previous post next post  

A guest post on the CIA IG report from a reader...

...who wishes to remain anonymous, which I support, as I understand why. They occupy a position of prominence in a *very* PC workplace.  They have adopted the pseudonym of Liberator.
The sensationalism has to stop-and with the release of CIA’s IG report, “Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities September 2001-October 2003,” it might. Maybe. Hopefully. But with lurid horror-show allusions to the use of a power drill in an interrogation (it was revved up but never applied to the detainee-they just scared him with it) it probably won’t. What the critics, the human rights lawyers, and the media won’t read or comment on are paragraphs 214 to 218. There is a partial list (with more redacted) of what Al Qaeda plots were disrupted using information from these interrogations:

 
214. CTC frequently uses the information from one detainee, as well as other sources, to vet the information of another detainee. Although lower-level detainees provide less information than the high value detainees, information from these detainees has, on many occasions, supplied the information needed to probe the hi value detainees further. [redacted] the triangulation of intelligence provides a fuller knowledge of Al-Qa'ida activities than would be possible from a single detainee. For example, Mustafa Ahmad Adam al-Hawsawi, the Al-Qa'ida financier who was captured with Khalid Shaykh Muhammad provided the Agency's first intelligence pertaining to [redacted] another participant in the 9/11 terrorist plot. [Redacted] Hawsawi's information to obtain additional details about [redacted] role from Khalid Shaykh Muhammad [redacted].

[215 snipped for brevity by me.  -the Armorer]

216. Detainee information has assisted in the identification of terrorists. For example, information from Abu Zubaydah helped lead to the identification of Jose Padilla and
Binyam Muhammed - operatives who had plans to detonate a uranium-topped dirty bomb in either Washington, DC or New York City. Riduan “Hambali" Isomuddin provided information that led to the arrest of previously unknown members of an Al-Qa'ida cell in Karachi. They were designated as pilots for an aircraft attack inside the United States. Many other detainees, including lower-level detainees such as Zubayr and Majid Khan, have provided leads to other terrorists, but probably the most prolific has been Khalid Shaykh Muhammad. He provided information that helped lead to the arrests of terrorists including SayfulIah Paracha and his son Uzair Paracha, businessmen whom Khalid Shaykh Muhammad planned to use to smuggle explosives into the United States; Saleh Almari, a sleeper operative in New York; and Majid Khan, an operative who could enter the United States easily and was tasked to research attacks [redacted]. Khalid Shaykh Muhammad's information also led to the investigation and prosecution of Iyman Faris, the truck driver arrested in early 2003 in Ohio.

217 Detainees, both planners and operatives, have also made the Agency aware of several plots planned for the United States and around the world. The plots identify plans to [redacted] attack the US Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan; hijack aircraft to fly into Heathrow Airport [redacted] loosen track spikes in an attempt to derail a train in the United States [redacted] blow up several U.S. gas stations to create panic and havoc; hijack and fly an airplane into the tallest building in California in a west coast version of the World Trade Center attack; cut the lines of suspension bridges in New York in an effort to make them collapse. [redacted] This Review did not uncover any evidence that these plots were imminent. Agency senior managers believe that lives have been saved as a result of the capture and interrogation of terrorists who were planning attacks, in particular Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, Abu Zubaydah, Hambali, and Al-Nashirl.

218. [Redacted] judge the reporting from detainees as one of the most important sources for finished intelligence. [Redacted] viewed analysts' knowledge of the terrorist target as having much more depth as a result of information from detainees and estimated that detainee reporting is used in all counterterrorism articles produced for the most senior policy makers. In an interview, the DCI [Director of Central Intelligence] said he believes the use of EITs [Enhanced Interrogation Techniques] has proven to be extremely valuable in obtaining enormous amounts of critical threat information from detainees who had otherwise believed they were safe from any harm in the hands of Americans.

[219 was fully redacted in the source document. 220-221 were snipped for brevity by me. -the Armorer]

222. The waterboard has been used on three detainees: Abu Zubaydah, Al-Nashiri, and Khalid Shaykh Muhammad. [Redacted] with the belief that each of the three detainees possessed perishable information about imminent threats against the United States.

