world

U.S. may create terror interrogation unit

26 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

26 Comments
Login to comment

"a special unit of professional interrogators to handle key terror suspects, focusing on intelligence gathering"

Cop: He won't talk.

Professional interrogator Bauer: Would you leave us alone for a few minutes?"

Cop: Sure.

a few minutes elapses

Professional interrogator Bauer: There's going to be an assassination attempt on the president this afternoon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That reads like a bad TV show. Good thing no one would be stupid enough to insert it into real life.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cop: He won't talk.

Professional interrogator TokyoHustla: Would you leave us alone for a few minutes?

Cop: Sure.

a few minutes elapses

Professional interrogator TokyoHustla: You're right, he won't talk.

A few hours later the president is assassinated.

Now that's a bad TV show.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do we really need all this when we already have the Waterboard?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This sounds like a bit of a talk fest for a number of reasons.

Firstly, politics is being played rather clumsily here. With GW nothing but a bad memory, I think it is time that Obama and friends stop playing to the peanut gallery (the far left) vis-a-vis offering platitudes about being different from Bush/CIA. Interrogation is (probably) still a rather dirty business. As such, if the current administration truly wants results, I don't know how it can employ strategies that are that much different from what the CIA and friends have been doing. Maybe oversight could be strengthened, but that is about all. At the same time, however, the last thing any interrogation program needs is a bunch of prevaricating politicians who act like a bunch of wilting violets. If the administration truly believes that interrogation is the way to go, then all bets should be off. Secondly, I would like to know what the term "professional interrogator" actually means. Surely, it means people who are adept at applying physical and mental hardship to suspects in order to get results. Off the top of my head, I would say that some of the folks working down at Gitmo would be best qualified for this sort of work. What other options are there? Maybe the government should be employing people called Paulie Walnuts to carry out such work. Seriously, how are these folks going to be recruited. Is the administration just doing a sleight-of-hand trick over this, namely castigating people working for the CIA while hoping to employ these same people under the name of a new agency.

Finally, waterboarding is just one option. if the focus is going to be on intelligence-gathering rather than building criminal cases for prosecution, this would seem to imply that the detainees will both be in legal limbo and appearances won't be that important. As such, it is possible that the US government will be placing large orders for power tools in the coming months.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

U.S. isn't terror unit?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Obama administration is considering creating a special unit of professional interrogators to handle key terror suspects, focusing on intelligence-gathering rather than building criminal cases for prosecution, a government official said Saturday.

They have an organization like this. It is called the CIA. They are not an organization that is supposed to collect evidence to be used in a court of law. They are there to "gather intelligence" and focusing on people who are out to do bad to the USA.

I think that Obama needs to start hiring people who know what they are doing, rather than finding people who are hired just because they share his same political views.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Be on the lookout for online professional interrogation courses...coming soon to an online school near you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cop: He won't talk.

Professional interrogator Ex-Kenpeitai Yamada: Would you leave us alone for a few minutes?

Cop: Sure.

a few minutes elapses

Professional interrogator Ex-Kenpeitai Yamada: There's going to be an assassination attempt on the president this afternoon. Also here's a list of names and addresses including his terror associates and family members.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Glad this article is about Obama and not about Bush. If it was about Bush we would be at 100 posts by now slamming the guy. I think we will be lucky if we get even one that is even mildly critical as to how Obama is dealing with the detainees.

Double standards indeed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From my personal perspective, the FBI should be the lead organization to handle US domestic affairs. They work well w/in the constraints of the US Constitution. They lack a clear connection to Intelligence feeds, but that involves a structural change. They and the police departments have jurisdiction, but the willingness for Intelligence to take a secondary role would be strongly resisted. It really depends on what value the US Constitution has. The US Constitution DID differentiate the US from others, but not so much anymore.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Glad this article is about Obama and not about Bush. If it was about Bush we would be at 100 posts by now slamming the guy. I think we will be lucky if we get even one that is even mildly critical as to how Obama is dealing with the detainees.

Dont know what you're on about. Interrogation doesn't mean torture. Did you read the 5th and 6th paragraphs of the article? (Sure, one could argue that interrogators could get impatient somewhere down the line and start torturing again, but this is what they're trying to prevent.) Posters here weren't taking issue with the Bush administration just because it was the Bush administration, they take issue because of some of the things done during it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind, Obama won the election.

