Inside a 9/11 mastermind's interrogation

[ProfJohn]

This is a very long article so I am not going to post much of it here.

But I HIGHLY recommend that everyone go read it. It is a filled with information that I am sure most of us don't know.
link
partial quote

In a makeshift prison in the north of Poland, Al Qaeda's engineer of mass murder faced off against his Central Intelligence Agency interrogator. It was 18 months after the 9/11 attacks, and the invasion of Iraq was giving Muslim extremists new motives for havoc. If anyone knew about the next plot, it was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

The interrogator, Deuce Martinez, a soft-spoken analyst who spoke no Arabic, had turned down a CIA offer to be trained in waterboarding. He chose to leave the infliction of pain and panic to others, the gung-ho paramilitary types whom the more cerebral interrogators called "knuckledraggers."

Martinez came in after the rough stuff, the ultimate good cop with the classic skills: an unimposing presence, inexhaustible patience and a willingness to listen to the gripes and musings of a pitiless killer in rambling, imperfect English. He achieved a rapport with Mohammed that astonished his fellow CIA officers.

and

"I asked, 'What are we going to do with these guys when we get them?' " recalled A. B. Krongard, the No. 3 official at the CIA from March 2001 until 2004. "I said, 'We've never run a prison. We don't have the languages. We don't have the interrogators.' "

In its scramble, the agency made the momentous decision to use harsh methods the United States had long condemned. With little research or reflection, it borrowed its techniques from an American military training program modeled on the torture repertories of the Soviet Union and other cold-war adversaries, a lineage that would come to haunt the agency.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This is a very long article so I am not going to post much of it here.

But I HIGHLY recommend that everyone go read it. It is a filled with information that I am sure most of us don't know.
link
partial quote

In a makeshift prison in the north of Poland, Al Qaeda's engineer of mass murder faced off against his Central Intelligence Agency interrogator. It was 18 months after the 9/11 attacks, and the invasion of Iraq was giving Muslim extremists new motives for havoc. If anyone knew about the next plot, it was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

The interrogator, Deuce Martinez, a soft-spoken analyst who spoke no Arabic, had turned down a CIA offer to be trained in waterboarding. He chose to leave the infliction of pain and panic to others, the gung-ho paramilitary types whom the more cerebral interrogators called "knuckledraggers."

Martinez came in after the rough stuff, the ultimate good cop with the classic skills: an unimposing presence, inexhaustible patience and a willingness to listen to the gripes and musings of a pitiless killer in rambling, imperfect English. He achieved a rapport with Mohammed that astonished his fellow CIA officers.

and

"I asked, 'What are we going to do with these guys when we get them?' " recalled A. B. Krongard, the No. 3 official at the CIA from March 2001 until 2004. "I said, 'We've never run a prison. We don't have the languages. We don't have the interrogators.' "

In its scramble, the agency made the momentous decision to use harsh methods the United States had long condemned. With little research or reflection, it borrowed its techniques from an American military training program modeled on the torture repertories of the Soviet Union and other cold-war adversaries, a lineage that would come to haunt the agency.

Before your edit you also waxed poetical about how history would judge GWB in a better light - and attempted to bring the actions of FDR into it as it was an okay thing.....

It's not. Wasn't then, isn't now.

 

[ProfJohn]

I removed that line in order to keep the thread from heading into a debate about Bush waterboarding and history.

But as I said, FDR threw 110,000 innocent people into prisons and yet is still viewed as one of the greatest Presidents ever. In other words, people don't judge him solely on the basis of that one VERY bad decision. Similarly, Bush will not be judged on the decision to waterboard people or to launch the Iraq war, but on the overall impact and result of his Presidency, something that we will not be able to see for years yet.

Now back to the topic at hand...

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I removed that line in order to keep the thread from heading into a debate about Bush waterboarding and history.

But as I said, FDR threw 110,000 innocent people into prisons and yet is still viewed as one of the greatest Presidents ever. In other words, people don't judge him solely on the basis of that one VERY bad decision.

Now back to the topic at hand...

How about some more bad FDR decisions - since he now seems to be the topic?

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I removed that line in order to keep the thread from heading into a debate about Bush waterboarding and history.

But as I said, FDR threw 110,000 innocent people into prisons and yet is still viewed as one of the greatest Presidents ever. In other words, people don't judge him solely on the basis of that one VERY bad decision.

Now back to the topic at hand...

How about some more bad FDR decisions - since he now seems to be the topic?

You are the one who made him the topic...

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I removed that line in order to keep the thread from heading into a debate about Bush waterboarding and history.