223. Prior to the use of EITs, Abu Zubaydah provided information for [redacted] intelligence reports. Interrogators applied the waterboard to Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times during August 2002. During the period between the end of the use of the waterboard and 30 April 2003, he provided information for approximately [redacted] additional reports. It is not possible to say definitively that the waterboard is the reason for Abu Zubaydah's increased production, or if another factor, such as the length of detention, was the catalyst. Since the use of the waterboard however, Abu Zubaydah has appeared to be cooperative [redacted]
 

The report notes that none of these attacks were imminent. Good. In other words, they were cut off at the knees in time - somebody was doing their job if the plots didn’t become “imminent.”  [emphasis mine - the Armorer] If any one of these, let alone all of them had occurred, CIA would, naturally, be blamed for not preventing it, wouldn’t they? Probably by the same people who lament the use of these comparatively mild techniques. You want extreme techniques? Look at what went on in Iraq under Hussein and in Afghanistan under the Taliban. But don’t go to Human Rights Watch’s or Amnesty International’s websites to find out-all you’ll see is excoriation of the United States and allies.

Scale, proportionality, and intent matter in any assessment of these events. You will see, if you read the report, that the scale of the CIA effort was relatively small, the methods comparatively proportionate-and the intent totally focused on understanding and disrupting an enemy that had just killed 3000 people(including, by the way, people from the nation’s closest ally, Canada, among others). Yet it has all been made out to be the Soviet-era Gulag redux (Oh yeah how many-10 million dead in those camps? More?) Proportionality. 

I have an idea-let’s set up a website with the critics on it, and list their criticisms. We have CIA and friends stop these programs. Then when the next building goes down in flames, when a radiological device depopulates an urban area, or a bridge collapses because of sabotage and kills a few hundred people, we will know who to blame next time. Because there will be a next time and we won’t see it coming if this kind of national security striptease continues.
 
-Liberator
 

18 Comments

Okay, someone has to bring it up. Sorry. But does this report state, clearly and unequivocally, which methods actually produced the results? We're no farther in the discussion than we were 4 months ago if it does not, specifically and clearly, state that the enhanced stuff actually produced these results. And, take the words literally. This is about logic; not sides or lefty/righty, dem/rep, anti-torture/it-ain't-torture. Just logic and facts, and what conclusions those facts allow us to draw in a valid and true line of reasoning. Period. Anything else and you're not dealing with me and what I said, but emoting.
 
Oh, and I'm not sure what to look at over at Cryptome to verify for myself.  Your title for the link doesn't show up in any of the links he has over there.  Guidance, please. 
 
Come on, Ry; stop trying to draw folks into a game you've set up so that they can't win.  You and I both know that it's impossible to form strictly logical connection between EITs and received information since establishing the causal relationship requires reliance on post hoc fallacies and/or hearsay.  Regardless of what you claim, this is about opinions and viewpoints because the only evidence is circumstantial and opinion, which will simply be denied by those opposing EITs.  To wit, if the report's statements that certain detainees' responses to questioning changed after application of EITs and the DCI's evaluation of EITs' effectiveness will not convince a person, nothing we can produce will.

Your demand for "just logic and facts" attempts to restrict the discussion to a realm in which the only possible position is against EITs, but being rational and being logical are not the same thing.  There's a reason jurors are instructed to rule regarding "reasonable doubt" instead of pure logic.  The latter would, if adhered to strictly, produce almost no convictions due to the rarity of situations in which no inductive reasoning is used and there are no alternative explanations for relevant events.  Likewise, our so-called "scientific laws" are nothing but inductive reasonings that have yet to be disproven.  Don't forget that logic, like all human constructs, is imperfect.

Also, the item you want is "cia-oig-report.zip" - "CIA Reports on Interrogations Updated".
 
Someone isn't actually reading what's written and jumping to faulty conclusions. 

"But does this report state, clearly and unequivocally, which methods actually produced the results? We're no farther in the discussion than we were 4 months ago if it does not, specifically and clearly, state that the enhanced stuff actually produced these results."
That's what I said.  Period.  THat's what I meant.  Period.  Anything more is partisanship BS.  Period. 

