the former vice president, in saying that waterboarding is not torture, never mentions the fact that it was the United States and its Allies, during the Tokyo Trials, that helped convict a Japanese soldier for war crimes for waterboarding one of Jimmie Doolittle’s Raiders. Have our morals and values changed in fifty years? He also did not mention that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln both prohibited their troops from torturing prisoners of war. Washington specifically used the term “injure” — no mention of severe mental or physical pain.
Thirdly, the former vice president never mentioned the Senate testimony of Ali Soufan, the FBI interrogator who successfully interrogated Abu Zubaydah and learned the identity of Jose Padilla, the dirty bomber, and the fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM) was the mastermind behind 9/11. We’ll never know what more we could have discovered from Abu Zubaydah had not CIA contractors taken over the interrogations and used waterboarding and other harsh techniques. Also, glaringly absent from the former vice president’s speech was any mention of the fact that the former administration never brought Osama bin Laden to justice and that our best chance to locate him would have been through KSM or Abu Zubaydah had they not been waterboarded.
In addition, in his continued defense of harsh interrogation techniques (aka torture and abuse), VP Cheney forgets that harsh techniques have ensured that future detainees will be less likely to cooperate because they see us as hypocrites. They are less willing to trust us when we fail to live up to our principles. I experienced this firsthand in Iraq when interrogating high-ranking members of Al Qaida, some of whom decided to cooperate simply because I treated them with respect and civility.
The former vice president is confusing harshness with effectiveness. An effective interrogation is one that yields useful, accurate intelligence, not one that is harsh. It speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of interrogations, the goal of which is not to coerce information from a prisoner, but to convince a prisoner to cooperate.
Finally, the point that is most absent is that our greatest success in this conflict was achieved without torture or abuse. My interrogation team found Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the former leader of Al Qaida in Iraq and murderer of tens of thousands. We did this using relationship-building approaches and non-coercive law enforcement techniques. These worked to great effect on the most hardened members of Al Qaida — spiritual leaders who had been behind the waves of suicide bombers and, hence, the sectarian violence that swept across Iraq. We convinced them to cooperate by applying our intellect. In essence, we worked smarter, not harsher.
How to Break a Terrorist
by Major Alexander
DaNang67
14 years ago
Let me posit that very little exemplifies America’s strength of values as well as the hysterical shrieking and carrying-on by the political opposition who are horrified at the painless, albeit panic-inducing, act of waterboarding used three times on high-value terrorists. The debate itself proves our excess of morality. Too bad it’s just an exercise in politics.
I doubt that any nation has ever done so little to so few when there was so much at stake. The fact that our President has emoted so strongly against that carefully considered and executed technique that many have come to describe it as “torture” must have the jihadists fainting in sheer admiration at our moral purity.
Except, that is, for the ones who are passing out on the floor from an excess of laughter at our weakness. Remember, they would high five each other at pictures of our school children bloating in the sun after a sarin gas attack.
I suspect the whole brouhaha exists mainly because an Alinsky schooled pro understands the art of distraction well enough to keep us focused on his left hand while his right hand is emptying our wallets.
First, VP Cheney said, “This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately… it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do.” He further stated, “It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so.” That is simply untrue. Anyone who served in Iraq, and veterans on both sides of the aisle have made this argument, knows that the foreign fighters did not come to Iraq en masse until after the revelations of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
And the revelations of “torture and abuse”….were they common practice and policy or were they aberrations and a drop of urine in a river of good we have been doing on behalf of the Iraqi people?
Was it the overexaggerated claims and perception fueled by media sensationalism, anti-Americanism, and al Qaeda propagandization or was the rise in foreign fighters “coming to the rescue” of Iraqis based upon reality?
Other than the quibble, I agree that abu Ghraib almost single-handedly cost us the post-war peace in Iraq. Given that….would you say it was wise and a good thing for 60 Minutes to air their sensitive news story (Centcom months earlier had already announced investigations into the abuses) during a time of war? Would Iraq be better off today if it had caused us to abandon Iraq, soon after the “revelation”?
Guantanamo, although it had early problems at the beginning, is a far, far cry from being anything remotely resembling a gulag. The ones suffering abuses are the soldiers there, at the hands of the detainees. These terrorists won’t find better treatment in captivity in any other prison system or detainment center on earth.
Some Arabs, who know full well what real torture and abuse is about, consider Gitmo a joke.
I heard this from captured foreign fighters day in and day out when I was supervising interrogations in Iraq. What the former vice president didn’t say is the fact that the dislike of our policies in the Middle East were not enough to make thousands of Muslim men pick up arms against us before these revelations. Torture and abuse became Al Qaida’s number one recruiting tool and cost us American lives.
Not exactly, because “torture” and abuse is nowhere near what the public perception might be. It’s al Qaeda’s propagandizing of the actual abuses that created a rise in foreign fighters and recruitment. Or are you or Major Alexander saying that playing the Meow Meow Meow commercial song over and over at Gitmo to a takfiri terrorist a warrant for taking up arms against the efforts of the U.S. and Coalition forces to rebuild Iraq and make life better for Iraqis?
Secondly, the former vice president, in saying that waterboarding is not torture, never mentions the fact that it was the United States and its Allies, during the Tokyo Trials, that helped convict a Japanese soldier for war crimes for waterboarding one of Jimmie Doolittle’s Raiders.
You would have done well to edit out that section of the article yourself. Aye Chihuahua, you want this one?
He also did not mention that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln both prohibited their troops from torturing prisoners of war.
Well guess what? Cheney and Bush prohibit troops from torturing prisoners of war, too.
Think about it!
Thirdly, the former vice president never mentioned the Senate testimony of Ali Soufan, the FBI interrogator who successfully interrogated Abu Zubaydah and learned the identity of Jose Padilla, the dirty bomber, and the fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM) was the mastermind behind 9/11.
After which, Zubaydah clammed up.
Hey, guess what? Obama didn’t mention Soufan either. What’s the author’s point? A lot of things don’t get mentioned.
We’ll never know what more we could have discovered from Abu Zubaydah had not CIA contractors taken over the interrogations and used waterboarding and other harsh techniques.
But we could discover what more we learned through enhanced interrogations, if not for Obama. Why release only half the information?
Also, glaringly absent from the former vice president’s speech was any mention of the fact that the former administration never brought Osama bin Laden to justice and that our best chance to locate him would have been through KSM or Abu Zubaydah had they not been waterboarded.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Please explain that one to me. I’m not smart enough.
In addition, in his continued defense of harsh interrogation techniques (aka torture and abuse), VP Cheney forgets that harsh techniques have ensured that future detainees will be less likely to cooperate because they see us as hypocrites. They are less willing to trust us when we fail to live up to our principles. I experienced this firsthand in Iraq when interrogating high-ranking members of Al Qaida, some of whom decided to cooperate simply because I treated them with respect and civility.
