The usage of torture is a strategic failure in the process of information gathering from the enemy.

First of all it assumes that the terrorist organization is a top down informational entity with operational strategy going down to all it's entities. Thus if we capture one combatant in Iraq, we might derive actionable intelligence. That is of course wrong, terrorist organizations operate in cell structures, one cell does not know the existence of a sister cell, this is the viewpoint of the intelligence community post 9/11. This is problematic because it allows the enemy to remain always at large in the political process in Washington, that is why the enemy definition keeps changing, its Osama first, then insurgent forces, then the very broad term of 'Islamic extremism'.

The cell structure thus allows for unrelated parties to assume the guise of representing a greater whole, separate actors can suddenly be part of a larger nebulous whole even though in reality they are not related. This is how Bush in his simplistic assessment of the threats can say there is terrorism from Morocco to Indonesia. In Iraq the US labeled Zarqwi as being an operative member of al-Qaeda, this is beneficial for both sides Osama can claim larger operation status while the US can state that its fighting al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. However Zarqwi for example did not possess intelligence on operations in Afghanistan, they were not related, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Funny how Osama Bin Laden was called the mastermind of 9/11, in mere hours after the event, what happened to such intelligence gathering clairvoyance?

Looking back at the myriad of enemy combatants captured so far in both Iraq and Afghanistan - we have yet to see any proof of progress with regards to any actionable intelligence being gathered from those sources, because the actors caught were obliviously small fish.

Second it drives away actual informants who would want to switch sides, by creating the 'US against Them' cornerstone the Bush Administration has actually rallied support for terrorist organizations. Operatives who would gain from switching sides would not want to, knowing that they face torture and long term imprisonment. This is how after all these years of war, and "Mission Accomplished", turning the corner, defeating the terrorists: The Taliban control half of Afghanistan and al-Qaeda is reconstituted its strength in Pakistan and Southern Afghanistan.

Third it assumes from the operative viewpoint that ALL enemy combatants would provide under duress reliable actionable intelligence without actually knowing what that could be i.e. we are torturing to find out something we don't even know might exist, the Rumsfled's known unknowns and unknown unknowns - that is of course a logically fallacy. How can you derive intelligence when you don't know what you are trying to get at? This of course translates into increased torture methods against detainees, eventually breaking them to a point where they will tell you anything to get you to stop. Khalid Sheik Mohammad was tortured to the point that he confessed to a whole swell of terrorist plots and acts, intelligence operatives rolled their eyes because it was simply inconceivable that it could be true as it would mean he was in 5 or 6 places at once, there was no concrete evidence to prove it, he was simply saying things to make them stop.

This is dangerous, as its a self feeding cycle, if you torture enemy combatants without a contextual means to an end you would receive all kinds of rubbish, that feeds into paranoia that it's actually real and you then torture even more. Actionable intelligence has a finite time frame, usually less then 6 months, after which the operative in custody is tapped out, the organization would nullify any plans and change their tactics and plans.

Remember that all the so called reliable actionable intelligence for Iraq possessing and developing WMDs came from a single informant. Look where that lead to.

Fourth it loses the sight of how to attain trust, operatives from past conflicts always state that to derive information you must make the actor rely on you, trust in you and eventually befriend you. Interrogators of Nazi war criminals often state how they derived more information in a simple chess game then through torture methods.

Torture is a annihilation of the human spirit, it drives people insane through sleep deprivation, humiliation and water boarding. It nullifies the human psyche into delirium, psychosis and eventual madness, yet we are led to believe that somehow that would prevent another 9/11.

Finally all warfare is tactics, for all of America's military might they were close to defeat by an insurgence that has lapsed back into guerrilla warfare, the tactics shifted. The application of torture would mean the tactics will shift once more.

The question remains - "Is this strategy benefiting our objectives?"

