Petraeus ponders how far interrogators should go (AP)

[News Manager]

AP - Army Gen. David Petraeus is urging lawmakers to determine how far interrogators should be allowed to go when faced with a terror suspect who may have time-sensitive information like the codes to disarm a nuclear weapon set to explode in the U.S.

Read more...

 

[roamsk]

I think, first of all, that US General David Howell Petraeus is a very realistic man, someone who not only has had an excellent basic education, but has literally gained years' worth of "hands-on", "on the field" experience, surrounded by very real terrorists. He is undoubtedly also aware that the classical Army Field manual was not constructed out of "thin air", but taking into consideration the very best opinions of men (women maybe as well) who had the same type of experience during previous armed conflicts on own territory, if first generation Immigrants to the US, or in far away lands, so people who, in a sense, likely knew what they were just as realistically talking about.

US General Petraeus is also maybe aware of the concept of the General Public's Collective Consciusness, in which real-life experiences, always dependent on one's background (including but not limited to ethnic, cultural, social, national, educational, personal make-up, etc.), sometimes get mixed with virtual experiences/memories, even influences, coming from the cvasi-omnipresent Entertainment & Media Industry of high psychological impact (Hollywood-type through most of the XXth century, also with the newer on-line actually somewhat more impactful at times, more confusing maybe, due to chaotic structure and at times not easily classify-able, [in the sense of categorization & credibility ranking by someone's brain, NOT in the sense of "coding", or "insane" !]), content.

It is actually very rare in reality that one could or would obtain VALID CREDIBLE information from a RECENTLY detained terror suspect, foreign national presumed to boot (with access to NUCLEAR codes ! LOL ! Whatta real blockbuster thriller !) by: stomping on his feet, crushing his fingers into a wise, administering electric shocks (LOL ! LOL !), whipping into submission (Wow ! Ahem...), etc., etc. Now, tying up, and waterboarding are different things. I personally do consider them OK, if used appropriately in CONTEXT, in truly LIMIT situations...which, I repeat, are NOT at ALL, NOT at all likely to realistically happen. But, taking into consideration these truly LIMIT situations, I sincerely believe that the US President would actually NOT be the best person to ask for permission, although he would OBVIOUSLY have to be consulted alongside a very best team of Presidential Expert Professional (NON-POLITICAL) Advisors in order to propose and implement/sign POLICY. Policy is ONE THING, Practical Implementation of a Policy in the Field is obviously ANOTHER. On the ground, in the field, under time-pressure, I opine that it would have to be an Expert Experienced Consultant Interrogator, an as much as possible IMPARTIAL, UNBIASED, HEALTHY (mind & body), MATURE, TRUSTWORTHY, EXPERIENCED individual, preferably of High Ethical Moral background as well, some sort of Ethical Panel Chairman-like person who actually comes from WITHIN the Interrogator/Evaluator Profession, who would need to be consulted to give the "go ahead". Should that person be CIA or DoD remains something to further brainstorm about in Closed Congressional Committee Sessions, I also sincerely believe. I hope this message will be of use if anybody who is somebody with connections and/or realistic access to people who really have some form of not only Executive capabilities (most of us here DO !), but also realistic Executive influence & decision-making in Washington, D.C....which given the very nature of this forum and the typical current professions & pass-times of its participants...again... is not very likely to happen or be very realistic.