We don't know anything more than we did 4 months ago about whether it is efficacious.  We simply don't.  All this report does is make the fallacy of icecream causes crime.  Now, those who've been around for a while know I've a retired LtCOL friend I refer to as HLIC.  He was actively on the hunt for Noriega in Panama.  He was an intel weenie who would've been the one using these techniques(and there's some stories, verified, that he did use some of this stuff in training exercises).  HLIC has a professional aquiantance, also in Panama, who wrote an op-ed(2005, in a MN paper I believe.  If anyone wants I can spend some time tracking it down) a few years ago that anything other than the rapoire method is stupid.  There's a long running argument between HLIC and his friend.  But, HLIC can point to the results and say, unequivacally, "\My method produced results.  Maybe your method would've gotten them too, or even faster, had I not employed them.  But I got the info."  One CAN prove whether methodology actually works or not, and not take it on faith or 'because my, so called, betters said so'. 



And someone who's been here for three years should know that the only thing I care about wrt this is efficiency.  All but waterboarding of the EIT program is 100% legal from my reading of the pertinent laws. 

To somehow jump to 'he's playing for some kinda lefty 'it's evil' thing' makes me want to say, "baka".  But that's against the rules, so I haven't.  What drek.  I stated my conclusion clearly.  Anything else is simply someone trying to put words in my mouth because of THEIR agenda.  Never did I imply that the only valid choice, nor did I say directly that it was.  See below where I explain how I KNOW that there's a verifiable way to prove this one way or another.  I believe I posted that OP-ED in one of the IPB I did.  I'll start google cache-ing if peope want it.  IT isn't my fault that you have jumped to the conclusion that there isn't any way of verifying this, and therefor it's a semantical trap.  I'm not responsible for your ignorance or faulty thinking.

Quite simply, where's the semantical trap I've supposedly laid?  I didn't do so.  Someone's jumping to conclusions because they're playing with straw man lefty arguments instead of what I said.

Nothings been moved forward by this release.  We know no more than we did 4 months ago.  If you believed it was working four months ago you still believe today.  If you believed it didn't work 4 months ago there's enough wrong with how the info is presented to allow you to continue believing it doesn't work, with good and solid reasons to.  Which do I believe?  I don't play games of faith on issues of national security, much.  I don't know.  But there's nothing here that proves it one way or another.  They could've said, "Detainee X, used rapoir technique and got nothing, subjected to EIT and got ABC."  Or, "Detainee X, used raptec, subjected to EIT, reapplied raptec and got ABC." As HLIC has and does do when confronted on his methodology in Panama.   And both would show that EIT had some definitive effect instead of some correlative(meaning, maybe it did, we can't be sure).  In the second you have a baseline(unresponsive to raptec, which changes after EIT), adn the first example is even more clear.

So where's the trap?  My thesis was clear:  we know no more than we did before.  Seeing anything else, well, maybe we should go back and remember that a thesis statement doesn't have to come as the first or last, and stop projecting or seeing monsters under the bed.  But that's me.

All this talk of 'rational' is irrelevant.  I am being rational.  I'm asking if something that CAN be proven has been.  It hasn't.  What's so unreasonable about that?  Irrational?  Nai desu.  Inconvenient?  Si. 

It isn't my fault that your, the plural form, belief is predicated on this being true, when it has not been shown to be so.  It isn't my fault that your political whackamole games are dependent upon this being true as well, and it hasn't been shown to be so.  It isn't my fault you've staked a position based on 'faith' and choose to stand on it when facts don't really support you.


Now, keep in mind.  LEgality is a closed issue.  IT is legal, EIT that is.  Waterboarding isn't, according to my readings of the pertinent laws.  There's no 'evil' involved(except for the tangoes).  THe question of whether it should or shouldn't have been done hasn't been broached.  So that's like tackling air.  There's nothing there. 
 
If anyone wants I can spend some time tracking it down) a few years ago that anything other than the rapoire method is stupid.

