Gee it has been months since I've posted something here. Between the myriad of social networking sites, my own websites, and other sites I frequent this one has just been left out in the cold. Poor LJ. On the other hand, going through the friends page shows that no one else seems to be posting much either. Hmm. I'm going to make a concerted effort to post at least one thing this weekend.

This is a statement signed by 15 experts with over 350 years of combined experience in interrogations including FBI, CIA, and US Military experience. A brief resume of each signer follows the statement. I am also writing my own thoughts along with some stories I've read in a private post which will be posted underneath this one in the coming days.


We believe:
1. Non-coercive, traditional, rapport-based interviewing approaches provide the best possibility for obtaining accurate and complete intelligence.
2. Torture and other inhumane and abusive interview techniques are unlawful, ineffective and counterproductive. We reject them unconditionally.
3. The use of torture and other inhumane and abusive treatment results in false and misleading information, loss of critical intelligence, and has caused serious damage to the reputation and standing of the United States. The use of such techniques also facilitates enemy recruitment, misdirects or wastes scarce resources, and deprives the United States of the standing to demand humane treatment of captured Americans.
4. There must be a single well-defined standard of conduct across all U.S. agencies to govern the detention and interrogation of people anywhere in U.S. custody, consistent with our values as a nation.
5. There is no conflict between adhering to our nation’s essential values, including respect for inherent human dignity, and our ability to obtain the information we need to protect the nation.
Signed by:

Frank Anderson
Frank Anderson worked for the CIA from 1968 until 1995. He served three tours of duty in the Middle East as an agency station chief, headed the Afghan Task Force (1987-1989), and was chief of the Near East Division. He now runs a consulting practice that focuses on the Middle East.

Jack Cloonan
Jack Cloonan served as a special agent with the FBI from 1977 to 2002. He began investigating Al Qaeda in the early 1990’s and served as a special agent for the Bureau's Osama bin Laden unit from 1996 to 2002.

Colonel (Ret.) Stuart A. Herrington, US Army
Stu Herrington served thirty years as an Army intelligence officer, specializing in human intelligence/counterintelligence. He has extensive interrogation experience from service in Vietnam, Panama, and Operation Desert Storm. He has traveled to Guantanamo and Iraq at the behest of the Army to evaluate detainee exploitation operations, and he recently taught a three-day seminar on humane interrogation practices to the Army’s 201st MI Battalion, Interrogation, during its activation at Ft. Sam Houston, Texas.

Pierre Joly
Pierre Joly has more than 39 years of military intelligence experience. He currently serves as the Vice President of Phoenix Consulting Group where he leads more than 350 employees involved in providing human intelligence training to members of the intelligence community and law enforcement agencies of the United States. Immediately before joining Phoenix he served as the Chief of Controlled Operations at DIA from 2005- 2006 and the Chief of Operations for the Iraq Survey Group in Baghdad from 2003-2004.

Brigadier General (Ret.) David Irvine, US Army
General Irvine enlisted in the 96th Infantry Division, United States Army Reserve, in 1962. He received a direct commission in 1967 as a strategic intelligence officer. He maintained a faculty assignment for 18 years with the Sixth U.S. Army Intelligence School, and taught prisoner of war interrogation and military law to soldiers, Marines, and airmen. He retired in 2002, and his last assignment was Deputy Commander for the 96th Regional Readiness Command. General Irvine served 4 terms as a Republican legislator in the Utah House of Representatives, has served as a congressional chief of staff, and served as a commissioner on the Utah Public Utilities Commission.

Steven M. Kleinman
Steve Kleinman is an active duty intelligence officer who has twenty-five years of operational and leadership experience in human intelligence, special survival training, and special operations. He has served as a case officer, as a strategic debriefer, and as an interrogator during Operations JUST CAUSE, DESERT STORM, and IRAQI FREEDOM. He previously served as the DoD Senior Intelligence Officer for Special Survival Training and is currently assigned as the Reserve Director of Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance at the Air Force Special Operations Command. As an independent consultant, his engagements have included serving as a senior advisor to the Intelligence Science Board's Study on Educing Information and as a member of the faculty for the U.S. Army Behavioral Science Consulting Team Course.

Dr. George Mandel
Dr. George Mandel, born in Berlin, Germany, came to the US in 1937. He was inducted into the U.S. Army in 1944, and after basic training was transferred to Camp Ritchie, MD, for training in military interrogation because of his knowledge of German. He was then transferred to P.O. Box 1142, outside of Washington, D.C. where he conducted interrogation of German scientists brought to this country as prisoners of war. After a brief stint at Fort Strong, outside of Boston, he returned to 1142 to continue his previous work in military intelligence until the end of the War in Europe. After discharge in 1946 he returned briefly to 1142, and then entered graduate school at Yale University, specializing in organic chemistry. After receiving his Ph.D. he began his career in biochemical pharmacology, at George Washington University School of Medicine, starting as Research Associate in 1949, and promotion to the ranks to Professor. He became chairman of the Department of Pharmacology in 1960, stepped down from that position in 1996 and currently is working there as Professor of Pharmacology & Physiology. His research work has been in drug metabolism, cancer chemotherapy and carcinogenesis.