Get over it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And the terrorists are??? Ordinary run-of-the-mill, educated White men.

Obama won? He was appointed by and for the Wall St gangsters who own the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind, Obama won the election.

Get over it.

He sure did. Glad he's pretty much keeping everything in place as far as Bush's policies regarding GITMO and the detainees. I'm sure your just as happy about that as I am adverts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind said:

Glad this article is about Obama and not about Bush.

Yeah right you are not obsessed with Bush. Oh but you were just putting it in the "right context."

sailwind said:

Get over it.

You never did. That's the point.

/

(yet another Bush related comment by sailwind - wasn't he the one always going on and on about being obsessed with Bush) sailwind said:

Glad he's pretty much keeping everything in place as far as Bush's policies regarding GITMO

Yeah right you are not obsessed with Bush. Oh but you were just putting it in the "right context."

sailwind said:

Glad he's pretty much keeping everything in place as far as Bush's policies regarding GITMO...

I had no idea Obama has put or is putting prisoners in Gitmo; that would be Bush policy. I thought he requested 80 million dollars to close Gitmo and was turned down. That is not Bush policy.

sailwind has zero credibility.

I guess everyone agrees sailwind just can't get over those sour grapes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I had no idea Obama has put or is putting prisoners in Gitmo; that would be Bush policy.

You should read the article.

Obama signed executive orders when he took office in January calling for government task forces to recommend future policies for interrogating and detaining suspected terrorists.

Should I highlight the future policies part?

As far as credibility goes........It is pretty obvious you approve of Obama holding people without charges, no hope of trial and just left to rot in legal limbo. You sure aren't complaining very much NOW as you did before when it was done under Bushes watch.

The government hopes to transfer many of the detainees—including up to 100 Yemenis—to other nations for rehabilitation or release. A much smaller number is expected to be brought to trial by the Justice Department, and a separate group will be tried in military commissions.

A final group probably will be held without formal charges, subject to some form of regular judicial review.

I'm just curious as to why your all of the sudden cool with that when you never were before. It's okay under Obama I guess.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I guess everyone agrees sailwind just can't get over those sour grapes.

I can't get over the blatant hypocrisy on display from the left now that Obama is President.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“Democrats and Republicans alike voted joined in the vote to withhold funding—the first serious legislative setback of Obama’s presidency.”

Staged managed to get the “Saviour” off the hook. Now he can say that he wanted to close the place but in a democracy his hands are tied & he can’t do what he wanted. So he isn’t really, really breaking a promise is he?

A few days ago on a thread here we were talking about if it was legal for the US to be sending out assassins, was it legal to be using drones to take out suspected terrorists in other peoples counties & snipers killing suspected suicide bombers & the overwhelming opinion was that all the above & more was needed to protect America &, although I am still not sure, was legal. Well if the US can create nice comfortable new international laws that fit so snugly into their needs why all they “let’s pretend”? If it is acceptable to kill a suspected terrorist any place in the world for the greater good of the US what is so wrong with taking him (her) alive & squashing some information out of him (her) first & then killing him (her)? Under the new saviour of the world everything now seems to be in need of being painted in nice pastel colours so that it is seen to be (though may not be) politically correct. Who cares? The US has already lost any credibility it might ever have had & there isn’t going to be anyway of getting that back, so stop trying & deal with the problems honestly & if need be in a manor that generates some fear rather than laughter. One of the primary laws in any civilized country or religion is that people don’t kill people, but when a country is at war we kill people. So can we stop pretending to be sweet little angels & get on with the job of surviving the very real danger that terrorism is?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind said:

Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush and Obama = Bush.

sailwind said:

You should read the article.

You should learn to read English. It is clear to everyone I was saying Obama did not put prisoners in Gitmo. Leave me a message when he does. IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

sailwind said:

You sure aren't complaining very much NOW as you did before when it was done under Bushes watch.

