Afghan Militant Leader Captured

What do you think about the world?
Post Reply
User avatar
Avestan
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 905
Joined: July 4, 2002, 12:45 am
Location: Palo Alto, CA

Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Avestan »

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... tml?hpt=T1

"joint custody" = loophole so that we can still torture the guy
Washington (CNN) -- The seizure of the Afghan Taliban's top military leader in Pakistan represents a turning point in the U.S.-led war against the militants, U.S. officials and analysts said.

The arrest of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar represents the most significant Taliban capture since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, a senior Obama administration official said Tuesday.

Baradar has been a close associate of Osama bin Laden's and is seen as the No. 2 figure in the Afghan Taliban, behind Mullah Mohammed Omar.

"If anyone would know where the senior leaders are of al Qaeda and the Taliban, then Baradar is someone who would be privy to that kind of information," said M.J. Gohel, executive director of the Asia-Pacific Foundation.

It's "major success for the CIA" and "a major blow for the Taliban," Gohel said.


The arrest also represents a "new level of cooperation" between Pakistani and American forces working to rout the Taliban, said U.S. Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and co-author of legislation designed to improve cooperation between Pakistan and the United States.

Described as a savvy and modern military leader, Baradar was arrested in the southern Pakistani city of Karachi several days ago, a senior Pakistani intelligence official said. The official asked not to be named because he is not authorized to speak to the media.

Baradar is being held in joint custody and investigated by both the CIA and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, another senior Pakistani source said.

Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, a Taliban spokesman in Afghanistan, denied that Baradar had been captured. He said Baradar is continuing his operations and is in Afghanistan.

Another Afghan Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, also denied Baradar had been arrested. He said reports of his arrest are designed to demoralize the Afghan Taliban.

Despite confirmation of the arrest by Pakistani sources, Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik said he could not verify reports of the capture. He also denied reports the CIA and ISI conducted a secret raid that captured Baradar, saying the agencies share intelligence but that the CIA does not conduct raids on Pakistani soil.

Afghanistan Crossroads blog: More on Baradar and the Taliban

Several raids in Karachi last week netted dozens of suspected Afghan militants, and intelligence agencies are in the process of verifying their identities, Malik said.

Baradar's arrest occurred as some 15,000 Afghan and NATO forces were battling the Taliban in the Marjah region of southern Afghanistan's Helmand province in the largest NATO offensive since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

It also comes weeks after the CIA ratcheted up its operations against the Taliban in apparent response to a December suicide attack that killed seven CIA officers in eastern Afghanistan.

And the arrest comes amid reports of major successes for the United States in its battle against the Taliban and associated militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Hakimullah Mehsud, died recently after reports that a suspected U.S. drone strike targeted him in January, according to Taliban and Pakistani intelligence sources. The previous leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud, also died in a suspected U.S. drone strike.

CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen called Baradar's capture a "huge deal," saying he is "arguably more important than Mullah Omar from a military point of view, because Mullah Omar really is more of a religious figure than an operational commander of the Taliban."

"This guy also is the No. 2 political figure in the Taliban. The fact that he was discovered in Karachi is very significant. Karachi is the largest city in Pakistan. It's a long way from where the war is being fought," Bergen said Monday on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360°." The capture "indicates that the Pakistani intelligence services and CIA [are] cooperating very closely on a very high-value target."

A number of high-value targets, including Omar, have moved into Karachi from a region near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, where the Pakistani military and suspected U.S. drones have battled Taliban militants, a senior U.S. official said.

Bergen said the operation suggests the Pakistanis are willing to move not only against the Pakistani Taliban but also against the Afghan Taliban, which has its headquarters in Pakistan. Baradar also would have been in regular contact with Omar, Bergen added.

Robin Wright, a fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace, called the move a "huge catch in terms of understanding the organization," but she also said the "Taliban is in many ways a decentralized force, and it's not necessarily that he is going to be involved in knowing what every single unit on the ground is doing."

"The critical issue is how much will he talk and provide information on where other assets are, potentially where the Taliban in Pakistan are, and, of course, the United States would love to know where Osama bin Laden himself is," Wright said on "AC 360."

Wright also raised the issue of what will happen to Baradar when the interrogation concludes.