Joe Navarro
For 25 years, Joe Navarro worked as an FBI special agent in the area of counterintelligence and behavioral assessment. A founding member of the National Security Division’s Behavioral Analysis Program, he is on the adjunct faculty at Saint Leo University and the University of Tampa and remains a consultant to the intelligence community. Mr. Navarro is the author of a number of books about interviewing techniques and practice including Advanced Interviewing which he co-wrote with Jack Schafer and Hunting Terrorists: A Look at the Psycopathology of Terror. He currently teaches the Advanced Terrorism Interview course at the FBI.


Torin Nelson
Torin Nelson is a veteran Human Intelligence (HUMINT) Specialist and interrogator with 16-years of experience working with military and government agencies. He has worked in major theaters of operation in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Mr. Nelson has worked in tactical and strategic environments, both as a soldier and civilian advisor. Primary assignments include the 66th Military Intelligence and 300th Military Intelligence Brigades. He has also worked for the US Army Intelligence Center, Southern European Task Force (SETAF), the On-Site Inspection Agency (OSIA, later DTRA), Combined Joint Task Force 170 (later CJTF-Gitmo), CFLCC (Iraq), CJTF-76 (later -82/-101) (Afghanistan), NATO (IFOR, SFOR, and ISAF), as well as numerous military to military joint training exercises. Mr. Nelson is one of the founding members at the Society for Professional Human Intelligence (SPHI). He is currently working in the Middle East as a senior interrogator and mentor.

William Quinn
William Quinn served in the United States Army from 2001 to 2006 as a human intelligence collector, interrogator, and Korean linguist. He was deployed to Iraq from February 2005 to February 2006 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and was stationed at Abu Ghraib and Camp Cropper. Will is currently studying International Politics and Security Studies at Georgetown University and is a cadet in Army ROTC.

Buck Revell
Mr. Revell served a 30-year career (1964-1994) in the FBI as a Special Agent and senior executive. From 1980 until 1991, Mr. Revell served in FBI Headquarters first as Assistant Director in charge of Criminal Investigations (including terrorism); then as Associate Deputy Director he was in charge of the Investigative, Intelligence, Counter-Terrorism and International programs of the Bureau (1985-91). In September 1987, Mr. Revell was placed in charge of a joint FBI/CIA/U.S. military operation (Operation Goldenrod) which led to the first apprehension overseas of an international terrorist. Prior to joining the FBI, Mr. Revell served as an officer and aviator in the U.S. Marine Corps, leaving active duty in 1964 as a Captain. He currently serves as the President of an international business and security consulting group based in Dallas.

Ken Robinson
Ken Robinson served a twenty-year career in a variety of tactical, operational, and strategic assignments including Ranger, Special Forces, and clandestine special operations units. His experience includes service with the National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency. Ken has extensive experience in CIA and Israeli interrogation methods and is a member of the U.S. Military Intelligence Hall of Fame.

Roger Ruthberg
Roger Ruthberg served as an interrogator in the U.S. Army for 22 years. He conducted interrogation and counterintelligence operations during Operations Desert Storm, Joint Endeavor, and Iraqi Freedom. He currently works as an instructor in debriefing operations on contract to the Department of Defense.

Haviland Smith
Haviland Smith is a retired CIA case officer and Station Chief who served for 26 years. He served in East and West Europe and in the Middle East. He also served for three years as Chief of the Counterterrorism Staff at the Agency, as well as a tour as Executive Assistant to the DDCI.

Lieutenant General (Ret.) Harry E. Soyster, USA

Lieutenant General Soyster served as Director, Defense Intelligence Agency during DESERT SHIELD/STORM. He also served as Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Department of the Army, Commanding General, U.S. Army, Commanding General, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command and in the Joint Reconnaissance Center, Joint Chiefs of Staff. In Vietnam he was an operations officer in a field artillery battalion. Upon retirement he was VP for International Operations with Military Professional Resources Incorporated and returned to government as a Special Assistant to the SEC ARMY for WWII 60th Anniversary Commemorations completed in 2006.

Oh yeah. I have a new phone that kicks much ass. Blackberry Bold 9000. Wifi access, unlimited downloads, more features than I could ever want or need. But from now on, I am completely integrated into the phone. I have been assimilated. I may only be reached through the phone (call, IM, text, email) all other forms of communication will most likely be ignored.

