Quote Originally Posted by Abu Buckwheat View Post
....But any of those old HUMINT NCOs who think they can beat answers from a prisoner apart from trying a Threat-Rescue technique are fooling themselves. The issue at question here isn't professional techniques ... none of this is professional. Its about conciously selecting activites that are truely coercive and damaging to the prisoner as well as to the interrogator for the fantasy of getting something good.
I hope you didn't misconstrue my first post in this thread to mean that I support the amateurish methods under criticism in the article. My meaning (and if you read my second post, it should be clear) is that old, experienced HUMINT NCOs have long been aware of the counterproductive nature of the methods that have been coming under fire - and they did not need a bunch of highly paid PhD consultants to tell them what truly works.

But I disagree with you in that I will argue that it is about professionalism. As I've stated before on SWC, resort to torture and questionable/borderline methods are an admission of failure on the part of the interrogator, and an indicator of failed leadership within his chain of command. Both of those most certainly reflect upon the professionalism - or lack thereof - of the servicemembers in question.

And there have most definitely been serious leadership failures at the highest levels - with senior military and civilian decision makers who understand absolutely nothing about interrogation approving such illegal and amateurish methods.

But I agree with you 100% as to the extent of the strategic damage that this had done to us, and its potential for continued impact well in the future. This is an ugly thing that should have been completely stopped a long time ago. Unfortunately, those reponsible are not the ones that will be paying the price.