But as I said, FDR threw 110,000 innocent people into prisons and yet is still viewed as one of the greatest Presidents ever. In other words, people don't judge him solely on the basis of that one VERY bad decision.

Now back to the topic at hand...

How about some more bad FDR decisions - since he now seems to be the topic?

You are the one who made him the topic...

Well, sir. You're free to go back to the topic. What's your take on it?

 

[CycloWizard]

Torture is torture. Torture is wrong. Any positive end that comes from torture is simply an accidental byproduct of evil behavior. The forest is thriving in Chernobyl.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I removed that line in order to keep the thread from heading into a debate about Bush waterboarding and history.

As if we could ever have a legitimate, honest discussion/debate about the topic here, without the inevitable "But Bush" and "Torture" manifestos coming out.

3...2...1...

 

[wwswimming]

Originally posted by: ProfJohnBut as I said, FDR threw 110,000 innocent people into prisons and yet is still viewed as one of the greatest Presidents ever.

plus he seized people's gold.

now if they would just let Deuce interrogate Dick Cheney
and C.Rice about all the 9-11 warnings they chose to ignore.

 

[Lemon law]

Oh but I want to cover another topic, namely that the brits and maybe us were peeing their pants to see what motivated these terrorists never gets released. Effectively, the lives of terrorists who get captured are basically over, their organizations go on without them, in a short time their operational knowledge gets stale, and someone more effective or less effective will have long ago replaced them. As long as the motivation is there, the supply of these potential terrorist masterminds will be semi infinite.

Bah, what is the use of a long article if it does not cover what motivates terrorists and by extension, why what we do motivate them to attack us?

But it does show that torture is unnecessary.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Oh but I want to cover another topic, namely that the brits and maybe us were peeing their pants to see what motivated these terrorists never gets released. Effectively, the lives of terrorists who get captured are basically over, their organizations go on without them, in a short time their operational knowledge gets stale, and someone more effective or less effective will have long ago replaced them. As long as the motivation is there, the supply of these potential terrorist masterminds will be semi infinite.

Bah, what is the use of a long article if it does not cover what motivates terrorists and by extension, why what we do motivate them to attack us?

But it does show that torture is unnecessary.

What is ironic is that those who are honest about terrorist motivations wish to keep us free and wealthy, while those who say their motivations are due to us being rich and free have actually made us poor while trampling on our rights.

 

[Moonbeam]

Self hate has as its property a deep need to see others suffer. When self hate infects the 'civilized' great contortions are required to satisfy this sick need. The psychopath's biggest dream is to turn everybody into the same sick animal he is so he has no longer any need to play games. Violence cruelty murder and brutality are constantly looking for approval. The mad man is always troubled by the fact that he is sick.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I removed that line in order to keep the thread from heading into a debate about Bush waterboarding and history.

But as I said, FDR threw 110,000 innocent people into prisons and yet is still viewed as one of the greatest Presidents ever. In other words, people don't judge him solely on the basis of that one VERY bad decision. Similarly, Bush will not be judged on the decision to waterboard people or to launch the Iraq war, but on the overall impact and result of his Presidency, something that we will not be able to see for years yet.

Now back to the topic at hand...

The difference is the FDR made 1 big bad decision and many good decisions including decisions which moved the country from the worst depression to a period of unprecedented prosperity for the whole of the country. So his bad decision was one in a very long list of overall positive achievements.

Bush on the other hand has no great positive achievements to speak of, only controversial or bad ones. So there is not much for history to judge him by and will, therefore, be judged by his bad decisions.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
The difference is the FDR made 1 big bad decision and many good decisions including decisions which moved the country from the worst depression to a period of unprecedented prosperity for the whole of the country. So his bad decision was one in a very long list of overall positive achievements.

FDR was a failure when it came to ending the depression.
Read about the depression of 1937, four years after FDR had taken office.

Look at history, the depression did not end until WW 2 broke out.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Topic Title: Inside a 9/11 mastermind's interrogation
Topic Summary: a must read for anyone wanting to learn more about our anti-terrorist actions

This is a very long article so I am not going to post much of it here.

But I HIGHLY recommend that everyone go read it. It is a filled with information that I am sure most of us don't know.

Ah yes of course got it.

Republicans = anti-terror

Democrats = America lose

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Topic Title: Inside a 9/11 mastermind's interrogation
Topic Summary: a must read for anyone wanting to learn more about our anti-terrorist actions

This is a very long article so I am not going to post much of it here.

But I HIGHLY recommend that everyone go read it. It is a filled with information that I am sure most of us don't know.

Ah yes of course got it.

Republicans = anti-terror

Democrats = America lose

Glad you're finally starting to see the light Dave.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Glad you're finally starting to see the light Dave.

