Perfect timing. I had a discussion about this exact topic last night with a friend. *promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, May 26th, 2009 11:33am PDT - promote requested by eric3579.

I hope this guy gets to testify before congress at some point,
..and I also hope that he learns to control his nervous smile by then. It distracts from the very important experiences that he has to share with the world.

why are any of us even still LISTENING to darth cheney?
for someone who got everything so incredibly wrong,he should not have ONE second of airtime to create the falsely premised "torture" debate.
the neo-consevratives not only plunged this country into what may be its darkest hour,but killed the republican party in the process.
to watch that authoritarian prick state on show after show how necessary "torture" was, makes me want to bash his face in,for he is the worst form of coward.
i hope more military and intelligence people come forward like this man did,and tell us their stories.
great clip,i love brave new films.

seems like an honest, honourable dude.

Doesn't even pass the most basic test of logic. If 'torture & abuse' was the foundation of terrorist recruiting methods, then why did terrorists attack on 9/11? Or at Mogudishu? The Cole? Torture isn't the reason; it's just a convenient scapegoat.

This guy may believe in his position, but that doesn't mean he's accurate. He's selling books, and targeting the anti-war left as an audience. Whether because that's his own personal ideology or whether he's just a smart business guy doesn't matter. What matters is the veracity of his argument. His position is opinion based. For every Matthew Alexander, there is one who has the opposite opinion. Who you pick as 'right' entirely depends on your political persuasion.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Doesn't even pass the most basic test of logic. If 'torture & abuse' was the foundation of terrorist recruiting methods, then why did terrorists attack on 9/11? Or at Mogudishu? The Cole? Torture isn't the reason; it's just a convenient scapegoat.
This guy may believe in his position, but that doesn't mean he's accurate. He's selling books, and targeting the anti-war left as an audience. Whether because that's his own personal ideology or whether he's just a smart business guy doesn't matter. What matters is the veracity of his argument. His position is opinion based. For every Matthew Alexander, there is one who has the opposite opinion. Who you pick as 'right' entirely depends on your political persuasion.


Except that this guy isn't some average Joe off the street trying to sell a book who has an opinion.

He was the SENIOR military interrogator for the Air Force in charge of tracking down Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who conducted/supervised over 1000 interrogations.

I think this guy has a bit more credibility and first-hand knowlege of the topic. Even more-so that Cheney.

Or you.

^ WP/QM will never listen to reason. They could be told by God his/herself that torture is bad, and they'd claim God is in the tank for Obama.

Funniest part is, both of them are too chicken-shit to have ever enlisted in the military to go fight for their twisted, dark, fucked up views.

While they sit at home cheering on the torture and bloodshed, people like MG who have infinitely more liberal (sane) views, are actually in Iraq and Afghanistan.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Doesn't even pass the most basic test of logic. If 'torture & abuse' was the foundation of terrorist recruiting methods, then why did terrorists attack on 9/11? Or at Mogudishu? The Cole? Torture isn't the reason; it's just a convenient scapegoat.
This guy may believe in his position, but that doesn't mean he's accurate. He's selling books, and targeting the anti-war left as an audience. Whether because that's his own personal ideology or whether he's just a smart business guy doesn't matter. What matters is the veracity of his argument. His position is opinion based. For every Matthew Alexander, there is one who has the opposite opinion. Who you pick as 'right' entirely depends on your political persuasion.


Seriously... How do you talk about logic, but completely lack your own?

He is talking about his experience in Iraq. He is talking about very recent history. Did you miss that? Or did you latch onto the one thing that, in your mind, created an inconsistency? "Oh, oh... no he didn't! If I interpret what he said the way I want... Checkmate, bi**hes!" Yes, why use context when it doesn't fit what you believe in?

-- Starting at 1:25 --
-- --
"At the prison where I conducted interrogations, we heard day in and day out, foreign fighters who had been captured state that the number one reason they had come to fight in Iraq was because of torture and abuse.

So my team of interrogators realized that torture and abuse was counterproductive to what we were trying to accomplish in the long run. We were basically handing Al Qaeda it number one recruiting tool."
-- --
-- end --

He is talking about his time in Iraq. When he was the senior military interrogator, arriving to Iraq in 2006. (Hint: that's in the video description and he says it too.) Sweet J, do I have to transcribe everything for you? The video is right there. Try watching it again, actual listen, and don't include a time machine in your explanations.

Oh Winstonfield, yet again building straw man arguments with your facetious logic. When will you learn.