The US administration would of course say "Yes", why wouldn't they. The appointment of Mukasey as Attorney General for the first time showed how abortions and other issues of the previous Justice Department appointments became insignificant, the question was only "Do you believe water boarding is torture?" - It was asked not because it was important as AG but because there are people in the administration who know they have gone too far and are vehemently trying to cover their asses from prosecution. The scandal of Abu Graibh was called as being "a few bad apples", that is of course not true, operational orders came from the top down. The definition of torture rewritten by John Yoo and David Addington. Torture was stricken through Congress, yet it continues through the special signing letters of the President. The public is basically being lied to.

Now American politicians are too scared to stand against it because they lack a backbone and are more worried they might be wrong, fear penetrates the Democratic party while the Republican party is lost after a presidency of fiscal irresponsibility, looming recession, and the 2 never ending wars.

Its not about constitutional rights for terrorists, its about constitutional rights for US Citizens that is under threat. You could find yourself supporting means to an end that will lead into police state.

In the fall of 2003, Jack L. Goldsmith was widely considered one of the brightest stars in the conservative legal firmament. A 40-year-old law professor at the University of Chicago, Goldsmith had established himself, with his friend and fellow law professor John Yoo, as a leading proponent of the view that international standards of human rights should not apply in cases before U.S. courts. In recognition of their prominence, Goldsmith and Yoo had been anointed the “New Sovereigntists” by the journal Foreign Affairs. [ ... ]

Immediately, the job put him at the center of critical debates within the Bush administration about its continuing response to 9/11 — debates about coercive interrogation, secret surveillance and the detention and trial of enemy combatants. [ ... ]

Nine months later, in June 2004, Goldsmith resigned. Although he refused to discuss his resignation at the time, he had led a small group of administration lawyers in a behind-the-scenes revolt against what he considered the constitutional excesses of the legal policies embraced by his White House superiors in the war on terror. During his first weeks on the job, Goldsmith had discovered that the Office of Legal Counsel had written two legal opinions — both drafted by Goldsmith’s friend Yoo, who served as a deputy in the office — about the authority of the executive branch to conduct coercive interrogations. Goldsmith considered these opinions, now known as the “torture memos,” to be tendentious, overly broad and legally flawed, and he fought to change them. He also found himself challenging the White House on a variety of other issues, ranging from surveillance to the trial of suspected terrorists. His efforts succeeded in bringing the Bush administration somewhat closer to what Goldsmith considered the rule of law — although at considerable cost to Goldsmith himself. By the end of his tenure, he was worn out. “I was disgusted with the whole process and fed up and exhausted,” he told me recently. [ ... ]

After leaving the Office of Legal Counsel, Goldsmith was uncertain about what, if anything, he should say publicly about his resignation. His silence came to be widely misinterpreted. After leaving the Justice Department, he accepted a tenured professorship at Harvard Law School, where he currently teaches. During his first weeks in Cambridge, in the fall of 2004, some of his colleagues denounced him for what they mistakenly assumed was his role in drafting the torture memos. One colleague, Elizabeth Bartholet, complained to a Boston Globe reporter that the faculty was remiss in not investigating any role Goldsmith might have played in “justifying torture.” “It was a nightmare,” Goldsmith told me. “I didn’t say anything to defend myself, except that I didn’t do the things I was accused of.”

...

Read the full article at NYT Magazine.

Bee. Yoo. Tee. lol!

I've never seen this show before. Hilarious.

Description:

Rose McGowan star's in Imperial Teen's Yoo Hoo.
From the Jawbreaker soundtrack.

More on Imperial Teen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Teen

This black comedy came out a decade after "Heathers." It was in your face and meaner. The scene I remember most has a four-girl-clique walking down the hall as Imperial Teen's "Yoo Hoo" plays. Pieces of the clip are in the trailer. I had hoped to find some good scenes, but the trailer did a better job of capturing the spirit of the film. Pam Greer plays a detective in the story.

Wikipedia had this brief article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawbreaker_%28film%29

Way cool mister Raytrace-Morning Muse to yoo.

From the movie 'Rumble in the Bronx'.

"Yoo ahh aww gahbage."