O'Reilly again falsely claimed that Army Field Manual bans making "any captured person uncomfortable in any way"
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly again falsely claimed that the Army Field Manual "says, quote, 'You are not to make any captured person uncomfortable in any way.' " In fact, the Army Field Manual includes an entire section on "Interrogation Operations," which includes several techniques and strategies that make detainees "uncomfortable."
On the January 6 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly again falsely claimed that the Army Field Manual "says, quote, 'You are not to make any captured person uncomfortable in any way.' " In fact, it does not say this; as Media Matters for America has noted, the Army Field Manual includes an entire section on "Interrogation Operations," as well as a chapter listing and describing "Approach Techniques and Termination Strategies" for use in interrogations of detainees, several of which make detainees "uncomfortable."
These techniques include the "Emotional Fear-Up Approach" ("identif[ying] a preexisting fear or creat[ing] a fear within the source ... then link[ing] the elimination or reduction of the fear to cooperation on the part of the source"); the "Emotional-Futility Approach" ("convinc[ing] the source that resistance to questioning is futile," which "engenders a feeling of hopelessness and helplessness on the part of the source"); the "Rapid-Fire Approach" ("ask[ing] a series of questions in such a manner that the source does not have time to answer a question completely before the next one is asked," which "confuses the source, and he will tend to contradict himself as he has little time to formulate his answers"); and the "Mutt and Jeff Approach" ("involv[ing] a psychological ploy that takes advantage of the natural uncertainty and guilt that a source has as a result of being detained and questioned").
O'Reilly's claim that the Army Field Manual states that soldiers cannot "make any captured person uncomfortable in any way" appears to refer to portions of the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, otherwise known as the Third Geneva Convention, which is cited in the Army Field Manual.
During the discussion, O'Reilly also asserted that requiring the CIA to adhere to the Army Field Manual won't result in any "intel from any captured terrorist suspects at all." O'Reilly's assertion is contradicted by the experiences of the Air Force officer who led the team of interrogators that successfully hunted down Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Writing under the pseudonym Matthew Alexander in a Washington Post op-ed, he explained how he used the methods "listed in the unclassified Field Manual" to interrogate prisoners and that this "started a chain of successes that ultimately led to Zarqawi." He wrote:
Amid the chaos, four other Air Force criminal investigators and I joined an elite team of interrogators attempting to locate Zarqawi. What I soon discovered about our methods astonished me. The Army was still conducting interrogations according to the Guantanamo Bay model: Interrogators were nominally using the methods outlined in the U.S. Army Field Manual, the interrogators' bible, but they were pushing in every way possible to bend the rules -- and often break them. I don't have to belabor the point; dozens of newspaper articles and books have been written about the misconduct that resulted. These interrogations were based on fear and control; they often resulted in torture and abuse.
I refused to participate in such practices, and a month later, I extended that prohibition to the team of interrogators I was assigned to lead. I taught the members of my unit a new methodology -- one based on building rapport with suspects, showing cultural understanding and using good old-fashioned brainpower to tease out information. I personally conducted more than 300 interrogations, and I supervised more than 1,000. The methods my team used are not classified (they're listed in the unclassified Field Manual), but the way we used them was, I like to think, unique. We got to know our enemies, we learned to negotiate with them, and we adapted criminal investigative techniques to our work (something that the Field Manual permits, under the concept of "ruses and trickery"). It worked. Our efforts started a chain of successes that ultimately led to Zarqawi.
From the January 6 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: But Colonel -- and you and I have disagreed on this one before -- you know, if you're going to say that you have to do the Army Field Manual, which you know very well, which says, quote, "You are not to make any captured person uncomfortable in any way" -- if that's going to be the standard that [CIA director-designate] Leon Panetta embraces, and he told the Monterey newspaper that's exactly his vision, then I don't think we are going to get intel from any captured terrorist suspects at all. Am I wrong?
DAVID HUNT (Fox News military analyst): No. And the intel -- the Army intel manual is meant for Private Johnson in the field.
O'REILLY: Right. Right. Right. But --
HUNT: And that -- it's not a manual -- it should not be --
O'REILLY: It was clear by --
HUNT: -- adopted by the intelligence community. It should not be.
O'REILLY: It was clear by the interview that Panetta did with the Monterey newspaper that this is the standard that he believes the CIA has to adhere to.
HUNT: And then he's wrong, and so is the incoming president to even be on this issue.
How about President Obama's inaugural address? :o)
He was angry on Monday. It looked like he was going to explode.
I'm not sure we can rule out that his head did indeed explode, the damage being completely contained by the thickness of his big giant skull. Only because I believe I noticed several burst capillaries just below the eyes.
Hey, Wookie, why don't you put down that pipe bomb and ...
Yeah, these prisoners look real comfortable, don't they?
Hey, that's just the work of a few bad apples.
Not fair Snoopy. That was bath time. Here they are thanking their captors for the fine time they are being shown.
Note that the guard in the foreground is preparing to give one of his guests a shoulder rub. O'Reilly to the rescue again. It is a lot of work trying to save our Republic from those damned Liberals.
not that pic again. This has been proven to be george, dick, laura, rummy and rove having a group grope.