Try building rapport with someone who speaks only Pashto and Tadjik and who's been taught that you're an agent of the Peacock Angel -- and bear in mind that the guy's religion *mandates* that he lie to you if he can gain an advantage.

It can be done, but it takes *lots* of time -- and CIA was told *time* was the critical factor.
 
They could've said, "Detainee X, used rapoir technique and got nothing, subjected to EIT and got ABC." Or, "Detainee X, used raptec, subjected to EIT, reapplied raptec and got ABC." As HLIC has and does do when confronted on his methodology in Panama. And both would show that EIT had some definitive effect instead of some correlative(meaning, maybe it did, we can't be sure).
Well, now I'm a bit confused.  First you say you want only logic and facts, but now you say that accepting post hoc fallacies is fine.  In that case, you should take your first sentence advice in regards to the document, specifically paragraphs 223 and 224.  225 appears to be in the same vein, but the large redacted section makes it impossible to tell definitively.
To somehow jump to 'he's playing for some kinda lefty 'it's evil' thing' makes me want to say, "baka". But that's against the rules, so I haven't. What drek. I stated my conclusion clearly. Anything else is simply someone trying to put words in my mouth because of THEIR agenda.
Now that's cute.  Accuse me of what you proceed to do.  Where, pray tell, did I say anything even remotely like "some kinda lefty 'it's evil' thing"?  You're attacking my motivations (baselessly) for having noted the catch-22 in your demand.  My post contained only three points:  That your request is impossible to fulfill; that logic is insufficient in this and other areas; and the location of the document you wanted.  You're the one putting words in my mouth here.

As for your claim that I'm misconstruing your demands, outline a scenario in which you can logically connect the use of an EIT with information obtained.  As I've noted, the ones you've already given rely on the post hoc fallacy.  If, on the other hand, you accept those as sufficiently logical for your taste, the paragraphs noted should fulfill the same requirements.
All this talk of 'rational' is irrelevant. I am being rational. I'm asking if something that CAN be proven has been. It hasn't. What's so unreasonable about that?
As I already said, the question is moot since it cannot be proven definitively one way or the other.  Now if you are accepting post hoc as more-likely-than-not causative, I retract my statements about your line of inquiry and observe only that the wording was insufficient to convey your meaning.  Given your inclinations in such arguments, you can understand why I would fail to read "excepting post hoc fallacies" into your demand for "just logic and facts".
It isn't my fault that your, the plural form, belief is predicated on this being true, when it has not been shown to be so. It isn't my fault that your political whackamole games are dependent upon this being true as well, and it hasn't been shown to be so. It isn't my fault you've staked a position based on 'faith' and choose to stand on it when facts don't really support you.
Care to point out where I've staked anything on waterboarding or any other EITs being legal, moral, ethical, or effective?  My only concern here is that you want to play a game takers can't win, and I'm calling you on it.  If you think I'm wrong, either clarify your request or provide a scenario that meets your requirements (again, the ones you've given do not).

It's almost funny that you accuse me of reading motivation into your first post when I did not (reread it and show me where I strayed from questioning the framework of your demand), then proceed to make statements about my motivation in doing so.  If you'd like, I can outline my opinions on the matter, but don't pretend I've already done so.
 
[munches popcorn]
 
"It can be done, but it takes *lots* of time -- and CIA was told *time* was the critical factor."
Unk, irrelevant to a discussion of 'did it work as hyped'(kinda like the BVR thing, right?  Did it work as hyped?  Answer is, empirically, no.).  Fine, time was a factor.  Did it produce the results that are claimed to have been?  Because of the redaction, possibly for good reason(which should not be read as 'conspiracy theory' mongering, or 'gov't lies and does this to cover it up'), we don't know.  This tells us nothing and doesn't move the discussion we're having here. 