That’s interesting. Because one of the stories I’ve heard from Guantanamo is of a detainee who gained the trust of a military nurse. She had treated him on previous occasion:
Beginning with the reasonable presumption that the detainees are dangerous people, the medics at Gitmo have tried to take adequate precautions. They are determined to safeguard everyone, medical personnel and detainees alike. But sometimes they slip. Unlike guards who are alert to attack, medical personnel often have an expectation that since they are there to care for the detainee, the detainee will appreciate that and respond positively. One of the detainee hospital commanders, a Navy captain skilled at family practice medicine, remarked somewhat naively that “we take pride in the fact that we treat these people just like our patients back in Pensacola and not like prisoners.”
But this permissive attitude can lead to laxity and carelessness, and imputes a degree of trust that is entirely one-way. Detainees brought into the hospital were shackled to the beds with two-point restraints. Shackling detainees alleviates concerns about a detainee using on-hand equipment to injure medical staff or attempt escape. Then the detainee would moan about the pain in a foot or hand and ask that the restraints be loosened. Often sympathetic medics would comply with the request.
New, more comfortable leg shackles, used to restrain detainees are shown in a room where detainees meet their lawyers in the maximum security Camp Six at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba September 4, 2007.
REUTERS/Joe Skipper
On one such occasion, while being treated by a female nurse, a detainee with no provocation drew back and punched her so hard that her nose was broken and splashed across her face. Blood sputtered profusely. She withdrew to get medical attention herself. Meanwhile the detainee loudly complained for his clothing and sheet to be changed. “The infidel whore’s blood has defiled me,” he shouted. “Change my clothes!” pg 159, Inside Gitmo, by Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu
The nurse required facial surgeries.
Yes, respect and civility can go a long way. it worked for the Japanese. But there’s a difference between committed, fanatical jihadis and al Qaeda foot soldiers and operatives who are not as “hardcore” as their namesake. I’m sure some al Qaeda members recruited might be reconcilable; others are deadenders and beyond redemption.
Finally, the point that is most absent is that our greatest success in this conflict was achieved without torture or abuse. My interrogation team found Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the former leader of Al Qaida in Iraq and murderer of tens of thousands. We did this using relationship-building approaches and non-coercive law enforcement techniques. These worked to great effect on the most hardened members of Al Qaida — spiritual leaders who had been behind the waves of suicide bombers and, hence, the sectarian violence that swept across Iraq. We convinced them to cooperate by applying our intellect. In essence, we worked smarter, not harsher.
I actually agree with “Major Alexander” (his pseudonym) more than I may come across here as devil’s advocate, with the “smarter, not harsher” approach in general (hmmm…..must be why waterboarding happened to only 3 terrorists at a time when the belief that other attacks were imminent was real and palpable- I believe 8 other planes grounded on 9/11 had discoveries of knives and boxcutters hidden in and under seats), but consider this: how many less lives killed at the leadership hands of Zarqawi could have been saved, had we applied the harsher approach? the “relationship-building” and law enforcement approach to interrogation takes time; also realize, that some of these guys, have also been given extensive training in resisting interrogation.
Torture and abuse became Al Qaida’s number one recruiting tool and cost us American lives.
Forgot to add to my fisking, buwahahahahaa!!!!!!
REAL torture and murders of Iraqis by al Qaeda in Iraq became their downfall. You’d think they would have learned the “smarter, not harsher” approach in building Iraqi allies.
FIRST: We were attacked by terrorists at the World Trade Center in 1993 long before anyone ever heard of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo. The same goes for the Khobar Towers bombing, the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the bombing of the USS Cole.
Experts I have read say that what recruited more terrorists than anything else were successful terrorist attacks.
SECOND: The Japanase waterboarding experience was DEADLY. It was nothing at all like what we did to JUST THREE TERRORISTS. Look up the history and you might learn something.
THIRD: If you really think we would have learned just as much from the THREE TERRORISTS who waterboarded then demand Obama release the memos which show what we DID learn. Then ask yourself whether you wanted to be working in the Library Tower of Los Angeles while we said “purty please” to Abu Zubaydah.
FINALLY, Yes, there were incredible successes in the intelligence war that didn’t require waterboarding. THAT’S WHY IT WAS USED ON JUST THREEEEE TEEERRRRROOORRRIIISSSTTTSSS!!!!!!
I’d love to see the article that accompanies that. 1902 would be at the end of the Philippine Insurrection (well, not really). Brutality all around; and yet, we were still “the good guys”, there.
I’m still trying to figure out any ” ‘gator” worth his salt writing a book on “how to extract intel from jihad detainees using psychology”.
Don’t know much about the guy, nor have I read the book. But according to the reviews it’s stories of interrogation methods… which is basically telegraphing to the enemy what to expect, and how to train to resist.
This is an American interrogator? Gawd… hope not.
Or perhaps he’s one of those fake interrogators that hang out with the likes of the fake soldiers in the IVAW. Something smells fishy here… the CIA or their contractors allow someone to pen a “how to” novel leaking interrogation methods, yet we can’t get Obama to unclassify results of waterboarding?
Sorry… don’t buy into this one, John McClane.
Also, INRE blaming Abu Ghraib for attracting jihad foreign fighters. Well now ain’t that convenient? The US coalition deposed Saddam in March 2003.. the start of OIF. The US military had already started investigating the prison abuse that same year and was getting ready to try those responsible when 60 Minutes the Times brought the story to the public in April 2004. Note, this is a year later.
So are you so gullible to believe that the foreign fighters were not in Iraq between April 2003 and April 2004? Sorry… not factual.
As for Guantanamo, that’s been open for business since 2002 when detainees from Afghanistan were sent there…. even before the Iraq liberation happened. Yet this supposed interrogator says this was a reason to come “en masse” to Iraq? Why bother… they could have stayed in Afghanistan and accomplished the same uprising against the evil US.
And for the record, AQ and foreign fighters have never flooded into Iraq “en masse”. They have always been a small percentage of the overall “insurgency”. And they have been present in that country, operating freely within Saddam’s borders, for over a decade before OIF.
Horse manure on Matthew Alexander. His assertations don’t add up in the real world timeline. Sounds like a guy making up CIA / Aesop fairy tales to amuse the liberal/progressive base that can actually read.
“Rules for Radicals” makes it very clear that few will object when Obama does the same thing. The only thing that matters to these people is power and the Pinkos the lowest of pawns in that game.
@JohnMcClane #16: I already know all about it. Apparently we acquired knowledge of how to do it from Macabebe scouts. Is there a point here, I’m missing?
It’s crap that Jacob Smith, Edwin Glenn (cited in your link), and Littleton Waller have come to typify the American officers who served honorably in the Philippines, a very difficult conflict to be involved in.
Ann Coulter seems to agree on the horse manure thought. On Hannity on April 30th, she said she didn’t know the Air Force had interrogators.
