<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
To Nick's article and Bear's reply here, I can't hold back a resounding "AMEN brotha's!!!"<BR>
<BR>
Thanks Nick, you're article helped me shut someone up. Don<BR>
<BR>
By the way:<BR>
<OL>
<LI>In the three religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, whenever the faithful pray, regardless of language, they always end their prayer by saying <B>Amen</B>. There is no linguistic translation for Amen, because it is a name and not a word. The origin of <I><B>Amen</B></I> is Egyptian, for <I><B>Amen</B></I> was the name of God. The Jews have learned about <I>Amen</I> during their sojourn in Egypt, which lasted for four generations. The name of <I><B>Amen</B></I>, which means the Hidden One, in Ancient Egypt, lives on. <BR></LI></OL>
<BR>Read more here: <A href="http://www.egypt-tehuti.org/articles/egypt-bible-similarities.html" target=_blank rel=nofollow><FONT color=#0068cf>http://www.egypt-tehuti.org/articles/egypt-bible-similarities.html</FONT></A><BR><BR> <BR>> Message: 2<BR>> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 14:40:09 -0700 (PDT)<BR>> From: bear@moscow.com<BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Roger Falen: Please Read This<BR>> To: nickgier@roadrunner.com<BR>> Cc: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> Message-ID: <3f2584ee1ebab7a50660c73b1a07a067.squirrel@secure.fsr.com><BR>> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Nick,<BR>> <BR>> I agree 100% with Matt Alexander but I'm afraid that without a serious and<BR>> zealous prosecution of those that broke faith and betrayed the American<BR>> soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan by authorizing and committing these acts,<BR>> not only will nothing change, but it WILL happen again.<BR>> <BR>> And I for one, don't care what political party anyone is in that either<BR>> validated or authorized or committed the acts is from. If individual<BR>> members of government, either by commission or omission, were involved, <BR>> they should be brought before the bar of justice and judged.<BR>> The message this sends to the world is far beyond any words that we can<BR>> voice. it says, loud and clear, WE DO NOT TORTURE and those involved in<BR>> torture will be investigated and tried for their crimes.<BR>> <BR>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> > Matthew Alexander before the Senate Judiciary Committee<BR>> > Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee on the issue of<BR>> > interrogation. I especially thank Senator Sheldon Whitehouse for his<BR>> > invitation to submit this written testimony.<BR>> > I submit this testimony as a private citizen and not as an official<BR>> > representative of the United States Air Force or as a representative of<BR>> > the Department of Defense. I am currently still in the Air Force Reserves.<BR>> > I have served for seventeen years in the United States Air Force and Air<BR>> > Force Reserves and have completed five combat deployments to three wars. I<BR>> > feel that nothing less than our national soul is at stake in the debate<BR>> > concerning the torture and abuse of prisoners.<BR>> > In 2006, I deployed to Iraq as an interrogator at the bequest of the Army.<BR>> > Prior to my deployment I was a special agent for the Air Force Office of<BR>> > Special Investigations, both on Active Duty and in the Reserves. Before I<BR>> > was a special agent, I was a special operations helicopter pilot. I've<BR>> > served in the conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo, Colombia, and Iraq.<BR>> > As an interrogator in Iraq, I conducted more than 300 interrogations and<BR>> > supervised more than 1,000. I led the interrogations team that located Abu<BR>> > Musab Al Zarqawi, the former leader of Al Qaida in Iraq, and one of the<BR>> > most notorious mass murderers of our generation. At the time that we<BR>> > killed Zarqawi, he was the number one priority for the United States<BR>> > military, higher than Osama Bin Laden.<BR>> > I strongly oppose the use of torture or abuse as interrogation methods for<BR>> > both pragmatic and moral reasons.<BR>> > For purposes of clarity, I endorse the semantic clarification offered by<BR>> > Alberto Mora, former General Counsel to the Department of the Navy, who<BR>> > states that cruelty is a more accurate term than abuse, citing the<BR>> > prohibition against cruelty in the Eighth Amendment to the U.S.<BR>> > Constitution. For the purpose of this testimony, however, I will use the<BR>> > commonly used term "abuse" instead of the word "cruelty" to denote those<BR>> > actions that are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, Geneva Conventions,<BR>> > or U.S. military regulations.<BR>> > There are many pragmatic arguments against torture and abuse. The first is<BR>> > the lack of evidence that torture or abuse as an interrogation tactic is<BR>> > faster or more efficient than other method such as relationship building<BR>> > or deception. In my experience, when interrogators used harsh methods that<BR>> > fit the definition of abuse, in every instance, that method served only to<BR>> > harden the resolve of the detainee and made them more resistant to<BR>> > interrogation. As revealed in the so-called Torture Memos, the mere fact<BR>> > that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was waterboarded 183 times is ample evidence<BR>> > that torture made him more resistant to interrogation and that because<BR>> > coercion was used, he gave only the minimum amount of information<BR>> > necessary to stop the pain.