Obama did not put them in there. He is forced to straighten out this mess. You are changing the issue because you lost this one. Every time you say Obama is doing the same as Bush in Gitmo you will be wrong. Everyone can recognize it. OBAMA DID NOT PUT ANY PRISONERS IN GITMO.

NEXT POST sailwind says: Obama is just continuing Obama's policies in GITMO.

I'll say: OBAMA DID NOT PUT ANY PRISONERS IN GITMO.

saiwind said:

A final group probably will be held without formal charges, subject to some form of regular judicial review.

/

I'm just curious as to why your all of the sudden cool with that when you never were before. It's okay under Obama I guess.

I guess if you can't win an argument by using my words you will just have to continue to tell people I said things I never said or what now "(paraphrasing) I am suddenly cool with something I never was before," let's just have some quotes from me on that shall we. What I suggested was a special court and Defense Attorneys with security clearances - a long time ago I suggested this. What I said before was that the Democratic Congress was wrong not to take responsibility for America's prisoners. We have no business housing them in Cuba. Cuba does not want us there, that is a separate issue. But it is immoral and unethical to force our prisoners onto their land.

sailwind cannot support his statement on Obama continuing Bush's policies so he tries his damnedest to change the subject. I agree he used the topic of the article. But I do think we need a terror interrogation unit that will implement the new procedures of NOT TORTURING PEOPLE.

In the Past I acknowledged:

That it would be very difficult to bring some prisoners to trial.

That torture was wrong.

That housing these prisoners at Gitmo was wrong.

That every prisoner should be entitled to a preliminary hearing to determine there status. One status may be: no trial until the war is over or other circumstances allow.

I will sign an affidavit stating I have said all those things. sailwind cannot quote me on anything he says I said. Why is that? I can't tell you why or they will remove my post. But you all know why.

I said this specifically because of TOP SECRET information that the defendant should be entitled access to. I suggested that the Defense Attorney should be required to hold a security clearance. I believe that not only should special courts be formed where the Judge and jury also have security clearances but the defendant is not allowed to hear the secret information but his attorney is allowed to present it outside the defendants presence.

I unequivocally state that I think it is wrong for Obama or any one else to imprison someone without a preliminary hearing determining their status.

I never had a problem with P.O.W.'s being held. But Bush refused to classify them as P.O.W.'S didn't he?

MANY FUTURE POSTS sailwind says:

Obama is just continuing Obama's policies in GITMO.

I'll say: OBAMA DID NOT PUT ANY PRISONERS IN GITMO.

MANY FUTURE POSTS sailwind says:

It is pretty obvious you approve of Obama holding people without charges, no hope of trial and just left to rot in legal limbo

I'll say: Good luck convincing people of that. Come up with a quote from me or provide evidence that proves I would support such a statement. Put up or Shut up.

And I saved the best for last.

sailwind said:

You sure aren't complaining very much NOW as you did before when it was done under Bushes watch.

How could I possibly have time for that when you continue to try to state that Obama is continuing Bush's policies?

I have had to take the time to prove that you are a .... Oh wait I can't say. Why is that? I can't tell you why or they will remove my post. But you all know why.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind said:

I can't get over the blatant hypocrisy on display from the left now that Obama is President. [in response to "...sailwind just can't get over those sour grapes."]

Good luck convincing people of that too.

Sometimes it is obsession with Bush! Other times it is MEDIA BIAS! Now it is "blatant hypocrisy on display from the left."

But all the rest of hear, "Sour grapes!" "Sour Grapes here!" "Sour Grapes!" "Step up and get your Sour Grapes!" "Sour grapes here!" "Sour Grapes!" "Sour ..........!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't hear, "sour grapes"

I hear.......

Yet for all of his attacks on the Bush Administration, which he accused of making "decisions based upon fear rather than foresight," Mr. Obama stuck with his predecessor's support for military commissions, adding some procedural bells and whistles as political cover to justify his past opposition. For the record: Both the left and right, from the ACLU to Dick Cheney, now agree that the President has all but embraced the Bush policy.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124294739252745239.html

I guess if that counts as, "sour grapes" so be it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind cannot support his statement on Obama continuing Bush's policies so he tries his damnedest to change the subject.

I'll use a prominent leftwing news outlet so you won't accuse me of bias and infer that I'm not being truthful in forming my opinions.