Here’s a link to a rough transcript from Matthew Alexander’s appearance on Hannity on Dec 2nd, 2008: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,460944,00.html
Sean didn’t seem to have any information at the time to indicate that Matthew Alexander’s background is fishy.
I was curious, so already ahead of you, McClane. I was reading his WaPo op-ed where he was whining about how “tortured” he was about what he saw in Iraq.
INRE his penning of interrogation methods, he claims it’s not classified because it’s all in the Army Field Manual. Comes across as an arrogant type by claiming he suggested the Sunni Awakening to Gen. Casey and he didn’t “respond”. Guess he wants some post-surge credit.
Apparently, he spent only 5 months in Iraq, and that commenced in March of 2006… the hey day of the jihad groups attempting to fuel a civil war by pressuring the Sunnis to cooperate and arming them, plus blowing up the mosques. In short, Mr. Alexander was interrogating mostly Iraq Sunnis, not AQ/Gitmo high value types. That is a completely different animal. Many Iraqis were forced into the service of the Zarqawi’s and AQI by fear and assassination of elders and clerics. Not exactly a tough mark to question.
Yet on that, he says:
I know the counter-argument well — that we need the rough stuff for the truly hard cases, such as battle-hardened core leaders of al-Qaeda, not just run-of-the-mill Iraqi insurgents. But that’s not always true: We turned several hard cases, including some foreign fighters, by using our new techniques. A few of them never abandoned the jihadist cause but still gave up critical information. One actually told me, “I thought you would torture me, and when you didn’t, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That’s why I decided to cooperate.”
Right… a “hard core” jihadi gives up info because he wasn’t tortured? Of course, he bandies about Zarqawi’s name, but doesn’t mention any “hard core” detainee he had…. nor what info they gave up that was actionable. Why not? He just bragged about his intel INRE Zarqawi’s location and ultimate death by bombing.
Perhaps he’s just good at the art of embellishment.
According to him, he says he personally conducted over 300 interrogations, and supervised over 1000. During a five month period, that means he was averaging 5 interrogations a day personally, plus supervising 15 more daily. Assuming they did 30 minutes each, that’s a 10 hour day, 7 days a week, for five months … without a break… of interrogation.
Why does horse manure still come to mind?
It was his five month tour in 2006 where he proclaims he knows why the jihadis came to Iraq… even tho they had been coming BEFORE Abu Ghraib.
I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq….. snip…. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001.
Really? Considering he didn’t have the jihad hard cores, and the majority of his detainees were Iraqis, how does he come to that conclusion with such certainty? And why does he ignore their presence not only pre-Abu Ghraib, but for the decade prior to OIF?
Again, horse manure. He comes across as a man so completely self-absorbed with his own smug morality that he misses the fact he, himself, aids and abets the enemy with such accusations based not on fact, but emotion.
How many foreign jihadis were in those 300 interrogations, Mr. Alexander? What was the ratio of jihadis to Iraqis? And how do you know they aren’t telling you exactly what they want you to tell the press… in other words, ride the Abu Ghraib wave of PR?
Makes me wonder just who was manipulating whom.
UPDATE: I found the answer to my question above. A Dec 2008 Harper’s interview quotes him of only have one true jihadi in all his interrogations. The rest were Iraqis who were aligned with the jihad movements for a variety of reasons… mostly, survival.
This also means that those who are telling Alexander “they” came to Iraq because of Abu Ghraib are not the foreign jihad fighters themselves, but the Iraqis. And of course, the jihad groups would use that negative PR to justify to the locals why they are present in Iraq, trying to start a civil war. In other words, Alexander’s firm opinion is totally based on hearsay by Iraqis, who were manipulated and strong armed by the jihad groups. They merely parroted the jihad talking points they were fed. END UPDATE
One actually told me, “I thought you would torture me, and when you didn’t, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That’s why I decided to cooperate.”
You have to be kidding me? This line of reasoning is just beyond ludicrous. Supposed hard core fighters decide to snitch because they were treated well? Give me a break. I tell ya one thing, if someone were to give me this line, but substituted a local gangster I deal with on a daily basis, I would laugh my ass off….and these hard core Islamic freaks make the guys I deal with look like little school girls.
Beyond retarded.
And these lefties fall for this stuff daily….just pathetic.
I’ve only read one of Matthew Alexander’s book’s; “I’m Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq” and I have several problems with both recent articles in the media, that book and about Matthew Alexander himself, especially the inflammatory quote by a writer who doesn’t even have the courage to use his real name, (allegedly because he fears for the safety of his family). I truly question who Matthew Alexander really is and if he was even in the military, or was an FBI interrogator and if he actually interrogated anyone. Maybe he is a complete phony, maybe not.
To state as he did in his book though, that “The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001″ is absurd. Where is the evidence to support such a ridiculous, inflammatory statement? There is none, and it’s not “fair to say,” or imply, there is.
I will go even further and say that OUR interrogations saved thousands and maybe even tens of thousands of American lives. Of course I have more evidence to support my opinion than M.A. has to support his.
I get the uneasy feeling that this guy is just trying to sell books, hoping that many people will accept everything he says as fact. That feeling is bolstered by his choice of venues…HuffPo, antiwar.com, etc. as well as his fast and loose treatment of facts.
For instance, it was Jordanian intelligence forces that arrested and questioned the Iraqi customs agent, Ziad Khalaf Raja al-Karbouli, who is credited with giving up the whereabouts of Zarqawi’s safe houses, not Alexander or his “team”, that led to the final demise of one of Iraq’s most feared terrorists.
You can bet your last dollar the Jordanians didn’t sweet talk this guy into giving up the location of Zarqawi. And Alexander didn’t get the $25M reward, either.
I agree with one thing however, “What’s Not Said Is More Important Than What Is Said”, and he is not saying some important things. He’s not saying that the convictions in the Tokyo trials were for a whole laundry list of offenses of which waterboarding was only a minor part. He also doesn’t say that the “water cure” as practiced by the Japanese was nothing like the controlled methods used on the three terrorists that we interrogated. Their method was to force water into the victim until their bellies were distended and then to beat them with clubs, kick, punch and jump on their stomachs until it was expelled and to sometimes use salt water that actually killed them.
He offers nothing but anecdotal “proof” that our imprisonment and treatment of detainees “caused thousands of Muslim men to take up arms” but doesn’t mention that the vast majority of foreign fighters came to Iraq after the call by OBL to make Iraq the focus of Jihad against the West, long before the Abu Ghraib incident. Nor does he mention that the atrocities committed by those fighters against the Iraqis, especially by AQI, was the main reason we were able to accomplish the Anbar Awakening.
