Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (823896)	12/19/2014 5:43:34 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576882

You guys have it in your minds that these interrogations are like they are on TV. They're not. No one EVER gives anything up DURING the application of EITs. It is a process. And they may get a little information before, but it the application of EITs in these instances that provided assurance that all available information was gotten. As previously pointed out, after Zubaydah had EITs applied to him, he gave up Ramzi bin al-Shibh and provided information that resulted in his capture in Karachi. That is information that WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GOTTEN without EITs. He also gave up Al-Nashiri (the victim of "cigar smoke in the face" EITs lol) who bombed the Cole. But the EIT interrogation of Zubaydah also resulted in specific information that was useful in the interrogation of KSM. As Mr. Rodriquez has repeatedly explained, the point is NOT to inflict pain. It is to make the detainee compliant with the instructions of the interrogator. If they aren't being forthcoming it is necessary to take away their control of their own circumstances. He has also publicly explained that the FBI, trying to apply crime investigator interrogation tactics, totally screwed it up. It was only after they got Soufan and other FBI types out of the picture that they were able to make progress, with any of them. The idiots at FBI were treating them like criminals rather than like jihadists, and they are two different kinds of interrogation. He gave an example where they knew AZ had a fear of insects so they were going to put a harmless caterpillar into the box with him. But they were told that to prevent it from being "torture" they HAD to explain to him up front that the caterpillar was harmless, could not hurt him, and he would be fine. They ended up saying, "What's the point?" and just skipping it altogether. There is no torture when you're required to allay any fears they may have before the fact and you don't cause them pain.