Rob-Berry

First General Election commercial.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/41394.html

The U.S. military hid the locations of suspected terrorist detainees and concealed harsh treatment to avoid the scrutiny of the International Committee of the Red Cross, according to documents that a Senate committee released Tuesday. "We may need to curb the harsher operations while ICRC is around. It is better not to expose them to any controversial techniques," Lt. Col. Diane Beaver, a military lawyer who's since retired, said during an October 2002 meeting at the Guantanamo Bay prison to discuss employing interrogation techniques that some have equated with torture. Her comments were recorded in minutes of the meeting that were made public Tuesday.
----

Look, I'm no fan of coddling terrorists. And I know some of these guys are bad bad people. I'm not so naive as to think that we shouldn't, you know, try to figure out what they're up to. But when you hide people from the Red Cross...the very people who help make sure OUR soldiers aren't being abused when they are held as POWs...Jesus...I'm literally ashamed on behalf of my country.

My thoughts for VP are based on choosing an electoral strategy. Here are the choices as I see it.

1. Southern Strategy -- Pick up dem strongholds and make gains in the south. In this scenario, Obama picks a southerner, probably white (Clark fits nicely) or black and popular with moderate Republicans (Powell fits nicely.)

2. Southwest Strategy -- strongholds plus Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, make a push for Texas to cost McCain time and money. This is probably a Richardson VP ticket.

3. Rust Belt Strategy -- strongholds plus traditional swing states that he just lost (PA, Indiana, Ohio) plus Michigan. Unlikely strategy, but it would require someone incredibly popular in those places as VP or perhaps Clinton (although, if he gets her on the ticket he should hire a food taster.)

4. "BIG Mo" Strategy -- this is the 50 state, we're going to go for everything and spend like crazy plan. It counts on having a lot more cash on hand than McCain, and the down ticket candidates love it. I think in this plan, he picks someone close to him on style (Deval Patrick perhaps) to carry the "hope/change" message to unlikely places. This is a war of attrition, but it's closest in keeping with his philosophy of unification and "not a red America and blue America."

It boils down to the question do you want a VP to "balance the ticket" in some way (white, woman, military, executive experience) or do you want a VP to reflect and extend the values of the candidate? No wrong answer, I just think that how he answers it will determine his VP choice.

"Can you smell what Barack is cooking?"

Ok, so if you've been around me when I was talking politics, or if you've read my blog, or seen my Myspace quote, you know I've uttered this phrase. Some of you also know I occasionally have Vietnam style dream sequences in which I perceive that the Obama campaign is sitting around reading my blog, myspace comments, and forum posts for their next political move.

I now have indisputable proof.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/21/candidates-to-appear-on-monday-night-raw/#more-6571

Clinton and Obama have taped video clips for tonights "WWE Monday Night Raw." In Obama's video, he ends with this phrase. Now, I know that it's a pretty easy joke to make...the Rock, Barack...no brainer right? However, the question remains, why on earth would he choose to make an appearance in the first place? Sure, there are nearly 5 million viewers a week, and no doubt a few of them are in PA. But 5 million isn't exactly a huge market to begin with. When you realize that most of them are in states that have already voted, many are under 18, a good portion are Republican another good portion aren't registered to vote, and probably an equal portion aren't able to read, this is just a huge waste of time. Probably, it does more harm than good among the millions who are starting to take this seriously and who are really turned off by the silly pandering. Inadvertently, I've convinced the Obamafolk they needed to bring the candidate to the Big Show. Please, if you're reading this Obamafolk, please take him to another manufacturers convention, or fill a stadium with screaming 20 yr old girls to make up for this.

In case you still aren't convinced, I'm going to make a chart of comments I've made in the public domain and comments made by other pundits or Obama surrogates immediately following.

For starters, comments I made on Cross-X.com about the three options in Iraq appeared in Obama's stump speech in Iowa and South Carolina, using the exact same three options as talking points. Honestly, I don't mind him using them, I just wish he'd given me a little credit, that's all.1 Then, he used my comments, also posted on cross-x regarding the health plan differences. This came up in his response to John Edwards during the South Carolina debate. Guess he didn't plan on an Oklahoma boy watching.2

Most recently, the map below this post (showing a potential electoral tie) was posted here BEFORE an identical map appeared on CNN with Wolf Blitzer.3 Wolf, Wolf, Wolf. Et Tu, Wolf?

(in case you're wondering, yes, I'm kidding. Jeez, read the rest of my blog and figure out that I'm pro-Obama.)
1 These happened to be the three talking points used by General Petraeus before Congress a week earlier.
2 Their plan forces us to buy health care coverage whether we can afford it or not, his doesn't. It's not a stretch to think this difference might be discussed. But see how easy it is to make accusations when you go to the Goebbels school of propaganda?
3 Wolf's a tool. I have no other explanation.