He mentions Ali Soufan and how he “successfully” interrogated Abu Zubaydah, but doesn’t mention that Padilla was a fairly low level player, he gave no information other than his name and that it was US investigators that tracked and arrested him, (he was arrested in Chicago), and that it was already known that KSM was involved in the planning of 9/11. He may be upset that “others took over” (what others, weren’t they all on the same team?), but that suggests to me that his methods, as Cheney said, were not working or were not timely enough and that it wasn’t until after Zubaydah was waterboarded that he gave up the alias (Muhktar) and location of KSM and other information. (In fairness, Soufan disputes that, saying he got KSM’s “nickname” first but it wasn’t immediately connected to KSM).
If Matthew Alexander is actually who he says he is, he is an FBI interrogator, not from the CIA or our military. FBI interrogators like Soufan were given military credentials but as Soufan points out, they were not legitimate and would cause major problems for their bearers if caught. I suspect his FBI affiliation because he has the same timelines, beefs and prejudices as Soufan and displays the same inter-agency rivalry.
Bottom line, I believe that waterboarding, as implemented by our interrogators, does not rise to the standard of torture and was carefully controlled so that it wouldn’t. That is the reason that so much attention was given to the legal side of the matter and such care was undertaken in the administration of not just that, but all “enhanced techniques”. Many disagree, including some of the interrogators themselves. That’s life. There is no doubt that “traditional methods” of interrogation are effective in many cases. It’s also apparent that in some cases they are not. Soufan himself states that it took him almost three months, (March to June) to uncover from Zubaydah just those two items of intel that he did get. I do however take with a grain of salt information from those with a political agenda or who are selling books or have other financial or partisan interests that affect their opinions.
As to the original subject of the OP, Cheney spanked Bambi like a red-headed step child. To add to the utter hypocrisy of the One, it now comes out that he is “outsourcing interrogations” to Islamic countries that don’t share his delicate sensibilities on prisoner treatment…
Good adds, Wardog. He may not feel comfortable disclosing his real name (nor do I think interrogators should…). But he sure doesn’t mind throwing his photo out. The Harper’s link in my “Update” in comment #21 carries a photo with it…. in fatigues.
Okay I will bite on McClane and Alexander’s chatter about the Doolittle Raider getting waterboarded.
Source: The Doolittle Raid – America’s daring first strike against Japan. Carrol V. Glines. Schiffer Military History. 1991. Pg 170-171.
Quote – “The Japanese took me out of my cell about three o’clock in the afternoon of April 24,” Nielsen recalled, “and started questioning me about our mission through an interpreter. I gave them my name, rank, and serial number, and told them that was all the information I was going to give.”
“The first thing they did was to put pencils between my fingers, squeezing my hands and forcing the pencils up and down causing the skin to break.” When he wouldn’t talk, Nielsen was stretched out on the floor and given the infamous “water cure.” Four soldiers sat on his arms and legs while a fifth placed a wet towel over his face and poured water on it. Every time he gasped for breath, more water was poured on the towel, which had the effect of drowning him.
The more they tortured, the more Nielsen was determined he was not going to talk. His resolution caused him to be subjected to another favorite Oriental torture. A bamboo stick about three feet long and two inches in diameter was placed behind his knees and he was forced to kneel and sit back as far as he could. One of the soldiers held him in this position while another jumped up and down on his thighs. Execruciating as it was, Nielsen still didn’t give in to their questions. – End quote
So taken in toto, the water cure Nielsen was subjected to was in fact torture designed to punish the prisoner for adhering on what type of information the prisoner can give his captors. What Nielsen gave would be used by the International Red Cross to ensure Nielsen’s family was notified he was still alive. What the Japanese wanted was information of a military nature, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. The Japanese were charged with war crimes for a simple reason that it seems Major Alexander forgets. Japan and the United States were signatories to the Geneva Conventions in regards to treatment of military prisoners from before World War II. Japan throughout the war it started in the Pacific constantly ignored the Geneva Conventions by beating prisoners, starving prisoners, making prisoners work in war industries, and for executing prisoners of war. So it was legally proper to charge Japanese officers and men with crimes that violated the Geneva Conventions.
I believe that waterboarding, as implemented by our interrogators, does not rise to the standard of torture and was carefully controlled so that it wouldn’t. That is the reason that so much attention was given to the legal side of the matter and such care was undertaken in the administration of not just that, but all “enhanced techniques”. Many disagree, including some of the interrogators themselves. That’s life. There is no doubt that “traditional methods” of interrogation are effective in many cases. It’s also apparent that in some cases they are not.
Thank You! Similar to what I have been saying, but you did it much better!
Old Trooper
14 years ago
From the Moro Rebellion, 1911, Gen. John J. Pershing…fact or fiction?
HOW TO STOP ISLAMIC TERRORISTS…… it worked once in our History…
Once in U.S. history an episode of Islamic terrorism was very quickly stopped. It happened in the Philippines about 1911, when Gen. John J. Pershing was in command of the garrison. There had been numerous Islamic terrorist attacks, so “Black Jack” told his boys to catch the perps and teach them a lesson.
Forced to dig their own graves, the terrorists were all tied to posts, execution style. The U.S. soldiers then brought in pigs and slaughtered them, rubbing their bullets in the blood and fat. Thus, the terrorists were terrorized; they saw that they would be contaminated with hogs’ blood. This would mean that they could not enter Heaven, even if they died as terrorist martyrs.
nd Geneva Convention
All but one was shot, their bodies dumped into the grave, and the hog guts dumped atop the bodies. The lone survivor was allowed to escape back to the terrorist camp and tell his brethren what happened to the others. This brought a stop to terrorism in the Philippines for the next 50 years.
Pointing a gun into the face of Islamic terrorists won’t make them flinch.
They welcome the chance to die for Allah. Like Gen. Pershing, we must show them that they won’t get to Muslim heaven (which they believe has an endless supply of virgins) but instead will die with the hated pigs of the devil.
******************************************************************
Now I tend to treat this as fiction, however I also treat most claims of detainee abuse in the same fashion. Our Military has punished by Courts Martial anyone tried and convicted of UCMJ and Geneva Conventions violations, harshly but fairly. The alleged Air Force Interrogator, as yet unidentified has some serious questions to answer. Any allegations need to be investigated, period. Any Officer that cut a book deal and revealed details of those operations should be cashiered and sent packing or should have preferred formal charges. Your Oath of Office demands that, Freedom of the Press not withstanding. You are either an Officer or a Journo. You can’t do both unless your functional area is Public Information Officer. The Army/Navy/Air Force Newsies do not interrogate detainees. So the fictional Air Force Officer gets zero credibility with me.
The Abu Ghraib Courts Martials were flawed as the Chain of Command was negligent and derelict in both Command and Supervision all the way up to the MP Brigade Commander.
Only the enlisted were brought up on charges. If all of that mischief took place and Command was unaware, they were incompetent and negligent and should have been charged.