<BR>> > The second pragmatic argument against torture and abuse is the fact that<BR>> > Al Qaida used our policy that authorized and encouraged these illegal<BR>> > methods as their number one recruiting tool for foreign fighters. While I<BR>> > supervised interrogations in Iraq, I listened to a majority of foreign<BR>> > fighters state that the reason they had come to Iraq to fight was because<BR>> > of the torture and abuse committed at both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.<BR>> > These foreign fighters made up approximately 90% of the suicide bombers in<BR>> > Iraq at that time, in addition to leading and participating in thousands<BR>> > of attacks against Coalition and Iraqi forces. It is not an exaggeration<BR>> > to say that hundreds, if not thousands, of American soldiers died at the<BR>> > hands of these foreign fighters. The policy that authorized and encouraged<BR>> > the torture and abuse of prisoners has cost us American lives. The torture<BR>> > and abuse of prisoners is counterproductive to our efforts to thwart<BR>> > terrorist attacks in the long term and to keep all Americans safe.<BR>> > In addition, torture and abuse of prisoners causes present and future<BR>> > detainees to be more resistant to interrogations. When we torture or abuse<BR>> > detainees, it hardens their resolve and reinforces the reasons why they<BR>> > picked up arms against us. In addition, it makes all Americans appear as<BR>> > hypocrites, thereby betraying the trust that is necessary to establish<BR>> > prior to convincing a detainee to cooperate. Detainees are more likely to<BR>> > cooperate when they see us live up to our principles. Several high-ranking<BR>> > Al Qaida members that I interrogated in Iraq decided to cooperate with me<BR>> > for the very reason that I did not torture or abuse them and because I<BR>> > treated them and their religion and culture with respect. In fact, that<BR>> > was one of the main reasons I was able to convince a member of Zarqawi's<BR>> > inner circle to cooperate with us.<BR>> > The final pragmatic argument that I offer against torture and abuse is<BR>> > that future adversaries will be less likely to surrender to us during<BR>> > combat. During the first Gulf War, thousands of Iraqi troops surrendered<BR>> > to American forces knowing that they would be fairly treated as prisoners<BR>> > of war. This same rational was present during World War II, where German<BR>> > soldiers fought and evaded in the vicinity of Berlin for the privilege of<BR>> > being captured by American versus Russian troops. If future adversaries<BR>> > are unwilling to surrender to us because of the manner in which we've<BR>> > treated prisoners in the current conflict, it will have a real cost in<BR>> > American lives.<BR>> > As a military officer, it is my obligation not just to point out the<BR>> > broken wheel, but to fix it. So allow me to address the effective<BR>> > interrogation methods that led to the successes of my team in Iraq. World<BR>> > War II interrogators used relationship building approaches to great<BR>> > success against captured Germans and Japanese, and my team imitated their<BR>> > methods. However, we also added new techniques to our arsenal.<BR>> > I deployed to the war with four other Air Force special agents with<BR>> > experience as criminal investigators and we brought with us skills and<BR>> > training that were unique compared to our Army counterparts. Through the<BR>> > Air Force, we had learned to interrogate criminal suspects using<BR>> > relationship building and non-coercive police investigative techniques. I<BR>> > learned quickly in Iraq that Al Qaida has much more in common with<BR>> > criminal organizations than with traditional rank and file soldiers. The<BR>> > interrogation methods in the Army Field Manual 2-22.3 are valid approaches<BR>> > and sometimes applicable for interrogating members of Al Qaida, but even<BR>> > more effective are the techniques that I learned as a criminal<BR>> > investigator. I used these techniques, permitted by the Army Manual under<BR>> > the terms "...psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent or<BR>> > non-coercive subterfuge..." to great success and I taught these techniques<BR>> > to other members of my interrogation team. Just one example of !<BR>> > a commonly used criminal investigative technique that has been adopted<BR>> > into the Army Field Manual is the Good Cop/Bad Cop approach, but there<BR>> > are numerous others that are absent from both the manual and the Army's<BR>> > interrogator training. The U.S. law enforcement community has much to add<BR>> > to the improvement of our interrogation methods and the United States<BR>> > Army would do well to consult with experienced criminal investigators<BR>> > from our police departments and federal law enforcement agencies.