"One of the big questions, of course, is, what are they going to do with him?" Wright asked. "They can't take him to Guantanamo Bay. Are the Pakistanis going to prosecute him?"

According to Interpol, Baradar was born in 1968 in Weetmak village in the Dehrwood District of Uruzgan province in southern Afghanistan.

Bergen said Baradar and Omar run the Quetta Shura, which operates in southern Afghanistan.

"In terms of the information about the southern Afghanistan operations of the Taliban, this guy is potentially a gold mine," Bergen said. "I suspect he's not being read his Miranda rights by these Pakistani people who are interrogating him."

Muhammad Amir Rana, director of the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies, a Pakistani think tank, called Baradar "basically the de facto leader" of the Taliban.

"With Mullah Omar staying out of the scene, Baradar was running the operations of the Taliban."

Baradar and Omar "started the Taliban together. He was in the movement since the very beginning," Rana said.

"He is a very skilled military tactician. When the Taliban were in government in Afghanistan, he was the supreme commander of the army and was heading the charge against the Northern Alliance holdouts at that point in time."

Rana said the setback is significant because Baradar was directing the Taliban's activities in Afghanistan at the time of his arrest.

"His capture would be a severe blow to the Taliban morale at a time when the operation in the Helmand province is under way."

Rana said Baradar and Afghan President Hamid Karzai hail from the same Popalzai tribe.

Karzai has talked about reaching out to some Taliban members, and a Newsweek profile of Baradar last year said that "Baradar once authorized a Taliban delegation that approached Karzai with a peace offer" and that he approved peace feelers to Karzai's brother. Those efforts didn't go anywhere, the magazine said.

Reva Bhalla, director of analysis at the Stratfor think tank, said Baradar has been representing Omar at some of the peace talks going on behind the scenes with the Saudis and describes his capture as a big catch.

Bhalla said the Pakistanis didn't do this for free; they want concessions from the United States, and it's a shift in the strategy on how it's dealing with the Afghan Taliban in its own territory. The Pakistanis have launched offensives against the Pakistani Taliban, and now the move indicates they might plan to get tough on the Afghan Taliban.

"It's not like you have one guy, and that immediately opens the door to everyone else. It's hard to believe that this will lead to this huge intelligence coup. But if the Pakistanis are shifting their mode of cooperation, that is significant."
User avatar
Winnow
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 27547
Joined: July 5, 2002, 1:56 pm
Location: A Special Place in Hell

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Winnow »

Avestan wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... tml?hpt=T1

"joint custody" = loophole so that we can still torture the guy
Right on! I say treat him like they treat women in that country. He won't last long!
Sueven
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3200
Joined: July 22, 2002, 12:36 pm

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Sueven »

I'm sorry, when did PAKISTAN holding a militant who was captured by PAKISTANI forces in a PAKISTANI raid in PAKISTANI territory become an unusual "joint custody for the purposes of torture" affair?

American cooperation basically means American intelligence plus American diplomatic prodding. Who knows, maybe some American personnel were involved, too, but it's essentially a Pakistani action.
User avatar
Avestan
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 905
Joined: July 4, 2002, 12:45 am
Location: Palo Alto, CA

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Avestan »

Just saying that I doubt we are exerting an ounce of pressure to have full custody :)

Talk all we want about being against torture, this dude is getting the shit waterboarded out of him right now and we could not be happier about it.
User avatar
masteen
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8197
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:40 pm
Gender: Mangina
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by masteen »

So torture is cool as long as its for revenge, and not a tool to extract information of dubious providence?
"There is at least as much need to curb the cruel greed and arrogance of part of the world of capital, to curb the cruel greed and violence of part of the world of labor, as to check a cruel and unhealthy militarism in international relationships." -Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Spang
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4812
Joined: September 23, 2003, 10:34 am
Gender: Male
Location: Tennessee

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Spang »

Torture is fucking retarded.
Make love, fuck war, peace will save us.
User avatar
Avestan
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 905
Joined: July 4, 2002, 12:45 am
Location: Palo Alto, CA

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Avestan »

It also works. Now we can still say that the USA does not torture, but I think we might just be invited to the party.
User avatar
Spang
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4812
Joined: September 23, 2003, 10:34 am
Gender: Male
Location: Tennessee

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Spang »

Avestan wrote:It also works.
Uh, no it doesn't.
Make love, fuck war, peace will save us.
User avatar
Funkmasterr
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 9009
Joined: July 7, 2002, 9:12 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Dandelo19
PSN ID: ToPsHoTTa471

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Funkmasterr »

After everything (not just 9-11) this guy is at least partially responsible for, I hope they have him on a IV while they slowly take him apart piece by piece. I hope the last thing he see's before they cut out his eyes is them slicing up his balls and feeding them to him. If they are waterboarding him, I hope it's by people drinking as much water as they can hold and then pissing in his mouth.
User avatar
Avestan
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 905
Joined: July 4, 2002, 12:45 am
Location: Palo Alto, CA

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Avestan »

It really does work :) For those who try to make the argument that they give false information to avoid waterboarding, you just do not understand how it works. They ask them a ton of questions that they already know the answers to in order to understand when they are really broken. They do not ask any questions that they actually want to know until the subject is telling 100% truths.

I understand and appreciate the moral arguments. . .but the argument that it doesn't work is just wrong if it is done right.
User avatar
Spang
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4812
Joined: September 23, 2003, 10:34 am
Gender: Male
Location: Tennessee

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Spang »

Torture is immoral, illegal, unnecessary and most of all, un-American.
Make love, fuck war, peace will save us.
Sueven
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3200
Joined: July 22, 2002, 12:36 pm

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Sueven »

Avestan, you're drastically overstating the benefits of torture and drastically understating it's benefits (such as the risk of getting what you want to hear). It's obvious that torture has given us some extremely bad and damaging intelligence in the past. It's also obvious that non-torture methods of interrogation have effectiveness in certain contexts that torture does not. It's far from clear that torture would produce the best information with Baradar. It's important for intelligence information to be fresh. He wouldn't have to hold out forever-- just for a few days. If you torture, you're gambling that you can break him NOW-- if not, you've likely sacrificed all of his value.

While Pakistan's intelligence services are justifiably reputed to be brutal at times, they're also holding a leader with heavy stature in Pakistan and a substantial amount of support among both the Pakistani people and within the ISI. He's also a leader who's thought of as substantially more reasonably than his more bloodthirsty Taliban brethren. It's certainly possible that the ISI would be unwilling to torture him either due to his stature or because they simply think it would be a bad strategic idea. Is it possible that they would want to torture him? Sure, I'm not an expert on the ISI. I doubt you are, either, but who knows, you're a smart guy, maybe you have a background I don't know about.

But, barring expertise, blithely assuming "of course the US is happily standing by and watching him get tortured" is choosing to simply allow your worldview to interpret the facts for you. It's certainly possible, of course, but it's a long way from certain.

And, of course, this whole debate skirts the most fundamental issue:

The fact that somehow, the combination of American intelligence and American diplomacy got this guy arrested. This-- in conjunction with the assassination of Baitullah and Hakimullah Mehsud-- are signs that our capacity to combat the Taliban in Pakistan has drastically improved.

But apparently we don't want to talk about THAT.
User avatar
Avestan
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 905
Joined: July 4, 2002, 12:45 am
Location: Palo Alto, CA

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Avestan »

We can agree to disagree on benefits of torture. Neither of us really has any clue, but I think it is ignorant to say that we did not get good intelligence from our tactics in the last 8 years.

On cooperation, the CIA all but claimed credit on finding this guy and he was arrested in Karachi I believe (ie, not in the tribal areas). That means that the arrest happened in a governed, populated area. Why would the arrest be joint at all if it were not mostly orchestrated by the CIA. I think we might agree on this point? Not sure reading your post.

All I can say is that if I was the CIA chief in Pakistan, I would sure be pushing (without "really" pushing) to get information from this guy however I could because I believe doing so would save a lot of lives. That is the only moral justification that I would need and I happen to believe it in this case. I do not believe torture should be taken lightly or used on anyone other than the "top of the top" bad guys, but when we do get our hands on one of them, I have zero qualms about the course of action that I believe saves the most lives and stops the most suffering.
Sueven
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3200
Joined: July 22, 2002, 12:36 pm

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Sueven »

I'm sure that the CIA had a substantial role in the capture.