Why do I even bother writing here then ? I felt it needed to be said, because I was not fully satisfied by the Yahoo news bite, nor by the NPR presentation of these Senate hearings. I have not followed them directly on C-Span myself, but I can only surmise, heraing the bit of voice from US Gem Petraeus on NPR dot org, that he has not significantly chnaged, that he continues to be decisive. I would have preferred he actually chose an Academic field upon his retirement from active military, since that field is maybe even less conducive to headaches and/or stress than the position of CIA Director, yet US Gen., Petraeus is still relatively young, he feels he still has a LOT of PRACTICAL stuff to offer to the USA, (and this is TRUE). I agree that he is making a good career choice, I worry about that eternal "town-gown" conflict, I constantly worry about the PERSONNEL of the CIA which needs to be managed literally in an orchestrated fashion, with not only professionalism, but also creativity...I worry that war does NOT actually do much about Developing creativity in most people, it actually crushes it, yet US General Petraeus is definitely NOT "most people", he is truly capable of accessing superior defenses when under pressure, (even if he may not like to admit it to either himself or in public !), plus he HAS the support of his immediate family, which is VERY important as well, during times of massive career transitions (almost as high as marriage or divorce up there on anyone's Personal Stress scale, in my book, which is slightly more stringent than the classical one devised by Holmes & Rahe in 1967, because I have adapted mine to the high-speed & economic downturns accompanying most regular people's living conditions of the XXI-st century ! And shifting jobs doe NOT really help one save money, it actually eats away savings, especially if a relocation is envisioned, affects close family members', including, obviously spouse and/or children's lives, etc. So in our days and age it IS more stressful to shift not only jobs, but careers as well than it would have been likely to have been in 1967.).

So, in conclusion, I permit myself to promise I will try to listen the full Confirmation hearing, if I catch it anywhere on the Net, to come back with any additional observations or even "advice", if I feel, (which I DOUBT), US General David Howell Petraeus needs it for the future steps needed to be undertaken by him, I urge everyone to try to find ways to measure one's stress level these days, not to forget that hi-chronic stress, especially in hi-driven type A personalities, can indeed contribute to a higher risk for developing cardio-vascular diseases, ulcers, diabetes, and other illnesses which some of us may still call psychosomatic, without any derogatory connotation.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmes_and_Rahe_stress_scale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_a_personality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosomatic

P.S. do not confuse the term I used of "Colective Consciousness" with the "Collective Unconscious" of psychiatrist C.G. Jung.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_consciousness

 

[roamsk]

I have found the video of the hearing on the C-Span DOT org website (by typing "Petraeus" in the search box). I have watched most of the key points. I did not consider it necessary to actually watch the whole thing, especially since I have other stuff to do, plus I did not really need re-confirmation myself that US General Petraeus is indeed well chosen for that position, and he will try his very best to do a great, BETTER than good enough, job as the next Director of the CIA.

He may still overestimate a tad his power of implementation of decision, however right on course/on target his decision-making process is. The CIA culture that US (D) Sen. Dianne G. B. Feinstein, complex personality & double key Committee Chairman, (Senate Rules-form and Senate Intelligence-content), alluded to in the beginning is indeed quite entrenched, and may have been at least in part responsible in the not so distant past for causing some white hairs to appear on Mr. John George Tenet's head, (Mr. Tenet being a very experienced Builder/Constructor and aspiring Architect of things himself). Nevertheless his next to negligible overestimation speaks of his Optimistim, as core healthy character trait, which is nothing but more "Good News" from my perspective: that he will enlist his baseline characteristic stamina, and energetically charge ahead, not without the always necessary experience-based prudence and appropriate age-related professional wisdom.

I also enjoyed hearing and seeing again US Senator Joseph Isadore "Joe" Lieberman, a true Independent US contemporary politics personality with the one of the very highest quality moral character types, (if I allow myself to write, somewhat speculativeley here, that various types of such characters even exist !).

That's about it for now. I wish all the very best in their careers & personal lives to all those named, and, in addition to this, I also desire to also wish to US (R) Sen. John Sidney McCain III the very best of health for many years to come.

 

[senojekips]

Breaking the law "a little bit", is like being "a little bit" pregnant. As so many have found out, you can't just write your own exemptions.

You do it,... and Hey Presto!, like it or not, you are a war criminal, and have every chance of ending up in the dock with along with Milocevic , Markac etc.

 

[Seehund]

Now, tying up, and waterboarding are different things. I personally do consider them OK, if used appropriately in CONTEXT, in truly LIMIT situations...

Are not you a M.D.?

So, have you heard of laryngospasm?
How can you as a physician advocate torture.

Sorry, my mistake. Seen before - was it in the forties?

 

[roamsk]

Are not you a M.D.?

So, have you heard of laryngospasm?
How can you as a physician advocate torture.

Sorry, my mistake. Seen before - was it in the forties?