I'm disppointed in MMFA here. The beginning of the tape shows Gary Berntsen saying farewell, and ends with Hunt's extraordinary statement that the President-elect shouldn't get involved in this. I would have liked more coverage of this important topic.
"Advisement: Evisceration works well. Electrocution and blunt trauma also work well, I understand."
Get the reference and you get a virtual cookie
Why hasn't any of Bill's guest schooled him about the field manual? How hard is it to say, "Um, bill you are wrong, the field manual dosen't say that all."
Surprised he doesn't have another thread today. Other sites have him assuring us that Obama's CIA pick garuntees another terrorist attack.
Send in the tip to MMfA about it.... my guess is that it might well be in tomorrows threads?
Come on now. That's tomorrow's thread. Anyway, any terrorist attack that should happen within the first 8-9 months of an Obama administration has GOT to be Bush's fault.
I mean, jeesh, wasn't the entire 9/11 Clinton's fault after all?
You are absolutely correct. Of course, Bush only claims credit for things thagt went wonderfully well during his administratio. So the Bush accomplishment list would include, ummm, uhhh, ummm New White House China, "good job, Brownie, and "making certain Bin Laden had a safe hiding place all the while he tore up both Iraq and Afghanistan". You think he deserved the Nobel price like Al Gore got. So when we all stop giggling till our sides are so sore, we can face that fact that Bush leaves wall to wall mess in our country.
Is BillO f**cking insane??
How in the world can a well known chicken-hawk rightwing blowhard have any inside knowledge to the Army field manual?
I can't wait for the day that Billo's show (and network) is finally cancelled due to lack of viewership..... and lack of corporate financing.... which is inevitable at some point... as we all know that corporations hate losing money on.....well..... a losing cause!
He could probably easily obtain one, and you know, read it. I'm sure that he thinks that most of his viewers are NOT going to bother to look these things up for themselves, so they take Mr. O'Reilly's word for it.
So, what essentially is happening here is that O'Reilly is calling the US Military SOFT on detainees and prisoners.
I'd love to see O'Reilly get waterboarded to see how he "handles" it. I'd be willing to bet that he'd be begging for mercy in less then 5 seconds. A couple that my wife and I are friends with, the husband is a former Recon Marine, and he went through SEER school, and they waterboarded them so that they know what it feels like. Now, they knew it was coming, they sort of knew what it was like, and when they did it to him (this guy is tough, as in 6'4", and well, Marine tough), he almost cried like a baby, and begged to be let up, in less than 10 seconds.
This is a difficult issue for sure. On one hand, we can't make detainment like an episode of "Hogan's Heroes". As "bad" as the picture above looks, I think we must understand that at some time in the past, most of those men were tryng to kill our soldiers or were potentially plotting to kill Americans who could easily be your wife and child. Now, obviously that does not excuse the abhorrent behavior Abu Ghraib. I think it is a foregone conclusion (except for people like Hunt or O'Reilly) that if you torture someone they will tell you anything. Sometimes it may be good information (O'Reilly loves to tout the waterboarding of that fat slob #2 man for Al-Queda which yielded life saving information). But, most of the time, (if you believe the experts) the information from torture is worthless.
It is rather easy for people like O'Reilly to make their case. He appeals directly to the emotions of viewers. I would guess that most people would readily admit that if a person had to be tortured to save your family's life then its o.k. That is how O'Reilly tries to rationalize this to his viewers. He tries to portray the practice as being a good thing in certain isolated circumstances. To me, it is a cowardly approach. You either are supportive of torture or you are not. I believe that most people are not so naive that they actually think the Geneva Convention, relating to prisoners of war and interrogation, is nothing more than window dressing. In real life, I would hazard a guess that no nation has ever followed the conventions to the letter. Essentially its just no feasible. But, at least it provides a general outline of humane treatment that we "hope" will be followed.
That being said, people like O'Reilly kill me. They sit in their high backed chairs, talking tough and telling us what is and what isn't. The fact is that O'Reilly wouldn't last five minutes as a POW. Narcassistic peple don't fair well when they have no sense of control whatsoever. I'd be willing to bet he would turn out to be a collaborator, much like the Jewish traitors who had some authority in concentration camps in WWII. That's what kind of person O'Reilly is. He wouldn't have to be tortured. He would rather compromise his own sense of dignity to satisfy his narcissism. Of course, in this hypothetical scenario, when the war was over he would certainly find a way to make himself appear as some kind of hero i.e. justifying his collaboration for the "good of the folks." I can see it now. O'Reilly: "I had to cooperate. I outsmarted my captors and fooled them into believing I was helping them, all the while I was able to save the lives of Americans." Of course all the while he would be able to assume some kind of authoratative position over others while enjoying some "comforts" the others were denied. Please tell me if you think this isn't how O'Reilly would operate in such circumstances.