You're throwing, it would seem, something of a justification to do it.  I'm asking, only, did it work?  I'm not going into the rigamarole that's being done elsewhere on the 'web about whether efficacy makes it right to have done, wrong to have done, or was always evil to have been done(again, except for waterboarding everything in EIT is above board, and that's something you know I've been saying for close to two years, Unk.).  Did it actually work, did it provide the intel it is claimed to have or not, is the only operable question.  Which is why I'm annoyed at having been accused of trying to create a situation where nobody but me can win by manipulating definitions.  Bollucks.  I did nothing of the sort(which is why it isn't a baseless accusation, Corty, but bonafide.  The quote proves it.).   

Corty.  Dude, what is this then:  "Come on, Ry; stop trying to draw folks into a game you've set up so that they can't win. You and I both know that it's impossible to form strictly logical connection between EITs and received information since establishing the causal relationship requires reliance on post hoc fallacies and/or hearsay."  Which is to say that there is no such thing as empiricism?  "I saw it.  I noted it.  I verified it.  QED."  Look, I'll follow people down the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle rabbitt hole, but even then H bar/nu is a ridiculously small quantity.  We may not know it to a probablity of unity whether or not I actually touch a table, but I touch the table non-the-less.  As stated, if this would be post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, then one would have to accept that almost everything is said fallacy, which is untrue.  In the set-up I've provided there's really only one variable, like most good experiments:  the implementation of the EIT techniques.  Did they produce the desired results?  It produces a very easily to grasp triumverate:  no, yes, and partially.  Given a large enough data set, and statistical routines, one can glean an answer, a true answer(which is the whole point of quality control). 

Quite simply put, you're saying that nobody who disagrees can be convinced otherwise, it's all a subjective game so I'm an @55hole for even trying attempt some objective tests.  If that's the case just say it(which you actually do).  "Regardless of what you claim, this is about opinions and viewpoints because the only evidence is circumstantial and opinion, which will simply be denied by those opposing EITs. To wit, if the report's statements that certain detainees' responses to questioning changed after application of EITs and the DCI's evaluation of EITs' effectiveness will not convince a person, nothing we can produce will."  That may be true of actual opponents, which I am not, which is why this is a displaced argument.  You're arguing against someone else, not me.  So again, does the report actually prove that EIT produced the results that have been claimed, by Vice Pres Cheney for instance, or not objectively?  WHo gives a damn about what the DU or Kossack Buttheads think or say.  Does it doesn't it?  That's been my point from the very begining. 

Then there's the implied, blatantly implied, accusation of creating a semantic trap(i.e. establishing definitions so that only one outcome is possible).  'stop trying to draw folks into a game you've set up so that they can't win'  I didn't set that up.  I even showed how it can, with empirical evidence(or ad hoc fallacies as you call them, apparently), be shown to prove what it has been claimed to prove.  Where's the impossible game there?  How is that not reading the proper intent of the statement?  There is a way to win the argument:  cough up the evidence.  There is no catch-22.  Cough up the evidence, like the actual interrogation notes, or the redacted info(sans the interrogators names, I'm not about getting anyone in trouble), and my question goes away. 

Calling it catch-22 is simply a cop out, an evasion of the question, as is 'that logic is insufficient in this and other areas".  Good luck then.  Your computer relies on logic.  Most science relies on logic.  You, though you don't likely realize it, iinstinctually rely on logic in 99% of your daily interactions:  sociology isn't necessarily a useless science, almost to the point I want to take it away from the 'would you like fries with that' disciplines and plunk it down with other empirical sciences.  Hell, even OIF relies on logic, or does it fail because logic is insufficient?  Are there situations where logic is insufficient?  Yes, few.  Like singularities, where rules and laws break down, but in most situations logic is good enough to get you through if you know the rules in play and the factors involved.  (Which is why logic cannot disprove the existence of an Almighty, we don't know all the factors involved, so set theory says you cannot make more than a general guess and cannot say definitively yes or no.)  In this instance all of the relevant factors have been held steady but one:  use of EIT.  THe implication that I want people to fail or have something yanked out from under their feet by the use of 'something they can't win' is also rather prevelant in my thinking as to why.  Why use win?  The use gives insight into a Manichean I'm up/You're down view.  So thereby my question would mean I want someone to be down so I could be up.  Which is exactly the opposite of what I said and why I said:  stick to the facts and be logical about deciding whether this report actually does what is claimed. 