I can absolutely assure you all that any detainees captured on any Ops I was involved in were turned over to the Cage in the same shape they were when captured. Combat Lifesaver or Medic treatment were administered and there was no interrogation in the field. That is the job of folks that run the cage. My units never had inbeded newsies due to the nature of the Ops. Classified Ops have no newsies stringing along. All of You Need to Know freaks need to understand that. Classified Missions lead to more Missions that are Classified. No, unless you are directly involved, You Do Not have a Need to Know. Period.
Mr. Alexander comes off like either an Officer in violation of His Oath and the UCMJ or some clown with a book deal that never served and there are a few of those rascals out there.
JohnMcClane
14 years ago
Thanks for the feedback. It helps sort things out.
I don’t know if you still swing by FA, but you should take a look at a post I did recently. Also, I finished reading Matthew Alexander’s latest book, “Kill and Capture”. It was an enjoyable read and I may do a blogpost book review on it.
@Old Trooper: For some reason I missed your last comment in this post. I’ve heard this before but it sounded a bit of a stretch, like one of those email forwards, so I tried to confirm it with Snopes.
Having been a long-time practitioner of Filipino martial arts, stories of the Moros and of the Philippine Insurrection period has always been a part of the history of the warrior arts that came out of the Philippines. From the issuing of the .45 caliber for more stopping power, to the name “leathernecks” for Marines (could never confirm it as other than legend as it relates to the Marine experience against the Moro jurimentados), to modern boxing today (drawing influence from Filipino methods).
Yes, Clinton’s DoJ putting in the Gorelick firewall between CIA intelligence and FBI prosecution and detection of terrorists, i.e. ‘upholding our values’ really made us safer on 9/11. Imagine what would have happened on that date if we had in place those dastardly Bushitlerhalliburtonvader policies? Why maybe the terrorists might have been caught and then the left and democraps would be bemoaning those neocon libelous attacks and islamophobia against harmless airplane students merely seeking a better life in this country and that such a plot was fanciful in the extreme and could not possibly have succeeded if attempted.
@eaglewingz08: Right you are eaglewingz. Obama’s speech was SOOO September 10th. I’m sure I’m not the only one who recalled how well that mindest worked out for us.
What irked me about Obama’s Naval Academy speech was yet another slam at the Bush Administration. The implication is clear:
This is the guy who’s supposed to be the Great Uniter? Post-partisanship? Finding common ground and working together?
Just words…
I have seen Gorelick’s handiwork. The 911 Commission Report was a farce and a CYA job of extraordinary half truths and a Partisan effort. The Gorelick Firewall was defended and the critical lack of cooperation between Intelligence Agencies and Federal Government Agencies charged with National Security was poorly addressed.
I do not see Panetta’s CIA as anything but ineffective due to Obama’s policy decisions and threats of indictments for agents or operatives that pursue aggressive Intel collection techniques. Obama’s claims of American Values, a Moral High Ground and Pelosi’s attempt to deny being briefed on EIT has tied the hands of those that kept America safer post 911. I cannot use the term Safe because America’s destruction is still the goal of Islamic groups, world wide.
Justice Systems vary greatly across the globe. The Holder/Obama Justice System will be non-punitive, fail to administer justice for the victims of Terrorism and be apologetic in nature. The Geneva Conventions will be generally disregarded by the Pretender’s Regime which is a travesty. Giving US Constitutional Rights to non-citizens and murdering SOBs is not acceptable or within the powers granted to the three branches of US Government by any US Law.
The partisan Traitors in Congress blocked an investigation into Pelosi’s statements to the bootlicking Media that qualify as perjury if they were offered as sworn testimony.
Cheyney was right and America is less safe now than before 911 and will be so until after the next attack.
From someone who interrogated Iraqi prisoners in Iraq:
How to Break a Terrorist
by Major Alexander
Let me posit that very little exemplifies America’s strength of values as well as the hysterical shrieking and carrying-on by the political opposition who are horrified at the painless, albeit panic-inducing, act of waterboarding used three times on high-value terrorists. The debate itself proves our excess of morality. Too bad it’s just an exercise in politics.
I doubt that any nation has ever done so little to so few when there was so much at stake. The fact that our President has emoted so strongly against that carefully considered and executed technique that many have come to describe it as “torture” must have the jihadists fainting in sheer admiration at our moral purity.
Except, that is, for the ones who are passing out on the floor from an excess of laughter at our weakness. Remember, they would high five each other at pictures of our school children bloating in the sun after a sarin gas attack.
I suspect the whole brouhaha exists mainly because an Alinsky schooled pro understands the art of distraction well enough to keep us focused on his left hand while his right hand is emptying our wallets.
@JohnMcClane: Great link!
And the revelations of “torture and abuse”….were they common practice and policy or were they aberrations and a drop of urine in a river of good we have been doing on behalf of the Iraqi people?
Was it the overexaggerated claims and perception fueled by media sensationalism, anti-Americanism, and al Qaeda propagandization or was the rise in foreign fighters “coming to the rescue” of Iraqis based upon reality?
Other than the quibble, I agree that abu Ghraib almost single-handedly cost us the post-war peace in Iraq. Given that….would you say it was wise and a good thing for 60 Minutes to air their sensitive news story (Centcom months earlier had already announced investigations into the abuses) during a time of war? Would Iraq be better off today if it had caused us to abandon Iraq, soon after the “revelation”?
Guantanamo, although it had early problems at the beginning, is a far, far cry from being anything remotely resembling a gulag. The ones suffering abuses are the soldiers there, at the hands of the detainees. These terrorists won’t find better treatment in captivity in any other prison system or detainment center on earth.
Some Arabs, who know full well what real torture and abuse is about, consider Gitmo a joke.
Not exactly, because “torture” and abuse is nowhere near what the public perception might be. It’s al Qaeda’s propagandizing of the actual abuses that created a rise in foreign fighters and recruitment. Or are you or Major Alexander saying that playing the Meow Meow Meow commercial song over and over at Gitmo to a takfiri terrorist a warrant for taking up arms against the efforts of the U.S. and Coalition forces to rebuild Iraq and make life better for Iraqis?
You would have done well to edit out that section of the article yourself. Aye Chihuahua, you want this one?
Well guess what? Cheney and Bush prohibit troops from torturing prisoners of war, too.
Think about it!
After which, Zubaydah clammed up.
Hey, guess what? Obama didn’t mention Soufan either. What’s the author’s point? A lot of things don’t get mentioned.
Ali Soufan, Ali Soufan, Ali Soufan…..
He’s not the “end-all-be-all” on this, although I actually respect his experience and perspective (which has its limitations since his role ended- from March to June 2002- when he was removed from further interrogations…and there seem to be some timeline discrepancy/dispute as to when harsh interrogations began- August, as Soufan claims, or late March/early April of 2002, as supported by the memos and the CIA’s IG report?). There is a difference between military and law enforcement interrogations; and a number of FBI agents fail to make the distinction between the need to make a criminal case from the need to obtain strategic information.