This guy is clearly talking about the post-9/11 war in Iraq and how Amurica responded to the attacks in such a hateful way. He specifically states that in many of the cases in which he interrogated terrorist (of which he interrogated over a thousand, IIRC) the number one stated reason for them coming to attack US soldiers, the number one stated reason for them joining the terrorist army, is because of the abuse they have witnessed of their fellow man.

ALSO, and I think this is actually a MORE important point than recruitment, one of the stated goals of those in charge of the 9/11 attacks (and whose lose organization probably perpetrated Mogadishu and Cole) is that these people are attempting to prove that the US is _not_ a civilized nation. Your rhetoric about torture being okay just works grandly into their plan. Can you not see that? I just don't believe that you can't. Perhaps you choose not to see that, but I implore you, as a fellow human, try.

I don't see how people can criticize waterboarding. Without it, we never would have known that Iraq had WMDs and was training Al Queda members.

Well put. I think that the republican line that "harsh interrogation techniques are not torture" is deeply insincere. As far as I can tell, that's not what any of them really believe, including Cheney.

Rather, they simply think that torture is justified and permissible when it comes to enemies of our country. They see all detainees as evil inscrutable foreigners who hate americans because of our freedom and faith. And that torturing an evil person is a small price to pay if it may save American lives.

I'm impressed by how Matthew Alexander cut through the bullshit and addressed the core beliefs of the right wing directly.

So, QM . . . rebuttal?

The cons just love them some torture.

Moral high-ground, you know....

Here we have the very guy in Iraq who was responsible for interrogating prisoners....

And he's telling us that torture doesn't work, and in fact, makes things worse....

But he isn't as smart as QM and WP. No.

He doesn't know what's going on.

Winstonfield - Sorry dude, gotta downvote for one of the stupidest comments I've ever seen on the Sift...

How about this: a handful of sugar-free cookies did the job just fine, no torture needed.

I'm not surprised at all that the soulless monster (Dick) does not regret "enhanced interrogations".

>> ^radx:
How about this: a handful of sugar-free cookies did the job just fine, no torture needed.


I posted this earlier
http://blog.videosift.com/volumptuous/No-Torture-Needed-Cookies-Did-the-Job


Yes, every piece of evidence on torture that's coming out from those directly in charge of interrogations has all been 100% anti-torture, and actually all have stated that torture.... ok wait.

We are discussing torture. I keep forgetting how unbelievably ridiculous it is to even have this discussion.




end

I think this guy has a bit more credibility and first-hand knowlege of the topic. Even more-so that Cheney

Proves my point exactly. You've 'chosen' to accept him as a credible source because he's saying things you like. There are senior interrogators who disagree with this guy's opinion, but you give them no credibility because you don't want to.

I'm more interested in the semantics of this debate, personally. I find them to be highly misleading. This doofus is deliberately attempting to make it sound like 'torture' is the ONLY reason that terrorists go to Iraq. So we're supposed to believe somehow that every insurgent in Iraq is there ONLY because of US torture pics and junk.

But news stories of prisoner treatment did not become widespread until late in 2004 when internal documents and photos were leaked. At that point the Iraq insurgency was already stuff, and foreign fighters were flocking into the country. "Torture" could not possibly have motivated this, because it wasn't publicized. The real motivations are myriad and include Isreal, money, and many other things. Be realistic. If all the US had done was put terrorists in a comfy bungalow, then there would still be terrorists in Iraq by the thousands.

Therefore the joker in this vid is totally up in the night. Terrorist activity was stiff and rampant far earlier than 'torture' became an issue. Now, that is irrefutable fact. But you people here will have none of it, because it contradicts an argument that you desperately want to be correct. Pathetic.

There are senior interrogators who disagree with this guy's opinion

Link, please.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by kronosposeidon.

Winston - I'm really not getting your 'argument' - semantic or otherwise.

First you state that the claim that torture helps to recruit terrorists to the cause "doesn't even pass the most basic test of logic" (whatever you think that is - you never say), never mind that the claim is not in any way mutually exclusive with other motivations.

Nobody is saying that torture of prisoners by American authorities is the ONLY recruiting tool/motivator for terrorist forces. If I'm misconstruing your point, please explain.

Further, you claim that assigning credibility to someone with first hand experience 'proves your point exactly', that is, that people agree with people that say what they already believe.

Ignoring the fact that the latter point IN NO WAY FOLLOWS NECESSARILY from the former, you go on to claim that there are 'senior interrogators' who disagree with this person's opinion but fail to produce one example. I find many people credible with whom I disagree - sometimes I even change my mind if a person (or persons) with experience/expertise in a particular field makes a convincing argument.