On Zabu, yes, and there's reports that what he offered up on being waterboarded was shiite, and it was AFTER, long after, a rapoire team was brought in that he rolled.  Weeks to months after, which would put a lie to the claim that it was waterboarding that got him to roll. 

THe other stuff wasn't particularly at you, Corty.  I'm making sure that it's understood that the legality of EIT was never put on the table by me.  I'm making double damn sure that YOU understand I'm not going that route by stating it, repeatedly, that that's not where I'm going.  It's merely a question of does the report prove what it claims to prove, yes or no?  If no does it actually move the discussion any further than it was at four months ago? 
 
And, COrty, remember, I'm not just arguing with you.  I'm arguing with Unk, John, and many others, all at one time.  I have to answer more than just you at one time.  I have to state positions that seem irrelevant to you to make sure that they understand what I'm saying.  That's in part why I kept repeating the 'EIT is legal' refrain. 

You have the easy position of being one of many, whereas I have to take on all comers.  Ruminate on that for a second, please. 
 

Um, other than allowing the original post, all I've been doing on this one is munching popcorn.

Want some?

 
What, no cheetos?  Dude.  But you know what I mean.  I take on all comers.  I have to.  I go against the grain, and so have to think of more angles than simply tacking one person down at once.  I anticipated Unk's move on some other issue, and I dealt with it previously.  I'm too used to having a late comer show up and dance on a previously accepted postulate that undoes everything.  So, I have to anticipate and deal with that. 

That's what I'm trying to get across to Corty.  I have to deal with more than just him.  What he may see as disjunction is actually the anticipation of another line of reasoning.  BEcause I'm not stupid I realize that getting tacked down on one line of reasoning, while in a group, leaves me open too easily.  That's not to say I'm going 'nullo', having no position.  But I'm dealing with arguments, concurently, that some haven't posed as yet, but I know are coming(like Unk's).  This isn't fun for me, y'know.  It may come naturally, but what I really want to do is simplely jump do the 'so there!' kind of thing against guys like Sigger, too.  But I simply CAN'T and be honest with myself.  There's holes here.  That's not good enough.  Politics be damned.  We can be honest with ourselves.  Where's the foul there?

The question of does EIT work is meta to what I'm talking about, which is what I think Corty is suspecting me of eventually pulling.  The case of 'it doesn't work so don't do it'.  It's META.  You can't drag every meta thing in here or it's too big a whirlwind to deal with.  I've stayed away from some of the tangentials, on purpose, because I don't see any value in going there.  EIT is legal.  It may or may not be effective.  Which is my only question here.  EIT may be unworth the costs for doing it---warfare in the context of everything else, and one slice of warfare in the context of the rest of the war.  I've stayed away from it all to keep to the question:  does it work like they say it does?  In HLIC's case, it did work, and timely.  Is that the case here?  Again, screw the politics, nobody from DU is going to cite us anyways.  Yes or no, and no this has no bearing on the legality or 'morality' of the program, does it produce the results Cheney claimed it did? 
 
Regarding 92684, so what? Even if I accept that you are required to argue against phantoms, what impact does that have on me? None at all. I've been in plenty of arguments where there are actual posts from numerous people against me, but I didn't go and whine about it.
Corty. Dude, what is this then: "Come on, Ry; stop trying to draw folks into a game you've set up so that they can't win. ...
Well, it's exactly what it sounds like.  If you read it carefully, you might notice that I never speculate on your motivations.  I can tell someone to stop smashing a wall and explain why doing so is wrong without caring why they were doing so in the first place.  Likewise here.  I don't give a rip why you wanted to play that game.  I simply pointed out your rule preventing any takers from winning.

As for the rest of your post, a line-by-line response is wasting both our times, so I won't bother.  Instead, five points:  First, the scientific method is structured inductive reasoning.  Inductive reasoning is fallacious.  Whether or not you like it, no scientific premise or theory is ever proven.  Those that are not disproven can only reach the level of "more likely true than not".