<BR>> > I also want to address the so called "ticking time bomb" scenario that is<BR>> > so often used as an excuse for torture and abuse. My team lived through<BR>> > this scenario every day in Iraq. The men that we captured and interrogated<BR>> > were behind Zarqawi's suicide bombing campaign. Most of our prisoners had<BR>> > knowledge of future suicide bombing operations that could have been<BR>> > prevented with the quick extraction of accurate intelligence information.<BR>> > Even if we assume that torture or abuse are more effective or efficient<BR>> > than other methods of interrogation, which in my experience they are not,<BR>> > my team knew that we could not save lives today at the expense of losing<BR>> > lives tomorrow. We knew that we would be recruiting future fighters for Al<BR>> > Qaida's ranks, some of whom would surely kill Americans and other innocent<BR>> > civilians and, most likely, our brothers and sisters in arms.<BR>> > What works best in the ticking time bomb scenario is relationship<BR>> > building, which is not a time-consuming effort when conducted by a<BR>> > properly trained interrogator, and non-coercive deception. By reciting a<BR>> > line from the Quran at the beginning of an interrogation, I often built<BR>> > rapport in a matter of minutes. Contrary to popular belief, building a<BR>> > relationship with a prisoner is not necessarily a time consuming exercise.<BR>> > I also conducted point-of-capture interrogations in Iraqi homes, streets,<BR>> > and cars, and I discovered that in these time-constrained environments<BR>> > where an interrogator has ten or fifteen minutes to assess a detainee and<BR>> > obtain accurate intelligence information, relationship building and<BR>> > deception were again the most effective interrogation tools. It is about<BR>> > being smarter, not harsher.<BR>> > I have addressed the pragmatic arguments against torture and abuse and<BR>> > discussed effective non-coercive interrogation methods, but let me address<BR>> > the more important issue in this debate - the moral argument against<BR>> > torture and abuse. When I took the oath of office as a military officer, I<BR>> > swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of<BR>> > America, which specifically prohibits cruelty towards any person in the<BR>> > Eighth Amendment. In addition, torture and abuse are inconsistent with the<BR>> > basic principles of freedom, liberty, and justice, upon which our country<BR>> > was founded. George Washington, during the Revolutionary War, specifically<BR>> > prohibited his troops from torturing prisoners. Abraham Lincoln prohibited<BR>> > Union troops from torturing Confederate prisoners. We have a long history<BR>> > of abiding by American principles while conducting war.<BR>> > Some have argued that the arguments against torture and abuse are clear on<BR>> > a "sunny day" in 2009 versus after the dark cloud of 9/11. There is no<BR>> > mention of sunny days versus dark days in the military officer's oath of<BR>> > office. As leaders, military officers bear the responsibility to keep<BR>> > their emotions in check and to fulfill their duties consistent with<BR>> > American principles. I can offer no better words than those of General<BR>> > George C. Marshall, the orchestrator of the Allied victory in Europe<BR>> > during World War II, who stated, "Once an army is involved in war, there<BR>> > is a beast in every fighting man which begins tugging at its chains... a<BR>> > good officer must learn early on how to keep the beast under control, both<BR>> > in his men and in himself."<BR>> > As a proud American, I know that we have the intellectual ability to<BR>> > defeat our enemies in the battle of wits in the interrogation room. We<BR>> > will not convince every detainee to cooperate, but we can lose battles and<BR>> > still win the war. No profession can boast of perfect performance in<BR>> > combat - infantry soldiers don't shoot every target. On the road to<BR>> > Zarqawi, my interrogation team encountered several high ranking members of<BR>> > Al Qaida who did not cooperate, but we used those interrogations as<BR>> > opportunities to improve our skills. In fact, it was in one such case that<BR>> > I developed a non-coercive technique that I later used on the detainee who<BR>> > led us to Zarqawi.<BR>> > We are smart enough to effectively interrogate our adversaries and we<BR>> > should not doubt our ability to convince detainees to cooperate. American<BR>> > culture gives us unique advantages that we can leverage during<BR>> > interrogations - tolerance, cultural understanding, intellect, and<BR>> > ingenuity. In closing, the same qualities that make us great Americans<BR>> > will make us great interrogators.<BR>> > I want to thank the Committee again for this opportunity to submit<BR>> > testimony based on my experiences.<BR>> ><BR>> > Respectfully,<BR>> > Matthew Alexander<BR><BR><br /><hr />HotmailŪ goes with you. <a href='http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009' target='_new'>Get it on your BlackBerry or iPhone.</a></body>
</html>