Interrogations vs Interviews
Interrogations vs Interviews.
- By Gerald: Internet Anthropologist Think Tan
Chris Matrhis on MSNBC was running his
usual semantic spin on his program a few days
His carefully crafted spin was playing with
the word "abuses".
He was using the word "abuses" as a synonym
for the word "torture".
And while torture is an abuse, not all abuses
It is an expectation during an Interrogation that
there will be abuses.
Even the police will abuse perps during
interrogations, yell at them, get angry,
lie to them.
Chris was able to spin the CIA Interrogation
methods by using the word "abuses"
instead of the word "torture".
There is abuses during Interrogations
but they shouldn't reach the level of torture.
But the CIA was trying to work leads
related to WMD.
Both George Bush and the CIA
had the obligation to protect USA
against a Nuke, and had Intel
about a Nuke strike in CONUS.
- On 911 George was told the WTC was hit twice, and the Pentagon but he was told something else too.
That USA had intel there was a NUKE in New York city.
George didn't come back to DC they flew him to a nuke shelter, someplace he could run the government from.
- If the USA is under threat of a Nuclear attack
- how far do you want the CIA to go to protect
The CIA isn't conducting Interviews, these
- After the September 11 attacks, the CIA faced the daunting prospect of al-Qaeda seeking a nuclear bomb and collaborating with Pakistani nuclear scientists in an effort to build one. A mood of grim determination gripped the U.S. intelligence establishment, a sentiment highlighted by CIA Director George Tenet when he stated that "We are behind the eight ball" in tracking al-Qaeda's efforts to obtain WMDs.