I do not specifically advocate torture. Actually it is well known that true torture does not really produce credible information. Yet intimidation is NOT torture. Coercion is NOT torture. (We all really need to expand our vocabularies on this one, myself included !) Also, some MEDICAL treatments, such as FORCE FEEDING of ANOREXICS who refuse to eat and could die at any moment due to electrolyte imbalance induced cardiac arrest, or even the truly LIFE SAVING ELECTROSHOCK/Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), can be at times "considered" by some ill-advised activists as being "torture", when in fact they are NOT, since they are LIFE-SAVING.

Saving Lives is the ETHICAL basis for my M.O. and for my opinions in general. It is also a core principle of operation for many professionals, NOT just Medical ones.

Before the Pro-Life or other political activists jump in on THIS bandwagon, let me just briefly say right here a few words about MY political propaganda !

1. I do NOT consider it ETHICAL to politicize LIFE & DEATH issues, such as the issue of "abortion", or even, "assisted suicide" for that matter. I DO RECOGNIZE that these are High Impact words, and it is not "illegal" to use as political bait. While allowing some forms of "negative" political campaigning, I just DO NOT consider it ethical to politicize these CORE Human Life & Death issues.

2. I personally, and this is a PERSONAL opinion, consider "Life" to begin at full emergence from a mother's birth canal. (Obviously I am only talking about our common "Homo Sapiens sapiens" species, since I am not a veterinarian, nor am I St. Francis of Assissi !)

3. Although less on-topic, I will still say it, because I never miss a chance to communicate this on-line whenever I can, especially in front of a larger audience, like on a Forum. So, I personally say all over when I get the chance, that IT IS ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN TO COMMIT SUICIDE. No discussion, no philosophising about it, JUST "NO". And I DO NOT agree with ANY type of EXCEPTIONS to this rule. And furthermore I think that Rationalizations to find ways AROUND this CORE Ground rule for Humanity are Ethically NEGLIGENT, are certainly signs of Deep Dysfunction, and may even be Pathological in nature.

I AM VERY STRICT WITH MYSELF and very pretentious WITH OTHERS as well, and WITH SOCIETY, including Educators of Society (which do include the Mass Media), when it comes to this one.

I obviously am aware that I, just a regular guy after all, CANNOT IMPOSE on all individuals, (or organizations, or groups of human individuals), such strict Ethical canons that I impose for myself, since, after all, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, open Political discussion freedoms, etc. are IMPORTANT RULES for HUMANITY and for any Civil and Civilized Society, that are WORTH fighting FOR, for eternally preserving, and actually even Spreading around as much as ethically permitted. But for myself, I have decided once and for all that I will have my own core ethics > whatever fashionable or more or less politically correct at some time society moral "codes".

Conflicts may arise IN LIMIT SITUATIONS, such as the ones alluded to by US Gen. Petraeus, and he seemed to be asking for some guidelines about who shall have the ultimate responsibility to CHOOSE, to DECIDE, to APPROVE, to give the "Go Ahead" when it comes to such Limit Situations. Waterboarding may only REALISTICALLY, (statistically speaking), be a minor issue. There are other possible conflictual limit situations as pertaining to the Military which may actually be more frequent, such as, practically, what does an enlisted man/woman do if he/she thinks in a flash of a second that the order he/she receives from a seemingly "temporarily insane" (quite possible, why NOT ?), Superior may contradict one's core personal ethics, or even Military Code of Conduct. For example, issues with sexual harrassment in the military, even assault. Or, a more gruesome thing to imagine, for example, in combat, one catches an enemy prisoner, and his superior, suddenly agitated, orders the inferior to shoot him. (G-D FORBID of something like this EVER happening, but IN COMBAT, IN ACUTE SHOCK situations, things can and will go at times, however rare and/or unlikely, in disarray.) Or, maybe not so hard to imagine, situations like the ones that happened at Abu-Ghraib...

I personally think that US general Petraeus was not really asking for advice in that moment. I think he was possibly Signaling, in fact Notifying & Informing the Respectable US Senate Select Intelligence Committee that SOME LOOSE ENDS are still around that can be tied up only with the help of the Legislature.

I really liked US General David Howell Petraeus on this one. He was really really in tune with the CIA M.O. ! Plus savvily politically correct enough to also signal that he will not really start dismissing SOME people from SOME of their cushy office jobs from SOME parts of CIA from his very first DAY over there ! LOL !

 

[roamsk]

I just had another thought on the formulating Policy issue re. difficult & complex issues such as waterboarding, or, in the past, historically, the issue of CIA initiated CIA or military operatives carried out actual assasinations, since these DO involve again core ethical life & death decisions, not to mention the necessity of compliance with various International Laws & Accords the United States may be signatory to.

What I would literally attempt to dare suggesting, if already NOT implemented, is to create DE NOVO, (meaning "anew", "from scratch") a CIA specific think tank, which would be totally separate from the more habitually politically biased policy think tanks, the results/conclusions of the brainstorming that would go on in this think tank following to be presented preferably initially directly to the President (actually bypassing the Presidential Advisors, due to security of information issues) & either subsequently or at the same time, (depending), to the Intelligence Congressional Committees for further legislative implementation.

(re. the "bypass": LOL ! I promise I have not engaged in Ouija Board sessions & have NOT invited the ghosts of Mr. Henry Kissinger, Richard Helms et al. to these sessions to give me any "subversive" ideas to further disseminate in here !)

Now, who should be part of this Policy informing core think tank, (with additional invited brainstorming partners according to which type and specific policy one is considering at some point): the core, IMHO, should necessarily contain:

* a professional ethical component (1-2 member(s)): the type of which could theoretically be found in the types of Medical Ethics advisory committees; why medical ? Because these types of ethicians do grapple day in day out with very concrete & very practical realistic issues more so than mere "theoretical philosophising", yet are theoretically quite informed, plus also have the eclectic necessary complex ground knowledge AND know-how, PLUS they are already protected against potentially dangerous bias by the added layer of core medical ethics (IMHO preferably Maimonides > Hippocrates, since Maimonides does seem to me to be in a way more applicable to our modern era developments than Hippocrates).

* a professional historian component (again 1-2 members): required literally as useful informant about preferably modern, (meaning post-medieval), but also, being professional, obviously informed as to older history as well...so informant about various historical practices in various situations; difficult to choose here because factually there are realistically few true hi quality professional historians to be found. I am by no means an expert, but let me tell you I may even prefer thinking of a combination of a historian-author like Mr. David McCullough, but expert in World history not just American, (who would most certainly need to demonstrate he knows how to both research and accurately interpret without political or significant philosophical bias historical sources of information), plus someone from academia, like someone from, PLEASE, NOT Yale or Harvard again, but maybe from a smaller school, who is more hands-on with the teaching & advising of students, graduate people doing PhD's...I have myself found an example of such a school: the James R. Cameron Center for History, Law & Government of the Eastern Nazarene College. It doesn't have to be this one, I just mentioned it because I looked at their website, looked a bit into the faculty's (both senior & junior), backgrounds and interests (whatever is public) in research, ideas & inspirations, superficial stuff like that...and, at first impression I think I like them enough to seriously recommend them here.