You've heard of this Guy I'm sure.

Glenn Greenwald Tuesday May 19, 2009 06:13 EDT Obama's embrace of Bush terrorism policies is celebrated as "Centrism" (updated below - Update II - Update III)

I wonder how many people from across the political spectrum will have to point this out before Obama defenders will finally admit that it's true. From Harvard Law Professor and former Bush OLC lawyer Jack Goldsmith, systematically assessing Obama's "terrorism" policies in The New Republic:

Many people think Cheney is scare-mongering and owes President Obama his support or at least his silence. But there is a different problem with Cheney's criticisms: his premise that the Obama administration has reversed Bush-era policies is largely wrong. The truth is closer to the opposite: The new administration has copied most of the Bush program, has expanded some of it, and has narrowed only a bit. Almost all of the Obama changes have been at the level of packaging, argumentation, symbol, and rhetoric. . . .

[A]t the end of the day, Obama practices will be much closer to late Bush practices than almost anyone expected in January 2009.

Most important, Goldsmith expresses admiration for Obama's rhetorical and symbolic changes -- such as Obama's emphasis on obtaining Congressional support for Bush's policies while highlighting his deep concern for "civil liberties" -- because Goldsmith believes that Obama's rhetoric vests Bush's policies with more credibility, ensures more bipartisan and Congressional support for these policies, makes them more palatable to Democrats, and thus ensures that those policies will endure in a stronger and longer-lasting form:

The new president was a critic of Bush administration terrorism policies, a champion of civil liberties, and an opponent of the invasion of Iraq. His decision (after absorbing the classified intelligence and considering the various options) to continue core Bush terrorism policies is like Nixon going to China. . . .

If this analysis is right, then the former vice president is wrong to say that the new president is dismantling the Bush approach to terrorism. President Obama has not changed much of substance from the late Bush practices, and the changes he has made, including changes in presentation, are designed to fortify the bulk of the Bush program for the long-run. Viewed this way, President Obama is in the process of strengthening the presidency to fight terrorism.

What's most striking about the denial of so many Obama supporters about all of this is that Obama officials haven't really tried to hide it.

I rest my case.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/19/obama/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, in light of what I read from sailwind (bang on - NOT!)I'll just have adjust my browser so that ALL articles by the hater Glenn Greenwald are BLOCKED.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Concerning "sailwind at 03:37 PM JST - 20th July"

Funny thing is that this allowed sailwind to "rest his case" without presenting one fact. It allowed sailwind to "rest his case" without addressing one of the facts I presented. Maybe sailwind has no idea what the difference between editorials and facts are. If you don't want to call it an editorial because it is not by an editor, I don't know Glenn Greenwald, so it may in fact be an op ed piece.

From above:

The intent was to deal with what U.S. officials called “the worst of the worst” among suspected terrorists. But over the years the U.S. released or transferred more than 500 of the inmates once held, including a number who clearly didn’t fit that description.

I once saw a 21 yr. old imprisoned since he was a 14 yr old kid that had been released from Gitmo. He said he had been treated badly. He also said he wanted to live in the U.S. one day. If someone has access to the records you will find what I am saying to be true. "The worst of the worst," give me a break. The Bush administration is responsible for imprisoning this mere boy. Tell me when again did Obama continue Bush's policy and throw boys in a "worst of the worst" prison?

So sailwind did just as I said he would.

NEXT POST sailwind says: Obama is just continuing Obama's policies in GITMO.

/

I'll say: OBAMA DID NOT PUT ANY PRISONERS IN GITMO.

Also Saiwind will not be providing any quotes from me saying the things he said I said. Namely "It is pretty obvious you [goodDonkey] approve of Obama holding people without charges, no hope of trial and just left to rot in legal limbo" and "I'm just curious as to why your [you're] all of the sudden cool with that when you never were before."

I guess we all know why it is he won't be providing those quotes. He won't be providing them because they don't exist. He says those things because he is a ......well you guys know and I am not allowed to say.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just to add emphasis to my point sailwinds best answer to all the questions I threw at him was to post the opinion of a liberal; no facts. With that he says "I rest my case."

weak!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites