Blair: Army interrogation manual to apply to CIA

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Blair Pledges New Approach to Counterterrorism

....

"The intelligence agencies of the United States must respect the privacy and civil liberties of the American people, and they must adhere to the rule of law," Mr. Blair said in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The sixth generation naval officer did not face particularly difficult questioning, and is expected to be easily confirmed by the committee.

He said that the Obama administration would carry out a review of interrogation policy, and that both military and intelligence interrogators would follow a uniform standard. Under questioning, however, he said he believed that some interrogation procedures and methods ought to remain secret so potential adversaries cannot train to resist them.

"We don't want to provide open intelligence support for those who are coming after us," he said.

Addressing complaints that the intelligence agencies have evaded Congressional oversight and skirted the law, Mr. Blair promised a different approach.

"I do not and will not support any surveillance activities that circumvent established processes for their lawful authorization," he said in the testimony. "I believe in the importance of independent monitoring, including by Congress, to prevent abuses and protect civil liberties."

In an unusual comment from a man who will head the most secret agencies of government, he said, "There is a need for transparency and accountability in a mission where most work necessarily remains hidden from public view."

He said that if confirmed, he would "communicate frequently and candidly with the oversight committees, and as much as possible with the American people."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/us/polit...laircnd.html?hp

[Heracles 417]

So why be so dismissive when an actual expert gives his expert opinion? Is that what Aussie's do?

Steve, come on. Everyone in America is an expert so why can't I be one too. I don't see terrorist attacking Aussies.

Forget about the torture manuals. The first decree for Obama should be to get American forces and bases out of other countries. Let them foot the bill for their defense. Next, we need to immediately stop interfering in other countrys' affairs. At the end of the day whenever the United States does meddle, it ends up being the bad guy, the scapegoat. Is turning a blind eye the moral thing to do? of course not. But it works extremely well for countries like Canada and Australia. They basically pull a PD / Cleo and they too end up looking like the good guys. Unlike the so-called big bad imperialist America. Get what I am saying..

I just hope this doesn't turn into another Clinton situation where he downsized the military and intelligence departments. Ignored imminent and tangible threats. Then refused to use the appropriate proactive military force to take out Al Qaeda. Which effectively allowed them to build in strength, plan 9/11 and execute it years later.

Edited January 23, 2009 by Aficionado

[William33 110]

Anyone have the details of the Army manual? That would be interesting.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/libra...4-52/index.html

Looks pretty weak overall. Given that the manual is available online, anyone caught and interrogated will already be trained on the entire process and realizes it is a psychological game, which can be beat.

Water-boarding on the other hand, gains appreciable results.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Looks pretty weak overall. Given that the manual is available online, anyone caught and interrogated will already be trained on the entire process and realizes it is a psychological game, which can be beat.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=173938

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

Terrible... and just wrong.

almaty, did you hijack the gecko's account?

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

Wow...plenty of military intelligence experts chiming in.

a better question is - are you able to tell when one does?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Does any of this prevent torture by proxy?

That was a real scandal from the Bush years.

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

Anyone have the details of the Army manual? That would be interesting.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/libra...4-52/index.html

FM 34-52

HEADQUARTERS

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Washington, DC, 8 May 1987

that's the old one!

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

new one

link

dated sep 06

note page VI, where it starts with "this manual provides.........."

pay particular attention to the last sentence of that paragraph.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Wow...plenty of military intelligence experts chiming in.

a better question is - are you able to tell when one does?

When one does what? Give his expert opinion? Sure we can - if we take our car to an auto mechanic, we can check his credentials. When we go see a doctor, we can know with some assurance that he isn't a quack, but if he is, we can always get a second and third opinion. And it's not the you shouldn't ever question your doctor's opinion, but if you laugh at him when he tells you you have cancer, you're not even arguing against his expert opinion by merit, but simply ridiculing him....which is what so many armchair experts have done in this thread. If somebody has a legitimate argument which opposes the expert opinion of a retired Admiral, then back it up with dissenting expert opinion.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If somebody has a legitimate argument which opposes the expert opinion of a retired Admiral, then back it up with dissenting expert opinion.

This isn't a court of law, Steven.

If I want to laugh at you, I will

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If somebody has a legitimate argument which opposes the expert opinion of a retired Admiral, then back it up with dissenting expert opinion.

This isn't a court of law, Steven.

If I want to laugh at you, I will

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the dismissiveness over expert opinion, which seems to be a prevailing phenonmenon lately in our culture. Regular joe plumbers believing their opinion on sientific theory, for example...is on equal footing with the actual scientists in those fields. I believe that part of why this is not only common but acceptable is because there are so many pundits on TV who do the same kind of posturing. It's part of the dumbing down of our culture.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If somebody has a legitimate argument which opposes the expert opinion of a retired Admiral, then back it up with dissenting expert opinion.

This isn't a court of law, Steven.

If I want to laugh at you, I will

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the dismissiveness over expert opinion, which seems to be a prevailing phenonmenon lately in our culture. Regular joe plumbers believing their opinion on sientific theory, for example...is on equal footing with the actual scientists in those fields. I believe that part of why this is not only common but acceptable is because there are so many pundits on TV who do the same kind of posturing. It's part of the dumbing down of our culture.

Well, the 'loser' section of this country has always looked down on smart people. Witness the glorification of the jock culture, witness the marginalization of 'nerds' in all but the best schools.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If somebody has a legitimate argument which opposes the expert opinion of a retired Admiral, then back it up with dissenting expert opinion.

This isn't a court of law, Steven.

If I want to laugh at you, I will

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the dismissiveness over expert opinion, which seems to be a prevailing phenonmenon lately in our culture. Regular joe plumbers believing their opinion on sientific theory, for example...is on equal footing with the actual scientists in those fields. I believe that part of why this is not only common but acceptable is because there are so many pundits on TV who do the same kind of posturing. It's part of the dumbing down of our culture.

Well, the 'loser' section of this country has always looked down on smart people. Witness the glorification of the jock culture, witness the marginalization of 'nerds' in all but the best schools.

The BS about "elitist" Liberals certainly speaks to that.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Look no further than the fetish in some families of people who memorize baseball stats. It's highly regarded in their own peer circles (losers) as a mastery of some sort, a real achievement.