:laugh:

 

[Lemon law]

Even if the only light comes a glowing sarcasm meter? As I am bathed in the din as my bullshit detectors sound their independent alarms.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
The difference is the FDR made 1 big bad decision and many good decisions including decisions which moved the country from the worst depression to a period of unprecedented prosperity for the whole of the country. So his bad decision was one in a very long list of overall positive achievements.

FDR was a failure when it came to ending the depression.
Read about the depression of 1937, four years after FDR had taken office.

Look at history, the depression did not end until WW 2 broke out.

PJ, why don't you post some data not with macro numbers, but broken down by how each quintile did in the US 1933-1940 - the bottom 20%, 21-40, 41-60, etc.?

I haven't looked at the data lately, but FDR certainly did do a lot that made Americans better off, and restore hope to the public quite a bit.

On second thought, I hardly expect you to post the data, so readers can click the following three charts, which are quite at odds with your description of the situation.

GDP

Unemployment (overall)

Unemployment (manufacturing)

Summary from Wikipedia:

The economy had hit rock bottom in March 1933 and then started to expand. As historian Broadus Mitchell notes, "Most indexes worsened until the summer of 1932, which may be called the low point of the depression economically and psychologically."[13] Economic indicators show the economy reached nadir in the first days of March, then began a steady, sharp upward recovery. Thus the Federal Reserve Index of Industrial Production hit its lowest point of 52.8 in July 1932 (with 1935-39 = 100) and was practically unchanged at 54.3 in March 1933; however by July 1933, it reached 85.5, a dramatic rebound of 57% in four months. Recovery was steady and strong until 1937. Except for unemployment, the economy by 1937 surpassed the levels of the late 1920s. The Recession of 1937 was a temporary downturn. Private sector employment, especially in manufacturing, recovered to the level of the 1920s but failed to advance further until the war.

Not that there weren't critics - that he was too conservative:

Some historians have denounced Roosevelt for rescuing capitalism when the opportunity was at hand to nationalize banking, railroads and other industries. Liberal historians argue that Roosevelt restored hope and self-respect to tens of millions of desperate people, built labor unions, upgraded the national infrastructure and saved capitalism in his first term when he could have destroyed it and easily nationalized the banks and the railroads.

Other historians have complained that that he enlarged the powers of the federal government, built up labor unions, slowed long-term economic growth, and weakened the business community.

Historians on the left have denounced the New Deal as a conservative phenomenon that let slip the opportunity to radically reform capitalism. Since the 1960s, "New Left" historians have been among the New Deal's harsh critics.[24] Barton J. Bernstein, in a 1968 essay, compiled a chronicle of missed opportunities and inadequate responses to problems. The New Deal may have saved capitalism from itself, Bernstein charged, but it had failed to help?and in many cases actually harmed?those groups most in need of assistance. Paul K. Conkin in The New Deal (1967) similarly chastised the government of the 1930s for its policies toward marginal farmers, for its failure to institute sufficiently progressive tax reform, and its excessive generosity toward select business interests. Howard Zinn, in 1966, criticized the New Deal for working actively to actually preserve the worst evils of capitalism.

 

[NeoV]

"FDR was a failure when it came to ending the depression.
Read about the depression of 1937, four years after FDR had taken office.

Look at history, the depression did not end until WW 2 broke out."

New nominee for most uniformed post of the day.

 

[Lemon law]

Hoover and his policies did zero to fight the depression, had Hoover had won re election in 1932, its almost certain the USA would have done much worse than it did under FDR.

An inconvenient truth that conservative critics of FDR are unwilling to confront as they make the case that FDR was not that effective in solving the depression either.

The point is that a capitalistic economy can stabilize at any level of output, but Republican policies during the 1920's distributed economic gains to only the wealthy, and as a result business got more efficient, but that had the net effect of killing off the customer who had little money with the low wages. And without buyers for the output of business, the economy imploded. When you kill off the base of the food chain to aid the top, everyone ends up suffering as the pie to be distributed gets much smaller.

 

[Craig234]

The interesting thing about the right always wanting to point out that it was WWII that really got us out of the depression and into a good situation, is that economically, WWII was the ultimate in big government wasteful spending. *Huge* spending, *huge* redirection of people out of the private sector into government work, *huge* resources to make completely wasteful products, *huge* deficits.

The moral of that story is, when you want to fix the economy, have the government get massively involved with spending money we don't have to put a large segment of our economy into completely wasteful activities, and you will do great; actually have them do something productive and it's even better. They're practically arguing for socialism as the best way to stimulate the economy.