There were two different elements that had to be in place to capture Baradar: We needed good intelligence making it possible, and we needed the cooperation of the Pakistani military and government. Both of those things are real challenges. There a lot of things that are theoretically doable in Pakistan-- like just going and leveling the tribal areas-- but doing these things requires the cooperation of the Pakistani military and government, which (1) is way more concerned about India than the Taliban; (2) has a fair amount of sympathy in different parts for the Taliban; (3) has to be concerned with how their population will react to military action by the Pakistani government on Pakistani turf that is likely to have substantial consequences for Pakistani civilians; and (4) likes the military aid that we provide them because of their strategic importance and therefore has no incentive to become unimportant, especially given our close ties with India.

In other words, this is a probable victory for American intelligence, as someone gathered the intelligence necessary to make this arrest, and we were likely heavily involved in that process. It's also a definite victory for American diplomacy, as we somehow managed to prod Pakistan into ACTING on that intelligence.

You'll note that the intelligence victory was achieved in the era of the (theoretical) no-torture President, although of course there's no way of knowing for certain whether any of the intelligence used was obtained by torture. You'll also note that it's fairly undisputed that a pro-torture policy undermines our diplomatic capacity with respect to Pakistan. And you'll note that this is a military victory accomplished in substantial part by a diplomatic victory, which (given the fact that torture undermines diplomatic capacity) to me supports the argument that torture is not in America's best strategic interests.

To say nothing of the moral arguments. You can collapse all of morality into consequentialism if you like ("that is the only moral justification I would need"), but most of us would prefer not to do that.

Regarding "neither of us can know anything about the efficacy of torture:"

Bullshit. It's very hard to figure out how effective torture is, but there is scholarship on the subject, there is evidence on the subject. Can you or I know to a level of absolute certainty? No. But we can learn what we can and reflect on what we know. Throwing up our hands and saying "welp, nobody can really know, so I guess we might as well support torture" is a position that's intellectually and morally bankrupt. Although it's nice of you to admit that, were you in charge, you would torture the shit out of this guy (excuse me, you would "get information... however I could") despite the fact that you don't "really ha[ve] any clue" whether torture is effective or not.

Regarding "it is ignorant to say that we did not get good intelligence from our tactics in the last 8 years:"

Bullshit. As far as I know, the only real support for that notion comes from Dick Cheney and various Cheney acolytes who have made assertions to that effect based on "evidence" that's unavailable for public examination.

Even if (as seems likely) we did get some amount of good, actionable intelligence from torture (let's call it what it is, not "our tactics"), there are plenty of unknowns: How much information could we have gained through non-torture interrogation? What items would we have uncovered that we did not, and what items would we have failed to uncover that we did? How many wild goose chases did we go on due to tortured detainees telling us what we want to hear? How did the stain to our reputation in the Middle East affect our intelligence capacity in other respects? These are weighty considerations that couldn't simply be dismissed even if we knew that torture had produced some amount of good intelligence.

The Bush administration managed to capture or kill Saddam and his sons during the actual war effort in Iraq, and they managed a similar Pakistani-assisted capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in early 2003. During the rest of Bush's presidency, he had one major score (dropping two bombs on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq), as well as the arrests or deaths of various mid-to-sort-of-high level al Qaeda and Taliban members (it's not totally out of the question that I'm forgetting somebody more important). During the year-and-a-month of the Obama administration, we have killed the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, killed his successor as leader of the Pakistani Taliban, and captured the de facto leader of the Afghanistani Taliban.

Does this prove that Obama is a better war leader than Bush and that his tactics and positions are assuredly superior? No. But it has to give you some pause to think, right?

Anyway, I don't mean to be too much of an asshole because I know that you're a smart and fairly reasonable guy, and your position isn't all that extreme anyway. This is just an issue which hits a nerve for me. I know you say you want to reserve torture for only the really important situations. Hell, even I could get behind torture in a true ticking-time-bomb scenario. But that's simply not a scenario that in any way reflects reality.

