Comments:Secret memos reveal Bush administration endorsed enhanced interrogation techniques

This is news? we already knew this. And Honestly I don't care what they do too Terrorist.--66.229.17.181 20:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * you're assuming that they waterboard only terrorists, as many assumed they only held "terrorists" at guantanemo. we now know this to be false. - Imind (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Only 3 high level terrorist been waterboarded and a lot of them have been capture while shooting our guys. And you guys seem to forget what they do too our guys or any other persons that don't agree with their ideology.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.17.181 (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * lol. only three that you're aware of -Imind (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your information is very incomplete to say the least, and the entire practice is basically useless. The whole "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," quote from Bob Baer fits here pretty well."65.1.171.67 03:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not a proponent of torture, but let's keep this objective and to the facts. This practice is carried out by the executive branch, not the judicial branch. It's not a practice conducted by the Spanish Inquisition, it's carried out by military operatives who have tactical objectives to accomplish. It's not a trial, it's an intelligence investigation. No one has any interest in placing guilt - these techniques are applied to obtain objective, verifiable information, not confessions. And if the information obtained turns out to be false, guess what happens next - more torture. I'm convinced that these techniques can certainly be applied to obtain critical, truthful, factual information. But that does not imply that they aren't horrendous. --85.82.179.226 02:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How was most of that even a reply to what I said? Baer was a CIA man in case you didn't know. As to your attempt to justify torture, the point is that increasing torture does not get new information, it only makes the tortured person want to tell the torturer what they think the torturer wants to hear. That is how all humans eventually respond to torture. That is, whether they have to make it up or not. 65.1.171.67 02:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because a terrorist might be willing to torture one of us, does not make it right for us to do it to them. Jared--12.25.104.8 04:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As a US Army interrogator, with plenty of experience in the matter, I'm pretty damn sure that we do not need to use these types of "enhanced" interrogation techniques to get intelligence. And, by the way, the rest of the Armed Forces and the DIA are not allowed to. It's only the CIA that gets away with this nonsense. --LemonadeHatrack (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have a guy( a terrorist) who know were 20 guys are located and their willing to bomb and kill innocent people and you can stop it, it's you're job to protect the American people. --66.229.17.181 12:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

War is a dirty business. The dirtiest of them all. Only if you wish to lose can you play at clean war. I would rather win.--BurningWolf (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Then you should oppose this. It is not the way to win anything, and if the analysts ever manage to overcome their atrocious management to regain their true abilities then they will say exactly that and they will make the country safer, and the world safer for Americans. 65.1.171.67 17:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is just propaganda really
If you couldn't already figure it out, torturing people doesn't work. When people are tortured, they simply lie. I'd do it, you'd do it, and the "terrorists" do it too. The real reason we torture people is just to instill fear for when we release them, or to simply terrorize them while they're in captivity. Torturing someone has never, in the entire history of humanity, revealed vital and sensitive information, the only thing it can do is confirm information. Think about it.

It's even in the name, "Enhanced interrogation techniques" - clearly a clever euphemism for torture for the purposes of Public Relations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.226.230.36 (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC) [citation needed]--85.82.179.226 02:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Approaches
I find in most cases nobody really knows how the interrogation process works - it's structured, and besides proper questioning technique, the most important aspect in an interrogation is a proper approach. Interrogators submit questioning plans to their superiors which entail the type of approach they will use, and (particularly in those facilities which record interrogations) the interrogator must follow this approach. Certain approaches must be approved by high-ranking officers before they can be used. For instance, the "Mutt and Jeff" approach, which is basically a Good Cop/Bad Cop deal must be approved by the first Colonel in your chain of command... and in some places even a higher-ranking officer, depending on standard operating procedures.

In any case, for the Army, only the approaches listed in the Human Intelligence Collector Operations Field Manual can legally be used, and furthermore only trained interrogators (MOS 35M for enlisted personnel and MOS 351M for Warrant Officers, in the US Army) are authorized to run approaches. While ANYONE can tactically question, running approaches is legally authorized only for these MOS.

When it comes to real, actionable intelligence, which means immediate threats on US personnel, not political issues which is the majority of what comes out of the CIA, US Army intelligence is where it comes from. As has been repeatedly mentioned, reliable intelligence cannot come from torture, which includes waterboarding and other "enhanced" techniques. Unfortunately the Bush administration clearly endorses this method to obtain information, and has used the information gained this way in the past as if it were God's honest truth. The reality is, uncorroborated information from a single source is always suspect - but when it arises under torture, it is completely unreliable. And it is terrifying to think that the most powerful nation in the world makes national policy decisions based on this faulty information.

Back in February, the Senate again tried to limit the CIA to what the US Military can do. It was, of course, unsuccessful. --LemonadeHatrack (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)