But we could discover what more we learned through enhanced interrogations, if not for Obama. Why release only half the information?
That makes no sense whatsoever. Please explain that one to me. I’m not smart enough.
That’s interesting. Because one of the stories I’ve heard from Guantanamo is of a detainee who gained the trust of a military nurse. She had treated him on previous occasion:
The nurse required facial surgeries.
Yes, respect and civility can go a long way. it worked for the Japanese. But there’s a difference between committed, fanatical jihadis and al Qaeda foot soldiers and operatives who are not as “hardcore” as their namesake. I’m sure some al Qaeda members recruited might be reconcilable; others are deadenders and beyond redemption.
I actually agree with “Major Alexander” (his pseudonym) more than I may come across here as devil’s advocate, with the “smarter, not harsher” approach in general (hmmm…..must be why waterboarding happened to only 3 terrorists at a time when the belief that other attacks were imminent was real and palpable- I believe 8 other planes grounded on 9/11 had discoveries of knives and boxcutters hidden in and under seats), but consider this: how many less lives killed at the leadership hands of Zarqawi could have been saved, had we applied the harsher approach? the “relationship-building” and law enforcement approach to interrogation takes time; also realize, that some of these guys, have also been given extensive training in resisting interrogation.
Forgot to add to my fisking, buwahahahahaa!!!!!!
REAL torture and murders of Iraqis by al Qaeda in Iraq became their downfall. You’d think they would have learned the “smarter, not harsher” approach in building Iraqi allies.
Lmao!
@JohnMcClane: Responding to your points:
FIRST: We were attacked by terrorists at the World Trade Center in 1993 long before anyone ever heard of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo. The same goes for the Khobar Towers bombing, the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the bombing of the USS Cole.
Experts I have read say that what recruited more terrorists than anything else were successful terrorist attacks.
SECOND: The Japanase waterboarding experience was DEADLY. It was nothing at all like what we did to JUST THREE TERRORISTS. Look up the history and you might learn something.
THIRD: If you really think we would have learned just as much from the THREE TERRORISTS who waterboarded then demand Obama release the memos which show what we DID learn. Then ask yourself whether you wanted to be working in the Library Tower of Los Angeles while we said “purty please” to Abu Zubaydah.
FINALLY, Yes, there were incredible successes in the intelligence war that didn’t require waterboarding. THAT’S WHY IT WAS USED ON JUST THREEEEE TEEERRRRROOORRRIIISSSTTTSSS!!!!!!
Does that help?
Mike,
Your favorite moonbat squad is out “making a difference“.
On waterboarding, I recently saw this scan of LIFE magazine from 1902, concerning General Pershing and our military engagement in the Phillipines:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SqhhJb_P3Kk/SgMutt2rICI/AAAAAAAAG48/Hi_W0Poy22c/s1600-h/waterboarding+1902.jpg
Awesome find!
I’d love to see the article that accompanies that. 1902 would be at the end of the Philippine Insurrection (well, not really). Brutality all around; and yet, we were still “the good guys”, there.
That illustration is nothing like the controlled waterboarding we did of JUST THREE TERRORISTS.
Revisit the DOJ/CIA documents Obama selectively declassified if you want to learn more about how carefully this technique was controlled.
@Wordsmith: When are those circus freaks going to start protesting Obama?
Someone should tell them that Cheney is out of office and Obama has adopted nearly ALL of the policies they protest against.
Done!
I’m still trying to figure out any ” ‘gator” worth his salt writing a book on “how to extract intel from jihad detainees using psychology”.
Don’t know much about the guy, nor have I read the book. But according to the reviews it’s stories of interrogation methods… which is basically telegraphing to the enemy what to expect, and how to train to resist.
This is an American interrogator? Gawd… hope not.
Or perhaps he’s one of those fake interrogators that hang out with the likes of the fake soldiers in the IVAW. Something smells fishy here… the CIA or their contractors allow someone to pen a “how to” novel leaking interrogation methods, yet we can’t get Obama to unclassify results of waterboarding?
Sorry… don’t buy into this one, John McClane.
Also, INRE blaming Abu Ghraib for attracting jihad foreign fighters. Well now ain’t that convenient? The US coalition deposed Saddam in March 2003.. the start of OIF. The US military had already started investigating the prison abuse that same year and was getting ready to try those responsible when 60 Minutes the Times brought the story to the public in April 2004. Note, this is a year later.
So are you so gullible to believe that the foreign fighters were not in Iraq between April 2003 and April 2004? Sorry… not factual.
WaPo points out that it was “increasingly apparent” that terrorism tactics were imported when discussing past events in March of 2004… before Abu Ghraib became public.
NYT’s reports in June of 2003 about the recruitment of foreign fighters into Iraq. Read the article… the recruiting was solidly underway fully nine months before Abu Ghraib. Let’s not forget the 80 foreign fighters captured in Fallujah in Sept 2003.… well in advance of Abu Ghraib.
Then there’s the suicide bombings in Oct 2003,… again before Abu Ghraib.
As for Guantanamo, that’s been open for business since 2002 when detainees from Afghanistan were sent there…. even before the Iraq liberation happened. Yet this supposed interrogator says this was a reason to come “en masse” to Iraq? Why bother… they could have stayed in Afghanistan and accomplished the same uprising against the evil US.
And for the record, AQ and foreign fighters have never flooded into Iraq “en masse”. They have always been a small percentage of the overall “insurgency”. And they have been present in that country, operating freely within Saddam’s borders, for over a decade before OIF.
Horse manure on Matthew Alexander. His assertations don’t add up in the real world timeline. Sounds like a guy making up CIA / Aesop fairy tales to amuse the liberal/progressive base that can actually read.
Check this out for more on the Philippines and the “water cure”:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9F07E3D61130E132A25757C0A9639C946397D6CF&oref=slogin
@Wordsmith: I left a reply:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4927240156474434943&postID=2967086192091677340
“Rules for Radicals” makes it very clear that few will object when Obama does the same thing. The only thing that matters to these people is power and the Pinkos the lowest of pawns in that game.
@JohnMcClane: One more time: what you are linking to is NOT what we did to THHHRREEEEE TEEERRRROORRRIISSSTSSS!
@JohnMcClane #16: I already know all about it. Apparently we acquired knowledge of how to do it from Macabebe scouts. Is there a point here, I’m missing?
It’s crap that Jacob Smith, Edwin Glenn (cited in your link), and Littleton Waller have come to typify the American officers who served honorably in the Philippines, a very difficult conflict to be involved in.
Mike,
I’m aghast….you pulled your punches…
…then went straight for the kick to the nuts.
Here’s a little more about Matthew Alexander:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242_pf.html
Ann Coulter seems to agree on the horse manure thought. On Hannity on April 30th, she said she didn’t know the Air Force had interrogators.