I know it's a little early to really start with the nightmare scenarios for the fall election. But for the past two election cycles it seems like it was a national pastime to create possible situations whereby the Secretary of Agriculture ends up in the White House, or some other such silliness. More importantly, one big argument by Sen. Clinton is that the "battleground" states are her strength and she is needed for a Dem win. So, I decided to put that to the test. I start with a mock up of the 2004 race with any state separated by less than 8% popular vote as a battleground. Then I looked at the most recent polling I could find of a McCain/Obama matchup to see how important those states appeared to be. I then decided to use Richardson as the VP candidate and go for a "Southwest Strategy", giving Dems Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico (all battlegrounds by my definition.) I made a few other observations based on polling data and came up with my first tie. (For those who aren't aware, an electoral tie would go to the House of Reps, presumably in this case meaning a Democratic presidency....so a tie goes to Obama.) I don't think anything in this scenario is that implausible by the way. It does include a tough Obama win in SC, which I'm basing on high black turnout. On the other hand, I'm giving McCain FL, MI, and OH with Obama taking PA, just ONE of the previous battlegrounds. I think Richardson brings him Florida also, but for now, let's assume only 1:4 battlegrounds for Obama. (Flipping PA and FL means Obama wins outright, as FL has more electoral votes.) Play around with the states by clicking to change them.

455,000 donors in 2008 alone!

OK, I'm not going to start putting negative campaign ads up, but I genuinely think this one is pretty funny, and also has a point about policy differences.

Pass it on:

"I propose that on February 12th (Lincoln’s Birthday) we have a money bomb extravaganza of small donations of $5.01 for Senator Obama. The reasons for this amount are easy to see:


1. Small donations are powering Obama’s campaign
2. Lincoln is on the $5 bill and the penny
3. .01 is also for us online progressives making a statement to the
campaign that we are here and we’ve got money. That we aren’t the huge
bundlers for campaigns. We sacrifice parts of paychecks that mean more
proportionally to those of us with smaller incomes. We buy into Barack
Obama because we do dream of a more hopeful future instead of cynicsm.
I would much rather be called a Hopemonger than a Warmonger. So if you
believe in the hope that small donors are powering the Obama campaign,
please join me in showing that when Americans united with Hope can
wield large influence with small donations!"

One of the issues Hillary Clinton has been bringing up against Senator Obama lately is his use of "present" votes in the Illinois Legislature.  She is attempting to paint him as weak, unprepared to make tough decisions, or unwilling to risk his political capital to do the right thing.  In fact, the exact opposite is true.  Here are some quotes explaining the issue to anyone that would actually check the facts. 

---
Planned Parenthood President: Anyone Who Thinks A Present Vote Is A "Duck" Doesn't Understand How the Process Works. "There is a presumption, if one is not familiar with the mechanics of the General Assembly, that a present vote is a 'duck.' Pam Sutherland, the CEO and President of Illinois Planned Parenthood said of [this] Hull argument: "I think it's not well-based...I think it's somebody who doesn't understand how the legislative process works." [Chicago Daily Herald, 3/10/04]

Handgun Violence Opponents: Criticizing Present Votes Indicates "You Don't Have A Great Understanding Of The Process." "'Criticizing Obama on the basis of 'present' votes indicates you don't have a great understanding of the process,' said Thom Mannard, director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence." [Chicago Tribune, Zorn, 3/9/04]

Voting Present in the State Legislature is Used as A Signal to the Other Party, Not As a Way to Duck the Issue. "An aspect of Obama's State Senate voting record that is drawing attention is his "present" votes. A present vote is a third option to an up or down "yes" or "no" that is used with great frequency in the Illinois General Assembly. It has many varied and nuanced meanings that, in the context of the actual bills, border on boring. It's most important use is as a signal -- to the other party, to the governor, to the sponsor -- to show a willingness to compromise on the issue if not the exact bill, to show disapproval for one aspect of the bill, to question the constitutionality of the bill, to strengthen the bill. [Chicago Daily Herald, 3/10/04]

Obama Said He Would Vote 'Present' On Unconstitutional Bills, Saying He Tried To Resist Bad Votes Even If They Made Good Politics. The Sun Times wrote, "Obama says his 'present' votes often come on bills that he believes are unconstitutional. 'I have tried to not succumb to the temptation of voting on bad laws just because it makes for good politics,' Obama said." [Chicago Sun-Times, 9/13/04]

As of this writing, Clinton has been declared the winner and is up by 3% over Obama.  Technically, this means nothing as they will split the delegates evenly.  But for momentum and symbolism, this hurts.  It seems like New Hampshire just has to go different than Iowa, no matter what the polls say. 

Anyway, now it's on to South Carolina and Nevada and then Super Tuesday.  I still think there's a solid chance for Obama, but it just got a little harder.