No doubt your years of expertise with interrogations give you great insight into the tactical requirements of each case. Oh wait, you are just blowing some pompous smoke. You should include words like "portent" and phrases like "does not bode well".

Why is it that the only time your comebacks have any pop is when they are plagiarized?

"What we have here are 2 desperate men being held in cages by people who hate them, with no hope of ever being freed.

Can you refute any part of this statement?

Because it is patently obvious

No doubt your years of expertise with interrogations give you great insight into the tactical requirements of each case. Oh wait, you are just blowing some pompous smoke. You should include words like "portent" and phrases like "does not bode well".

Where did I say I felt bad for them? Nowhere. Please don't put words in my mouth.

What we have here are 2 desperate men being held in cages by people who hate them, with no hope of ever being freed.

Soory, but it just sounds very sympathetic... maybe I'm reading to much into your wording...

how you can feel bad for anything beyond where their pitiful souls are going or have gone is amazing.....

Where did I say I felt bad for them? Nowhere. Please don't put words in my mouth.

The only things Saddam had to hide were money and WMD.

Oh really? And where is said WMD now? Perhaps in Syria?

KSM held time sensitive information, useful in defense of our nation.

And, uh, that information would be...

What we have here are 2 desperate men being held in cages by people who hate them, with no hope of ever being freed. Pretty easy to argue they have very strong common motivation, IE, the desire to somehow make the best of a situation where they are essentially screwed.

You should include words such as maniacs, terrorists,
and sworn enemy leaders of the U.S.A who were actively seeking our destruction., and how you can feel bad for anything beyond where their pitiful souls are going or have gone is amazing.....

It is interesting that he initially denied, before admitting, meeting with members of al Qaeda though he said they didn't cooperate.

And you know this how?

Because it is patently obvious. Please feel free to dispute anything I said.

And you know this how?

Quite so, PD. His motivations are far different than say, a KSM. Altogether different tactics would be required for each of these.

No doubt your years of expertise with interrogations give you great insight into the tactical requirements of each case. Oh wait, you are just blowing some pompous smoke. You should include words like "portent" and phrases like "does not bode well".

What we have here are 2 desperate men being held in cages by people who hate them, with no hope of ever being freed. Pretty easy to argue they have very strong common motivation, IE, the desire to somehow make the best of a situation where they are essentially screwed.

Shockingly, it does not involve waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, nudity, or German shephards.

...

Am I the only one that thinks Saddam would be easy to get to talk, with the egotism, the self-certainty and the absence of anybody to answer to for decade

Quite so, PD. His motivations are far different than say, a KSM. Altogether different tactics would be required for each of these. This of itself doesn't diminish the validity of the tactics used on KSM. Rather, it demonstrates the restraint used by those doing the questioning in both cases.

And I wonder how many will be willing to acknowledge that point?

Given the starting premise that this is an example that extreme interrogation techniques were not needed, James Gordon Meek failed to support his thesis. Nor did he explore the facts that Saddam Hussein was not a hardened terrorist trained in resisting interrogation, that heads of state even deposed ones are treated differently, or that a narcissistic political personality is a prime candidate for "repport-based" interrogation. Someone concerned about what people say and think about them in 500 or a thousand years is already primed to talk to the interrogator and once they are talking, useful information can be gleaned.