Here’s a link to a rough transcript from Matthew Alexander’s appearance on Hannity on Dec 2nd, 2008:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,460944,00.html
Sean didn’t seem to have any information at the time to indicate that Matthew Alexander’s background is fishy.
Maybe something else will come up.
I was curious, so already ahead of you, McClane. I was reading his WaPo op-ed where he was whining about how “tortured” he was about what he saw in Iraq.
INRE his penning of interrogation methods, he claims it’s not classified because it’s all in the Army Field Manual. Comes across as an arrogant type by claiming he suggested the Sunni Awakening to Gen. Casey and he didn’t “respond”. Guess he wants some post-surge credit.
Apparently, he spent only 5 months in Iraq, and that commenced in March of 2006… the hey day of the jihad groups attempting to fuel a civil war by pressuring the Sunnis to cooperate and arming them, plus blowing up the mosques. In short, Mr. Alexander was interrogating mostly Iraq Sunnis, not AQ/Gitmo high value types. That is a completely different animal. Many Iraqis were forced into the service of the Zarqawi’s and AQI by fear and assassination of elders and clerics. Not exactly a tough mark to question.
Yet on that, he says:
Right… a “hard core” jihadi gives up info because he wasn’t tortured? Of course, he bandies about Zarqawi’s name, but doesn’t mention any “hard core” detainee he had…. nor what info they gave up that was actionable. Why not? He just bragged about his intel INRE Zarqawi’s location and ultimate death by bombing.
Perhaps he’s just good at the art of embellishment.
According to him, he says he personally conducted over 300 interrogations, and supervised over 1000. During a five month period, that means he was averaging 5 interrogations a day personally, plus supervising 15 more daily. Assuming they did 30 minutes each, that’s a 10 hour day, 7 days a week, for five months … without a break… of interrogation.
Why does horse manure still come to mind?
It was his five month tour in 2006 where he proclaims he knows why the jihadis came to Iraq… even tho they had been coming BEFORE Abu Ghraib.
Really? Considering he didn’t have the jihad hard cores, and the majority of his detainees were Iraqis, how does he come to that conclusion with such certainty? And why does he ignore their presence not only pre-Abu Ghraib, but for the decade prior to OIF?
Again, horse manure. He comes across as a man so completely self-absorbed with his own smug morality that he misses the fact he, himself, aids and abets the enemy with such accusations based not on fact, but emotion.
How many foreign jihadis were in those 300 interrogations, Mr. Alexander? What was the ratio of jihadis to Iraqis? And how do you know they aren’t telling you exactly what they want you to tell the press… in other words, ride the Abu Ghraib wave of PR?
Makes me wonder just who was manipulating whom.
You have to be kidding me? This line of reasoning is just beyond ludicrous. Supposed hard core fighters decide to snitch because they were treated well? Give me a break. I tell ya one thing, if someone were to give me this line, but substituted a local gangster I deal with on a daily basis, I would laugh my ass off….and these hard core Islamic freaks make the guys I deal with look like little school girls.
Beyond retarded.
And these lefties fall for this stuff daily….just pathetic.
I’ve only read one of Matthew Alexander’s book’s; “I’m Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq” and I have several problems with both recent articles in the media, that book and about Matthew Alexander himself, especially the inflammatory quote by a writer who doesn’t even have the courage to use his real name, (allegedly because he fears for the safety of his family). I truly question who Matthew Alexander really is and if he was even in the military, or was an FBI interrogator and if he actually interrogated anyone. Maybe he is a complete phony, maybe not.
To state as he did in his book though, that “The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001″ is absurd. Where is the evidence to support such a ridiculous, inflammatory statement? There is none, and it’s not “fair to say,” or imply, there is.
I will go even further and say that OUR interrogations saved thousands and maybe even tens of thousands of American lives. Of course I have more evidence to support my opinion than M.A. has to support his.
I get the uneasy feeling that this guy is just trying to sell books, hoping that many people will accept everything he says as fact. That feeling is bolstered by his choice of venues…HuffPo, antiwar.com, etc. as well as his fast and loose treatment of facts.
For instance, it was Jordanian intelligence forces that arrested and questioned the Iraqi customs agent, Ziad Khalaf Raja al-Karbouli, who is credited with giving up the whereabouts of Zarqawi’s safe houses, not Alexander or his “team”, that led to the final demise of one of Iraq’s most feared terrorists.
You can bet your last dollar the Jordanians didn’t sweet talk this guy into giving up the location of Zarqawi. And Alexander didn’t get the $25M reward, either.
I agree with one thing however, “What’s Not Said Is More Important Than What Is Said”, and he is not saying some important things. He’s not saying that the convictions in the Tokyo trials were for a whole laundry list of offenses of which waterboarding was only a minor part. He also doesn’t say that the “water cure” as practiced by the Japanese was nothing like the controlled methods used on the three terrorists that we interrogated. Their method was to force water into the victim until their bellies were distended and then to beat them with clubs, kick, punch and jump on their stomachs until it was expelled and to sometimes use salt water that actually killed them.
He offers nothing but anecdotal “proof” that our imprisonment and treatment of detainees “caused thousands of Muslim men to take up arms” but doesn’t mention that the vast majority of foreign fighters came to Iraq after the call by OBL to make Iraq the focus of Jihad against the West, long before the Abu Ghraib incident. Nor does he mention that the atrocities committed by those fighters against the Iraqis, especially by AQI, was the main reason we were able to accomplish the Anbar Awakening.
He mentions Ali Soufan and how he “successfully” interrogated Abu Zubaydah, but doesn’t mention that Padilla was a fairly low level player, he gave no information other than his name and that it was US investigators that tracked and arrested him, (he was arrested in Chicago), and that it was already known that KSM was involved in the planning of 9/11. He may be upset that “others took over” (what others, weren’t they all on the same team?), but that suggests to me that his methods, as Cheney said, were not working or were not timely enough and that it wasn’t until after Zubaydah was waterboarded that he gave up the alias (Muhktar) and location of KSM and other information. (In fairness, Soufan disputes that, saying he got KSM’s “nickname” first but it wasn’t immediately connected to KSM).
If Matthew Alexander is actually who he says he is, he is an FBI interrogator, not from the CIA or our military. FBI interrogators like Soufan were given military credentials but as Soufan points out, they were not legitimate and would cause major problems for their bearers if caught. I suspect his FBI affiliation because he has the same timelines, beefs and prejudices as Soufan and displays the same inter-agency rivalry.
Bottom line, I believe that waterboarding, as implemented by our interrogators, does not rise to the standard of torture and was carefully controlled so that it wouldn’t. That is the reason that so much attention was given to the legal side of the matter and such care was undertaken in the administration of not just that, but all “enhanced techniques”. Many disagree, including some of the interrogators themselves. That’s life. There is no doubt that “traditional methods” of interrogation are effective in many cases. It’s also apparent that in some cases they are not. Soufan himself states that it took him almost three months, (March to June) to uncover from Zubaydah just those two items of intel that he did get. I do however take with a grain of salt information from those with a political agenda or who are selling books or have other financial or partisan interests that affect their opinions.