* a tech & logistical communications trend surveillance componenent: it sounds more complicated than it actually is: in any think tank, one needs to be very grounded in what stuff IS REALISTICALLY of acute interest across the GLOBE, not just in the US, as pertaining to US interest, when it comes to hierarchising what policy should be brainstormed on first, which second, etc, and to keep it all flexible and realistic at the same time, not daydreaming on Science-fiction type scenarios, like other "war gamers" I know of. Now, to make it also affordable, one could obviously enlist an usual market trend surveillor, because there's tons of those out there, with the know how and with the already accumulated data...remember, we are talking about our Global Internet era...just make sure you again chose on ethics, (business & law ethics), plus one needs to make sure they are not the type that also want to SELL other products except themselves, in order to eliminate the "advertising creative" part of new trend creation as a goal for that particular company, in order to eliminate unwanted bias and skewed data...I really don't know if I am expressing myself clearly enough...for example, an entertainment company's trend data gatherers & analysts may know how to get & use those trends data to know what and whom to promote in their next album, but, also having a new artist or product also they may wish to promote, they may actually also engage in creating a buzz, a new trend, a viral campaign, etc....so we don't want one of those creative types in here ! we want just OBJECTIVE data; there have been a couple of companies I have been personally looking at, but I have been bothered by one or two defects in the ones I have researched so far, I haven't yet found the ideal one, maybe the closest would be "iPerceptions", but they have a Canadian component and I ethically do NOT think it is appropriate, in spite of whatever alliances the US may have, to use anything that is not entirely US based, when it comes to a real CIA think tank...call me old fashioned, but that is what I think. Please forget about the current contractees of the US Department of State, the ones who do surveys when you visit that site; those are good for something else, like law enforcement & in certain instances maybe incoming traveller visa-seeker peril assesments, not for this think tank I am talking about. (BTW, I am just throwing this in as a FYY: those, the US Dept of State guys, one could use to cheaply screen for new CIA wannabe employees before deciding to go further with the recruitment process & waste money on the MMPI, polygraph, blah, blah, whatever results.) Maybe one could use just the cinema industry post release world gross box-office analyzers...just a thought...I am no expert in data collection technology either. (Added bonus of this component of the think-tank: one could also use the resulting brainstorming side ideas for improving the technological security in electronic voting, including the overseas vote...just think how much money one could save if that could come true ! Plus, if global secure electronic voting could come a reality, disregarding the potential real Security drawbacks...because those are also quite realistic to envision & must be considered as well before going with the go ahead to more or less publicly make available that kind of technology...I have my own personal reasons to desire that type of technology would be available to the Nobel prize organization ! I am pretty serious about it !)

* a real CIA analyst educator-supervisor component...literally to keep those other 3 more creative daydreaming fantasy brainstormers with their feet on the ground and on track ! A "devil's advocate" of sorts...a well trained hospital or military chaplain, (or one of each, if it is decided to keep 2 members instead of 1 for each component, for added balance, to allow for vacations, sick days, etc.), with solid philosophical, psychological (psychodynamic) & theology training ? Don't ask me who might that be...I am not an expert in that field either. One would need to literally scour US hospitals to find one...or, maybe, also one should literally ask the current US military members who are actively deployed overseas plus the returned wounded veterans about who would be THEIR choice of "best VA hospital chaplain of the year" and "best military chaplain in the field"..,why not do it, DoD ? Just think of the morale enhancer ! (This idea alone is worth, IMHO, proposing to some military newspaper or newsletter out there of your choice, members of the military forum...just take this idea an run with it !).

==========================

What do you all think ? I swear to G-d...I should bill the US govt. for these ideas ! OK...not for now...just consider it a present for the upcoming 4th of July 235th birthday of the United States of America ! If my ideas are already old and useless...I can't help it ! That's the best I could do for now !

---------------------------------
BIG Disclaimer: I am NOT currently employed by, or a money receiving contractee of any sort of any US ethics committee, any VA hospital, any US college, any US business, and specifically not the ones I mentioned ! I may have some friends, acquaintances or more distant, (meaning not 1st degree), relatives employed &/or contracted by US academia & US business, but, at least to my knowledge, (!), not those specifically mentioned in my post ! I must mention in regards to iPerceptions that I am a potential user of their services, but so far no money has changed hands & I doubt any will change soon, at least not from me to them, because I am a big spender on certain products which are very expensive in the Kingdom of Norway, and I doubt they will pay me for anything because I am not that kind of guy !

 

[roamsk]

P.S. I just thought of something, as pertaining to the core think tank for CIA informed & originated national policy suggestions: one of the 2 historians could be a general modern historian from a military college, possibly one less politically biased, and, again, more used to hands-on direct student interaction, which, as pertaining to academics & "thinkers", lends another very necessary "layer" of expertise: the added practical know-how dimension to their focus of interest & daily activities experience, (in addition to their core theoretical knowledge basis). (I kind of hesitate to give an example...but here it goes, please take it with a grain of salt, because I really didn't have the time to do a more through search outside Virginia, and please take it just as an illustrative example: Col. Mark F. Wilkinson from the Virginia Military Institute. I just noticed he was interested in the ethical dimension of military conduct, and is most likely interested in direct student performance & supervision issues, which does broaden his baseline focus of interest.)