Second, I've asked for an example (fictional is fine) to prove your claim that EITs can be linked to receiving information through strict logic.  I maintain that they cannot due to two fallacious links, one of which will appear in any given causal chain.  Give an example demonstrating otherwise, and I will gladly recant.

Third, it is a game in the sense of "someone wins, someone loses" for the simple reason of you holding a position and offering up its opposite for someone else to take.  If you approached it from an agnostic view, things would be different, but you've already stated that you enter with the viewpoint that the document does not establish causality between EITs and receiving information.  I'll even admit that you did not do so in your initial post and that I made an inference based on the post's tone, but you validated my inference in both of your responses.

Fourth, if, as your examples suggest, you will accept post hoc as proving EITs worked, read the last sentence in paragraph 224 of the document:  "However, following the use of EITs, he provided information about his most current operational planning and [redacted] as opposed to
the historical information he provided before the use of EITs."  In short, "He gave us nothing, we applied EITs, he spilled his guts."

Last, keep in mind that logic is paradoxical.  To use it, you have to ignore it in at least one case.  If you don't believe me, take the basic concept of "A, therefore B" and the fallacy of self-definition to their ultimate conclusion.  Sooner or later, all logic is based on at least one premise with no logical causation.  It's an imperfect tool requiring others to fill in gaps.


On an aside to John, does your comment box hate FireFox in general or just mine?  The paste function works maybe once in twenty tries in my FF but always in IE.  The various formatting is somewhat more consistent but not the link box (usually shows up without the "OK" button).  Of course, this is a computer recently resurrected after a pretty major series of infections, so it could just be my install took a few knocks.  Thought I'd ask before I go and reinstall FF and all the addons and such.
 

It t'would appear that my Horatio on the bridge has company...
 
"rapoir"???   wtf??

is that like "rapport"?

(cuz if it ain't, i've been saying it wrong, and would recommend using "rapier" instead anyhow)
 
Let us not descend to spelling snarks, RRM, even if your current pedagogical pursuits push you in that direction.

As long as the discussion is focused on an issue, let us leave that particular bugaboo lie quiescent.

Aren't too many of us have the access to be able to go back and fix a spelling boo-boo.

Bitte.

Oh, as for Firefox, my comment box hates Firefox.  And your little dog, too.
 
Unk, irrelevant to a discussion of 'did it work as hyped'(kinda like the BVR thing, right? Did it work as hyped? Answer is, empirically, no.).

The answer is *not* "empirically, no," the answer is "we don't know for sure" -- which you specifically state

Did it produce the results that are claimed to have been? Because of the redaction, possibly for good reason(which should not be read as 'conspiracy theory' mongering, or 'gov't lies and does this to cover it up'), we don't know.

So, the answer to your question could be "yes" -- but we won't know unless or until the entire document is declassified.

This tells us nothing and doesn't move the discussion we're having here.

You're maintaining the position that a redaction of information that it *may* have worked is proof that it didn't, yet you admit that it may have worked.

Uhhhhh -- okayyyyy...

 
It may or may not be effective. Which is my only question here.

And it's a good question.

In HLIC's case, it did work, and timely.

To which you give a good answer.

Is that the case here?...[D]oes it produce the results Cheney claimed it did?

Again, we can't tell from the document. And you'd never have known that it worked for HLIC unless he'd told you it did.

 
My take on this, reading what Liberator put up and the source document, is that the programme probably involved more than just 'EIT' stuff-that was  only part of it. There would be a mass of correlations and exploitation that was non-EIT related too methinks. Maybe we should dial back a bit away from the EIT aspects and ask why the MSM hasn't explored what was stopped as opposed to why it was stopped. Is the debate over what the bottom line is, or how we got there? Are there not larger historical issues in play here as opposed to strictly moral or partisan ones? I think, as a historian, I'm interested in the counterfactual aspect of the issue. I'd like to know more about what was shut down and how credible it all was-and then place that in the context of two things-one, the 9-11 attacks and two, the role that sending OEF into Afghanistan played in generating movement by the enemy to give us opportunities to collect information that stopped attacks. Whaddyah think about those propositions?