As to the original subject of the OP, Cheney spanked Bambi like a red-headed step child. To add to the utter hypocrisy of the One, it now comes out that he is “outsourcing interrogations” to Islamic countries that don’t share his delicate sensibilities on prisoner treatment…
Good News! Obama Outsources Interrogation Of Islamists
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2009/05/24/good-news-obama-outsources-interrogation-of-islamists/
Maybe it’s not the methods that he objects to so much, but the political flack…
Renditions lite?
wardogs
Good adds, Wardog. He may not feel comfortable disclosing his real name (nor do I think interrogators should…). But he sure doesn’t mind throwing his photo out. The Harper’s link in my “Update” in comment #21 carries a photo with it…. in fatigues.
Okay I will bite on McClane and Alexander’s chatter about the Doolittle Raider getting waterboarded.
Source: The Doolittle Raid – America’s daring first strike against Japan. Carrol V. Glines. Schiffer Military History. 1991. Pg 170-171.
Quote – “The Japanese took me out of my cell about three o’clock in the afternoon of April 24,” Nielsen recalled, “and started questioning me about our mission through an interpreter. I gave them my name, rank, and serial number, and told them that was all the information I was going to give.”
“The first thing they did was to put pencils between my fingers, squeezing my hands and forcing the pencils up and down causing the skin to break.” When he wouldn’t talk, Nielsen was stretched out on the floor and given the infamous “water cure.” Four soldiers sat on his arms and legs while a fifth placed a wet towel over his face and poured water on it. Every time he gasped for breath, more water was poured on the towel, which had the effect of drowning him.
The more they tortured, the more Nielsen was determined he was not going to talk. His resolution caused him to be subjected to another favorite Oriental torture. A bamboo stick about three feet long and two inches in diameter was placed behind his knees and he was forced to kneel and sit back as far as he could. One of the soldiers held him in this position while another jumped up and down on his thighs. Execruciating as it was, Nielsen still didn’t give in to their questions. – End quote
So taken in toto, the water cure Nielsen was subjected to was in fact torture designed to punish the prisoner for adhering on what type of information the prisoner can give his captors. What Nielsen gave would be used by the International Red Cross to ensure Nielsen’s family was notified he was still alive. What the Japanese wanted was information of a military nature, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. The Japanese were charged with war crimes for a simple reason that it seems Major Alexander forgets. Japan and the United States were signatories to the Geneva Conventions in regards to treatment of military prisoners from before World War II. Japan throughout the war it started in the Pacific constantly ignored the Geneva Conventions by beating prisoners, starving prisoners, making prisoners work in war industries, and for executing prisoners of war. So it was legally proper to charge Japanese officers and men with crimes that violated the Geneva Conventions.
@wardogs said:
Thank You! Similar to what I have been saying, but you did it much better!
From the Moro Rebellion, 1911, Gen. John J. Pershing…fact or fiction?
HOW TO STOP ISLAMIC TERRORISTS…… it worked once in our History…
Once in U.S. history an episode of Islamic terrorism was very quickly stopped. It happened in the Philippines about 1911, when Gen. John J. Pershing was in command of the garrison. There had been numerous Islamic terrorist attacks, so “Black Jack” told his boys to catch the perps and teach them a lesson.
Forced to dig their own graves, the terrorists were all tied to posts, execution style. The U.S. soldiers then brought in pigs and slaughtered them, rubbing their bullets in the blood and fat. Thus, the terrorists were terrorized; they saw that they would be contaminated with hogs’ blood. This would mean that they could not enter Heaven, even if they died as terrorist martyrs.
nd Geneva Convention
All but one was shot, their bodies dumped into the grave, and the hog guts dumped atop the bodies. The lone survivor was allowed to escape back to the terrorist camp and tell his brethren what happened to the others. This brought a stop to terrorism in the Philippines for the next 50 years.
Pointing a gun into the face of Islamic terrorists won’t make them flinch.
They welcome the chance to die for Allah. Like Gen. Pershing, we must show them that they won’t get to Muslim heaven (which they believe has an endless supply of virgins) but instead will die with the hated pigs of the devil.
******************************************************************
Now I tend to treat this as fiction, however I also treat most claims of detainee abuse in the same fashion. Our Military has punished by Courts Martial anyone tried and convicted of UCMJ and Geneva Conventions violations, harshly but fairly. The alleged Air Force Interrogator, as yet unidentified has some serious questions to answer. Any allegations need to be investigated, period. Any Officer that cut a book deal and revealed details of those operations should be cashiered and sent packing or should have preferred formal charges. Your Oath of Office demands that, Freedom of the Press not withstanding. You are either an Officer or a Journo. You can’t do both unless your functional area is Public Information Officer. The Army/Navy/Air Force Newsies do not interrogate detainees. So the fictional Air Force Officer gets zero credibility with me.
The Abu Ghraib Courts Martials were flawed as the Chain of Command was negligent and derelict in both Command and Supervision all the way up to the MP Brigade Commander.
Only the enlisted were brought up on charges. If all of that mischief took place and Command was unaware, they were incompetent and negligent and should have been charged.
I can absolutely assure you all that any detainees captured on any Ops I was involved in were turned over to the Cage in the same shape they were when captured. Combat Lifesaver or Medic treatment were administered and there was no interrogation in the field. That is the job of folks that run the cage. My units never had inbeded newsies due to the nature of the Ops. Classified Ops have no newsies stringing along. All of You Need to Know freaks need to understand that. Classified Missions lead to more Missions that are Classified. No, unless you are directly involved, You Do Not have a Need to Know. Period.
Mr. Alexander comes off like either an Officer in violation of His Oath and the UCMJ or some clown with a book deal that never served and there are a few of those rascals out there.
Thanks for the feedback. It helps sort things out.
@JohnMcClane: Hey John,
I don’t know if you still swing by FA, but you should take a look at a post I did recently. Also, I finished reading Matthew Alexander’s latest book, “Kill and Capture”. It was an enjoyable read and I may do a blogpost book review on it.
@Old Trooper: For some reason I missed your last comment in this post. I’ve heard this before but it sounded a bit of a stretch, like one of those email forwards, so I tried to confirm it with Snopes.
Having been a long-time practitioner of Filipino martial arts, stories of the Moros and of the Philippine Insurrection period has always been a part of the history of the warrior arts that came out of the Philippines. From the issuing of the .45 caliber for more stopping power, to the name “leathernecks” for Marines (could never confirm it as other than legend as it relates to the Marine experience against the Moro jurimentados), to modern boxing today (drawing influence from Filipino methods).