Anyway, I guess there is a fine line that needs to be walked on this issue. I don't believe that we should make life too "comfortable" for enemy combatants or POW's. That's just the way it is. But, I don't believe that torture (and waterboarding is torture) should be practiced by the United States (even though we know our enemies simply kill POW's). Two wrongs don't make a right....right?
I think we must understand that at some time in the past, most of those men were tryng to kill our soldiers or were potentially plotting to kill Americans who could easily be your wife and child. - ACHRIS
We "understand" this? I thought it was well established that plenty of people in GitMo are there because they were turned over by someone in return for money or as retribution NOT because they were actually involved in any terrorist activity. And they aren't all "men" there are/were children being held there as well.
1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any
hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.
2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining
detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive
affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.
3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a
large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist
watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably.
Eight percent are detained because they are deemed “fighters for;” 30% considered “members of;” a
large majority – 60% -- are detained merely because they are “associated with” a group or groups the
Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist
group is unidentified.
4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the
detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States
custody.This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected
enemies.
5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants – mostly
Uighers – are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to
be enemy combatants.
http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf
Look, I don't care what the lawyers for some of these people try to make you believe. First of all I never indicated anything about the majority of the detainees at Gitmo as being members of Al-Queda. Obviously this seems to be the basis of your disagreement with me, as if only members of Al-Queda kill our soldiers or are part of terrorists organizations hell bent on killing you, your wife, your kids, etc, etc, etc. Anyway, are you trying to say that the men in Abu Ghraib were not trying to kill our soldiers? Perhaps I didn't make my statement clear enough for you and I shold have wrote PICTURES instead of PICTURE but the point remains that I stand by my assertion.
1) by my count that would leave about 45% who have or more than likely been involved in some way with attacks on Americans or Coalition forces. You o.k. with that?
2) So????? The men at Abu Ghraib were trying to kill our soldiers. Besides that, my belief is that anyone who knowlingly associates and provides aid, comfort, etc to Islamic terrorists can be deemed to be part of a plot to kill Americans since the destruction of America and Isreal is the stated goals of most of the organizations these men were known to associate with, fight with, or whatever with. There are plenty who are known to be associated with other murderous groups who would just assume blow your head off as look at you. As far as I'm concerned the United States needs to be aware and proactive against all radical Islamists whether they are part of the Taliban or Al-Queda. Here is a list of Gitmo detainees and a description of each one and their terrorist ties. Perhaps you are comfortable with simply not caring where or what these murderers are doing but I am not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees
3)So???? What is your point here sir? Are you saying that based on this report, from these lawyers, that anyone who is not on the Homeland Security Terrorist watchlist is not worthy of being an enemy combatant? I don't think you understand here Benjamin. Before 9-11, how many of the 9-11 hijackers fit what seems to be your very condensed criteria for being a terrorist or terrorist associate? What? do you actually believe that the 60% these lawyers talk about are just innocent businessmen who just happen to associate with known murderers? Jesus man, I'm not saying that we should arrest every Arab or Muslim who seems suspicious but if you didn't know, there is a certain subset of Muslims who directly state that they want to destroy America. Now perhaps you simply believe that our intelligence agencies just went around and randomly detained guys who "looked" like terrorists? but the reality is that there were legitimate reasons to believe these men posed a danger to our soldiers, you, me, and everyone else who lives here. That being said, it should be noted that 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge. As of May 2008, approximately 270 detainees remain. More than a fifth are cleared for release but must nevertheless remain indefinitely because countries are reluctant to accept them. And you have a problem with those facts....why?
4) Again, So??? What point are you trying to make here by simply quoting the report of lawyers for two of these men?
5) So????
You said MOST were there for trying to kill americans. When speaking about Guantanamo, which I was, this is simply not the case.
SO????
Billo's just feeling conflicted. He's been trained in effective interrogation techniques by the best. There are a few minor problems with his training, and that of the Bush administration. The first is the source of their interrogation education, America's "best" interrogation expert.
"The most influential legal thinker in the development of modern American interrogation policy is not a behavioral psychologist, international lawyer or counterinsurgency expert. Reading both Jane Mayer's stunning "The Dark Side," and Philippe Sands's "Torture Team," it quickly becomes plain that the prime mover of American interrogation doctrine is none other than the star of Fox television's "24," Jack Bauer" http://www.newsweek.com/id/149009
"The other narrative problem with antiheroes is not that they are flawed but that they are flawless. At least, they are infallible. Jack makes unconscionable decisions at every turn, but he's never, ever wrong. In the season-seven premiere, he faces off against Sen. Blaine Meyer (Kurtwood Smith) during a hearing by a committee examining his actions. "For a combat soldier, the difference between success and failure is the ability to adapt to your enemy," Jack tells the senator. "The people I deal with, they don't care about your rules. All they care about is results." Jack, of course, gets them every single time... nor does Jack get to torture someone to flesh out a faulty hunch. Antiheroes don't get the luxury of being wrong, and audiences are robbed of the opportunity to watch these characters deal with the consequences of their mistakes." http://www.newsweek.com/id/177742
And, in Billoland as in television, if the facts don't fit, change them to fit the storyline.