Must-View ED SHOW: Al Qaeda Interrogator Alexander - 'NO. Cons are Wrong About Waterboarding.'

Run time: 15:09 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LORmBjc84gk   Posted on YouTube: May 04, 2011 By YouTube Member: PresidentObama3 Views on YouTube: 5   Posted on DU: May 04, 2011 By DU Member: Hissyspit Views on DU: 1769

 
MSNBC The Ed Show w/ ED SCHULTZ - May 3, 2011: Ed does intro segment, but the important part is after 7:20, the interview with former military interrogator, Matthew Alexander, who tracked down al Qaeda in Iraq, who trashes Rep. King dishonest and disgusting statements.

ED: "Are the conservatives correct about waterboarding?"

ALEXANDER: "No. They're not correct. What a lot of people are forgetting and leaving out of this conversation is what professional interrogators have been saying all along...

- snip -

ED: "But of course the conservatives are out there saying that K.S.M. served up the key name, and now the New York Times is reporting that is not the case, it came from the courier who is identified as Hassan Ghul. ... Who do we believe?"

ALEXANDER: "If waterboarding that happened seven or eight years ago just now led to bin Laden and that's our measure of success, we're in a lot of trouble. That's not an effective technique."

ED: "How do you counter this soundbite? This is Congressman Peter King. He says that waterboarding is a moral imperative... Does that argument hold up?"

- snip -

ALEXANDER: "It doesn't for me, and it goes directly against my oath... My oath of office was to defend the Constitution of the United States, like everybody else in the service. There's nothing in there about saving lives. When did America go from a country that stands for principles like liberty, freedom and justice, to a country that stands for security above all else? Numerous leaders going back to the Revolutionary War - George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, World War II leaders, Presidents and generals - all said that we cannot use torture because it violates American principles REGARDLESS of whether it would or would not keep us safe."

ED: "Let me ask you to be very clear here - what Congressman Peter King said there, is that fact or is it his opinion that waterboarding saves lives?"

ALEXANDER: "Well, it's neither fact nor his opinion, it's fiction. To say that waterboarding saved lives also excludes any inclusion of the long-term negative effects of using torture and abuse. As I saw in Iraq, first-hand, the NO. 1 reason foreign fighters gave for coming there to fight was because of our torture and abuse of Muslim prisoners and detainees, which had led them there, and those foreign fighters made up the majority of suicide bombers. They killed hundreds if not thousands of American soldiers. So you cannot in any way say waterboarding has kept us safe.

- snip -

...that's not an opinion. Department of Defense tracked those statistics. I saw them. That's a fact, that waterboarding and torture was al Qaeda's No. 1 recruiting tool.

- snip -

What you can say is that it violates the core principles this country was founded on. Our country is safer now than it has ever been because we have started to regain that moral high ground that you talked about."

MORE

I thought, and so did Eric Holder in his confirmation hearings, waterboarding was illegal. Eric Holder is now Attorney General and we have people admitting to such illegal activities, but we see no actions by Holder to investigate and/or prosecute.

How does allowing illegals acts of crimes against humanity make our nation safer and more secure? What does it make us when we stoop to the level of those we call "evil?"

Thank you for posting.

How can an entire party be in favor of .....torturing people? Let's say that, hypothtetically, that news came out that Osama Bin Laden was killed as a direct result of torturing people. Let's say that Leon Panetta made a different statement and said "Osama is dead because we tortured people to get information. Torture gave us a lot of information and we could not have killed Osama without that information". So, today it proves that torture is a wonderfully effective tool, but that means that for 7 or so years, there was no evidence that it proved anything useful. And for 7 or so years, an entire political party was in favor of torturing people without any evidence at all. How disgusting is that?

I thought that this was a great interview. A number of really good points were made. I like the point that torture will give you only the very minimal information that you can get. True, you can not say that it never works, but you can not get the information needed to perform an action like the one that Obama completed successfully.

I just can't stand it. This one in particular seriously grates on me. He reminds me of Rush Limpball or even Beck at times. Not in terms of overall narrative, but in some aspects of the narrative. Almost as if he's talking to 4th graders. Am I truly a minority in my reaction to this?

I clicked on this vid because of the subject heading which interests me a great deal. Unfortunately I couldn't get through the long winded set up to hear the interview. sheesh.

Most of what was important I put in the transcript, though, so you're o.k. I actually did not watch all of the set-up either.

and btw, I really enjoy reading your journals.. :hi:

When the progressive side has a few scant hours of TV where the opposition has many hundreds of hours, we tend to overlook petty differences in style and delivery. But I'm a progressive. YMMV.

I don't want to be talked down to as if I were in elementary school. I don't consider being treated with a modicum of respect as petty.

to include the not so intelligent adults because they vote too.

just for a few moments..

I'm presuming you're just guessing that's what Schultz has in mind. Unless you know him personally and you have that info directly or perhaps he's actually said that on the air....(?)

So let's say you're 100% correct, that's the goal.

Now think through this notion that the goal is to bring in people who are unable to think for themselves but require concepts and information spoon fed to them, because they're too stupid to figure certain basic ideas and concepts out for themselves.

Now, I won't argue that we have a fairly stupid electorate as it is currently. There is certainly evidence of that. But I'm arguing that just cuz that's true, it is still NO justification to continue the dumbing down of listening audiences just cause it goes it without saying (citizens in this country are really, really stupid)

I find that intolerable as well as dispicable.

Just look at the history, fascists torture. That is how we know the good guys from the bad guys.

Chickenhawk fascists have no problem with torture because they are as far from the front lines as they can get.

Of course Five Deferment Cheney and Boil On The Ass Limbaugh will give you a different story.