This guy says he went to Iraq in 2006 - so your observation that widespread reporting of torture/abuse by American Forces couldn't have been a recruiting tool until 2004 is irrelevent in this instance. Never mind the fact that terrorist recruitors might actually misrepresent the truth about prisoner treatment... We still don't have to give them credibility on this point.

Nobody is saying that torture of prisoners by American authorities is the ONLY recruiting tool/motivator for terrorist forces. If I'm misconstruing your point, please explain.

This guy said it. Time 2:11. "There are people who say torture alone didn't force these people to come to Iraq, and to them I'd say 'you're wrong'." If I'm misconstruing the point, please explain.

This guy is not being vague. He is bluntly stating as FACT that the torture allegations are the "number one recruiting tool" for terrorists. He says that "90%" of all suicide bombers were motivated by this fact alone. His logic is, "If we didn't torture people, then there wouldn't be terrorists and soldiers wouldn't be dying..."

But he is factually incorrect. 24% of all US military deaths in Iraq occured before the allegations were first publicized. The claim that 90% of all suicide bombers were motivated by torture is bunk. So is his claim that 'torture alone' is motivating people to come to Iraq.

You personally may have a less radical view than this guy. Bully. But this bozo is misrepresenting the truth, and he is plainly biased. The fact that he makes regular rounds on liberal blogs and talk shows pretty much cements the reality that he's very likely biased himself.

At the very kindest interpretation, he's reporting his experiences through a lens of personal bias. It is clearly causing him to exaggerate his point to a ridiculous degree, robbing him whatever valididy he may have. I don't doubt that the torture images are being used as a recruiting tool. But to say that "90% of all suicide bombers" are motivated by it? To claim there is "no other reason why these people came to Iraq?" Preposterous. His language is misleading and slanted. His conclusions reach far beyond what is logical or provable.

Ok, for the sake of argument, let's take it as a given that he overstates the case claiming that American sponsored torture alone motivated the vast majority of militants entering Iraq (the exact motivations, numbers, percentages, etc are probably not knowable) - the overstatement itself doesn't entirely undermine the essential claim.

It's the difference between an eyewitness reporting that a guy was stabbed over 100 times and died - then the forensic pathologist comes in and says, well, he was actually stabbed only 25 times. Clearly the witness "overstated" his case, but the substantive conclusion is still relevant and correct - the guy was stabbed to death.

It's just not that hard to believe that images and reports of humiliation/abuse/torture of muslim prisoners could and would inspire would-be militants to throw in with the cause and travel to Iraq in greater numbers than they otherwise would have. Looking at the other side, I truly believe that the videos of beheadings by muslims were in fact effective recruiting tools for our own military.

What I do find hard to believe is the claim that mistreatment of prisoners played little or no role at all in enemy recruitment (and I note that you are not making that claim) and was this godsend providing the military and defense dept windfalls of life-saving information (none of which has ever been substantiated, nor will it ever in my opinion) as people like Cheney would have the American public believe.

What I do find hard to believe is the claim that mistreatment of prisoners played little or no role at all in enemy recruitment (and I note that you are not making that claim) and was this godsend providing the military and defense dept windfalls of life-saving information (none of which has ever been substantiated, nor will it ever in my opinion) as people like Cheney would have the American public believe.

Thank you for acknowledging that I never said, "little or no role". I deplore the environment of extremist, loaded, biased language in today's political debates. This exists on all sides, but is most particularly eggregious on the political left. In this specific debate, guys like the video doofus paint a totally black and white picture where torture is the ONLY reason there are terrorists. Bull. Cheney responds with language that implies torture images don't motivate terrorists at all. Also bull.

Do the torture allegations motivate terrorists? I'm sure it does for some of them. To claim it is the 'only' reason is a politically motivated exaggeration which simple common sense and logic proves false. As I said before, if America had done no more than put all the prisoners in jungle bungalows I still VERY much doubt that terrorists would be having a hard time finding their recruits. They certainly didn't have a problem finding them before the allegations were made...

The discussion has floundered in the world of political extremism. Extremist neo-libs want to prosecute Bush, so they frame the discussion is such a way as to make it sound as if Bush-era 'torture' was the worst thing in the history man's inhumanity to man. Extremist neo-cons respond with the position that Bush-era torture was like a gentle tickling.

Winstonfield: Please link to a video/quote of a highly-ranked military interrogator saying the opposite of this man.