Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The full impact of this little tidbit went over my head when it happened: John Lindh's 2002 plea agreement forbids him from discussing the conditions under which he was held following his capture. A Navy admiral told the intelligence officer interrogating Lindh in late 2001 that "the secretary of defense's counsel has authorized him to 'take the gloves off' and ask whatever he wanted." So the officer propped up Lindh naked and tied to a stretcher in sessions that went on for days, while his responses were cabled to Washington hourly.
Does any intelligent person persist in a belief that Abu Ghraib was the frolic of some inbred prison guards, acting against orders, and the Yoo memo was just academic curiosity?
|
Intensive interrogation of guys who without question were in a decent position to have information makes sense to me. Especially late 2001, it would have made sense. I know you think everything you hear from the Executive branch is bullshit, but they claim to have gathered information that stopped dozens of plots, and maybe broke up a cell or two.
Hardened terrorist aren't giving up information playing truth or dare you know.
I don't see what that has to do with Abu Ghraib, and humiliating people who probably didn't know anything. I mean SS and I use to beat up faggy guys like GGG all the time in school for fun. That doesn't mean that bilmore was similarly wrong when he punched notme after she took her dress off on their date.