FYI, while we're on the subject of alternate realities in the national security context: The Bush administration tried and convicted other 300 people of terrorism charges in federal courts. They tried and convicted three in military commissions, and two of those got lighter sentences than would have been likely in federal court. Actions taken by military commissions are FAR more likely to be overturned than those taken by federal courts; in fact, every detainee case that has made it to the Supreme Court (indisputably conservative and containing 6 Republican appointees) has resulted in a loss for the government.
User avatar
Avestan
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 905
Joined: July 4, 2002, 12:45 am
Location: Palo Alto, CA

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Avestan »

I do not know how this degenerated into Bush vs. Obama. . .I like Obama. I also think torture absolutely has its place and I do agree with Cheney that we are less safe if we follow through on the blanket statement that we will never torture. . .sorry. . .show me all the reports you want and I will show you others that say the opposite. Common sense tells me that torture works because I am certain that it would work on me and 99.9% of people I know.

What I do think is ignorant is taking the tools away from the folks that actually see first hand if it works. Do you really think that the higher ups in the CIA would do it if it did not work? Really? Do you think they are all sadists? Idiots? That is an ignorant stance in my opinion, no matter your political leanings.
Sueven
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3200
Joined: July 22, 2002, 12:36 pm

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Sueven »

I do not know how this degenerated into Bush vs. Obama
It's not Bush vs. Obama, it's Torture vs. No Torture. Bush was an unabashed pro-torture President, Obama is not. If we're talking about the efficiency of torture, then talking about outcomes in a torture era vs. outcomes in a no-torture era seems relevant, no?
I like Obama
Good! Me too, mostly.
show me all the reports you want and I will show you others that say the opposite.
Well, sure. I can show you plenty of arguments that Obama is a secret Muslim from Kenya, or that Bush planned 9/11 for his own benefit. The trick is differentiating arguments (or reports) that are credible and accurate from those that are not.
Common sense tells me that torture works because I am certain that it would work on me and 99.9% of people I know.
Common sense would also tell you that the Earth is flat and is orbited by the Sun, and that eyewitness identifications in criminal cases are very rarely inaccurate. Unfortunately, neither of those is true. Good thing we have fact-based inquiry to confirm or disprove our intuition, huh?
What I do think is ignorant is taking the tools away from the folks that actually see first hand if it works. Do you really think that the higher ups in the CIA would do it if it did not work? Really? Do you think they are all sadists? Idiots? That is an ignorant stance in my opinion, no matter your political leanings.
Pray tell, what makes you think that "the folks that see it first hand" uniformly (or even largely) think that it works? Are their opinions documented somewhere? Do you know a bunch of people who have done interrogation in the war on terror? (I've spoken to two. They were both anti-torture. That's anecdotal and completely valueless information, but hey.) Do you think that all the "higher ups" in the intelligence community support torture? Do you mean the "higher ups" who were appointed by Bush and Cheney, or the "higher ups" who were appointed by Obama?
User avatar
Avestan
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 905
Joined: July 4, 2002, 12:45 am
Location: Palo Alto, CA

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Avestan »

Please do not try to suggest there are more credible reports that say torture does vs. doesn't work, that is just wrong. . .plenty of good/bad stuff on both sides. You keep trying to take the side of fact, but the facts are just not on your side, there is not a side of fact here, only of opinion. You speak as if it is a forgone conclusion that every smart person in the world who has done research has concluded that torture doesn't work. . .that is just hogwash.

My argument about the "people who see it first hand" stems from the fact that the CIA very much did not want the new regulations. As you should know, CIA people usually survive across administrations and can rarely be tied to one ideaology over another. Do you really think Bush went to the CIA and said "I think you guys should torture!". Far, far more likely that discussion happened in the other direction and was originated by people who have been in intelligence for far longer than 8 years.
User avatar
Avestan
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 905
Joined: July 4, 2002, 12:45 am
Location: Palo Alto, CA

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Avestan »

I guess it is also worth saying that we are using the word torture here, I am defining it in the loosest sense. I am including things like sleep depravation and psychological means as torture. I am completely with you when it comes to purely physical torture, I doubt that works with any consistency. I am talking about the kind of "torture" that takes days or weeks to do right and is more about convincing the subject that he has no choice but to tell the truth and there are consequences if he does not. It is a fine line, I know, but I thought I would mention that to put my position in perspective.
User avatar
Kilmoll the Sexy
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5295
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:31 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: bunkeru2k
Location: Ohio

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Kilmoll the Sexy »

As far as I am concerned, if you and your group are A) not only willing, but enjoy killing innocent people B) torture people C) commit terrorist acts D) commit your acts of "war" without uniformed troops and use civilians as cover , then I am perfectly fine with them doing whatever the hell they need to do to find and eliminate every last one of your kind from the earth.

You can make your comments about this being one of my extremist right views and I will very freely and openly admit to this one. However, when dealing with an extremist piece of shit like this, there is nothing that is too painful for them to go through and I would use every last single thing that I could dream up to make their last days on earth the most excruciatingly painful, begging for the release of death existence possible. I would do every possible thing that the Quran descibes as unholy to them....waterboard...soak their cocks in turpentine and have Jewish fags jerk them off while sticking pig cocks in their ass. And when they were done, I would drive a goddamn pipe through their heart and have them drink their own blood while they died. I would do all that and not feel even one ounce of regret...because I know those evil fucks would not hesitate to torture you or me or any single American just because you are from the US.
User avatar
Psyloche
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1074
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:54 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Centreville, VA

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Psyloche »

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:I would do every possible thing that the Quran descibes as unholy to them.
I pick out this line because it's always kind of bothered me that people associate the Quran or Islam, real Islamic beliefs, with people who commit acts of terror and the like. I realize that people are out there that use religion as a means to brainwash or otherwise coerce others into doing awful things, but if you look at the religion, these people aren't following it. You aren't allowed to commit murder if you're following the tenants of it.

Then again it's been about 9 years since I had a theology class, so maybe I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain nothing in their religion says anything about how brown people should lead a jihad against whites in the name of Allah.
Hijoputa 80 DK - Undermine
Psyloche 80 Rogue - Hyjal
Baaka 80 Paladin - Hyjal
Churrasco 70 Tauren Warrior - Firetree
Rennard 70 UD Priest - Firetree
Sinjin617 - Ogame.org (More or less Retired)
Seithyr 70 Monk - Veeshan (Retired)
Psyloche Wenusberg 70 Rogue - Veeshan (Retired)
User avatar
Kilmoll the Sexy
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5295
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:31 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: bunkeru2k
Location: Ohio

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Kilmoll the Sexy »

As far as that goes, they are not against whites....they are against the evil west and Israel. It does not matter what color they are at all.
Sueven
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3200
Joined: July 22, 2002, 12:36 pm

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Sueven »

Avestan wrote:Please do not try to suggest there are more credible reports that say torture does vs. doesn't work, that is just wrong. . .plenty of good/bad stuff on both sides. You keep trying to take the side of fact, but the facts are just not on your side, there is not a side of fact here, only of opinion. You speak as if it is a forgone conclusion that every smart person in the world who has done research has concluded that torture doesn't work. . .that is just hogwash.
Nope, that's not my position-- I specifically said that "It's very hard to figure out how effective torture is." I also said "Can you or I know to a level of absolute certainty? No." My point is simply that agreeing to disagree in this case is simply giving up on an argument. This is not like "you like chocolate, i like vanilla, we'll have to agree to disagree." This is a matter of empirical fact.

I, based on what I've read and seen and the people I've talked to, thing that the arguments against torture's efficacy in the vast majority of circumstances are more credible. But there are strong arguments on both sides, and that's something I don't think you adequately recognized when you said:
Avestan wrote:It really does work :) For those who try to make the argument that they give false information to avoid waterboarding, you just do not understand how it works. They ask them a ton of questions that they already know the answers to in order to understand when they are really broken. They do not ask any questions that they actually want to know until the subject is telling 100% truths.

I understand and appreciate the moral arguments. . .but the argument that it doesn't work is just wrong if it is done right.
That's what I was arguing against.
My argument about the "people who see it first hand" stems from the fact that the CIA very much did not want the new regulations. As you should know, CIA people usually survive across administrations and can rarely be tied to one ideaology over another. Do you really think Bush went to the CIA and said "I think you guys should torture!". Far, far more likely that discussion happened in the other direction and was originated by people who have been in intelligence for far longer than 8 years.
And my point is: Source? From what source of information do you gather that the CIA "very much did not want" the new regulations? And when did the CIA become the final arbiter of what's best for national security? The CIA has a role in national security. So does the Department of State. If the CIA wants authorization to do something that will make them more effective, but will concurrently undermine the effectiveness of the Department of State, why does the CIA automatically get priority? It shouldn't. What we need is someone to oversee both departments, with ultimate responsibility to both, and who is accountable to the people, to balance those tradeoffs and decide what course of action most benefits America... oh wait, we have that. He's called the President.

Do I think Bush went to the CIA and said "I think you guys should torture!" No, not quite. I think that Bush installed a number of high-ranking officials, some within but many outside of the CIA, who were exceptionally pro-torture. Again, Dick Cheney is the prime example, but there were plenty of others in a variety of places. These people vociferously argued for the use of torture (this is undeniable-- Dick Cheney brags about it), supported those elements in the CIA that were pro-torture, and actively suppressed those that were opposed. You really think that this is an unreasonable interpretation of what was going on?
Avestan wrote:I guess it is also worth saying that we are using the word torture here, I am defining it in the loosest sense. I am including things like sleep depravation and psychological means as torture. I am completely with you when it comes to purely physical torture, I doubt that works with any consistency. I am talking about the kind of "torture" that takes days or weeks to do right and is more about convincing the subject that he has no choice but to tell the truth and there are consequences if he does not. It is a fine line, I know, but I thought I would mention that to put my position in perspective.
I would just note that the sort of intelligence that's always talked about as justification for torture-- imminent, actionable intelligence that will save American lives, such as the location of a ticking bomb, operational details about imminent terrorist attacks, the specific locations of high-value targets-- is intelligence that becomes largely worthless "days or weeks" later.

And that's assuming that torture is the most effective way to extract intelligence over the course of days or weeks. I'm not convinced that other tactics-- challenging, clever questioning, traditional psychological tricks, etc-- would be less effective at revealing the same intelligence. Even if a clever detainee could spot and stand up to that sort of soft coercion, there's no guarantee that torture won't drive him out of his mind before he talks, and there's no guarantee that, simply because he's talking, he's telling you anything accurate. You can talk all you want about "consequences" (aka "more torture") if he doesn't tell the truth, but by the time you've figured out he's lying, he's already beaten you from an intelligence perspective.
User avatar
Avestan
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 905
Joined: July 4, 2002, 12:45 am
Location: Palo Alto, CA

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Avestan »

I think the thread has gone on long enough. We will have to agree to disagree about 98% of. . .everything.

I never tried to state that anything I said was anything other than informed opinion. . .I just wanted you to admit the same thing. Neither of us are all that informed. The little dude that runs around in my head who I call common sense tells me loud and clear that these methods are effective or they would not use them. No one was telling the folks in the CIA that they had to torture. . .something there decided that it was a good idea and decided that it was worth continuing for a long time. These activities were happening (in this country) long before the Bush administration took power, but the folks in government had the common sense to not make too much noise about it because it is obviously publically unsavory, but on the other hand. . .it works. That is my opinion :)

In a half hearted attempt to get the last word in (at least in my mind), I will not be revisiting this thread.
Sueven
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3200
Joined: July 22, 2002, 12:36 pm

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Sueven »

So I know you wanted the last word and all, and I was going to let you have it, but when David Petraeus says this, I can't pass it up.
Politico wrote:Petraeus was even more candid when asked about the interrogation methods used during the Bush years, making the case that they ultimately harmed the country more than they helped protect America.

“I have always been on the record – in fact, since 2003 – with the concept of living our values,” he said. “And I think that whenever we have— perhaps taken expedient measures, they have turned around and bitten us in the backside.”

Recalling his service as commanding general of the 101st Airborne Division, the West Pointer said “we decided to obey the Geneva Convention.”

Citing the abuses by U.S. troops in Iraqi prisons, Petraeus observed: “Abu Ghraib and other situations like that are non-biodegradable. They don't go away. The enemy continues to beat you with them like a stick in the Central Command area of responsibility.”

He said that intelligence could be gleaned without going beyond the traditional methods allowed in his branch of the military.

“We have found that the use of the interrogation methods in the Army Field Manual that was given the force of law by Congress – that that works.”
Now, I know that David Petraeus isn't part of the CIA, but I think he has some credibility on the subject anyway.

And, for the record, I'm not going to "agree to disagree" about shit. I'm just going to disagree.
User avatar
Kaldaur
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1850
Joined: July 25, 2002, 2:26 am
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Kaldaur
Location: Illinois

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Kaldaur »

:vv_yeahthat:

This reminds me of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Michael Mullen stating that the policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell should be overturned. Rick Santorum, at CPAC, later said that the military had been brainwashed and conditioned to give that statement. Deniers will grasp at any straw available to them so as not to stray from their talking points.

The hilarity comes from the fact that, even though torture advocates have been shown statements from those in the know (those with definite experience with torture intelligence) that torture doesn't work, they will still continue to push this flawed idea that "Torture werks, Cheney told me, and he shoots people in the face! Believe!"
User avatar
Winnow
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 27547
Joined: July 5, 2002, 1:56 pm
Location: A Special Place in Hell

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Winnow »

Nice article:
A HERO Chinook pilot was shot between the eyes by a Taliban bullet - but flew on and saved all 20 aboard.

Flight Lieutenant Ian Fortune, 28, had flown in to pick up casualties as a firefight raged between American and Afghan forces and heavily-armed rebels near Garmsir in Helmand Province.

Ian - who had TV presenter Mike Brewer on the aircraft filming a documentary - was advised to hold off on approach to the battle as it was "too hot" on the ground.

He circled until troops reported incoming fire had calmed down.

But as Ian flew in the helicopter came under attack - which continued as casualties were being loaded.

Then as he lifted off Ian was shot.

A bullet hit a metal rail on the front of his helmet which is used to attach night vision goggles.

The round then penetrated his helmet hitting him between the eyes. It knocked his head back and caused severe bleeding.

More bullets followed, hitting the Chinook's controls and shutting down the stabilisation system.

But with blood pouring into his eyes, Ian battled with the controls to stop the chopper from spiralling out of control.

Then with the aircraft lurching from side to side he continued flying for eight minutes before landing at Camp Bastion.

Ian was taken to the field hospital and treated for his wound.

It is the first time in the nine-year war in Afghanistan a pilot has been shot while in the air.

One senior RAF source said: "This could have become one of the worst incidents of the conflict.

"If the bullet had hit the pilot a millimetre lower, those on board wouldn't have stood a chance.

"And had it not been for the skill of the pilot the result would have been the same."

TV's Mike, 41, who was with a crew from the Discovery Channel, said: "The courage and heroism of the pilot was beyond belief."
Sueven
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3200
Joined: July 22, 2002, 12:36 pm

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Sueven »

From inside the CIA, you say? Sure!
Mike Sulick, Director of the CIA National Clandestine Service wrote:When asked if the Obama administration’s ban on waterboarding has had serious consequences on the war against terror, Sulick answered in general terms.

"I don’t think we’ve suffered at all from an intelligence standpoint," he said, "but I don’t want to talk about [it from] a legal, moral or ethical standpoint."
http://www.fordham.edu/Campus_Resources ... s_1820.asp
User avatar
masteen
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8197
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:40 pm
Gender: Mangina
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by masteen »

The only people who believe torture is a reliable source of information are people who have never been in the field. Every professional interrogator, operative, and even the military knows it to be worthless. It isn't a debate, there are NO credible reports as to the efficacy of torture.
"There is at least as much need to curb the cruel greed and arrogance of part of the world of capital, to curb the cruel greed and violence of part of the world of labor, as to check a cruel and unhealthy militarism in international relationships." -Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Leonaerd
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3023
Joined: January 10, 2005, 10:38 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Afghan Militant Leader Captured

Post by Leonaerd »

masteen wrote:The only people who believe torture is a reliable source of information are people who have never been in the field. Every professional interrogator, operative, and even the military knows it to be worthless. It isn't a debate, there are NO credible reports as to the efficacy of torture.
If this is true, then you have to wonder why torture is used. Politically, who gets points for having torture enacted?
Post Reply