th, 2008 at 7:06pm:

Sorry Auntie, you, like the other Maschke minions just don't get it.



Calling me a "Maschke minion" does absolutely nothing to further the credibility of your argument. You'll notice that I didn't bother calling you a "polygraph putz." Could you explain why you find that sort of behavior necessary?



Quote:

This is the second time I have heard some version of "the enemy could have gotten this information in other places." That, my friend is completely irrelevant to the conversation.



"The enemy" has had the information published in Mawsu'at al-jihad since before 2002, when a copy was acquired and translated. I would imagine that there are as many copies of that floating around the terrorist world as there are copies of Southern Living on Georgia coffee tables. In other words, the cat is not only out of the bag, he's lived a long, happy, post-bag life and died of old age. That's what makes it relevant.



Your argument would seem to be that if we convince ourselves that "the enemy" doesn't know what the PCASS is, it must be so whether it is or not. That's not what I'd call a winning strategy. A good interrogator is mindful that his subject may very well know what the device is and isn't revealing that fact. Of course, if the device were able tell if a subject were lying with perfect certainty, that issue could be resolved very quickly and the remainder of the interrogation would be a breeze.



Quote:

Most of the terrorist "foot soldiers" we are dealing with are NOT the "best and the brightest" of the terrorist world. They are foot soldiers, nothing more.



Of course. The foot soldiers get given one mission, and if they return they may get another one. Good operational security practice would dictate that they be sufficiently insulated from those planning their activities. We don't send our generals out to kick in doors in Basrah, why should they? Those that are the "best and brightest" are the ones who end up in a position to know something of real value. They've read the manual and are intelligent enough to realize that something that someone says can tell if they're lying probably can't. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed never got anywhere near a lie detector when he was interrogated. Why do you think that might be?



Quote:

Well in this case, the enemy was about to be faced with a device they had never seen before. They would be unsure, afraid of the possibility that maybe these American infidels would be able to look into their thoughts. Oh no, some would wonder, what to do, what to do ???



"The enemy" was about to be faced with a variation on a device they'd seen before. The only way an interrogator can make good use of a lie detector is if the subject believes it actually works, and the only way to do that is to say "this device can tell me if you're lying."



Quote:

Even then, without anything directly addressing this new truth machine, they would had to take the time to research, collect, analyze, and disseminate, which is by the way, expensive, difficult, requires resources, and takes lots and lots of TIME, time we needed to get a couple of steps ahead



The advantage the PCASS has over some other equipment is that it's compact and can be deployed en masse. Unfortunately, doing so solves the dissemination problem because the process of making a decision about it happens multiple times in parallel over multiple, smaller areas. These guys aren't out preparing PowerPoint presentations for their Tuesday Jihad intelligence briefing, they're bringing back news of what they encountered for those directing their actions to sort out. You're thinking like someone who's part of a large, bureaucratic intelligence organization.



Quote:

But oh no, not in this case. In this case, Mr. George Maschke, our expatriate friend, holed up safely in the Netherlands, did the job for them.



George is, to the best of my knowledge still an American citizen. (George, please correct me if I'm wrong.) I am reasonably confident that if the United States thought it had a sufficient case of treason, he would be no more safely holed up in Holland than Cleveland. If he has committed crimes as heinous as you describe, I fail to understand why you, as a patriotic American, are wasting valuable time here on this message board and aren't spending every spare moment making sure the government brings this insufferable cur to justice.



This story was given wide exposure by the American news media with nary a mention of the discussion on this site. How come you're not calling for Brian Williams' head on a pike?



Quote:

And what was Mr. Maschke's response when I asked him who he thought he was "helping" by publishing this information? He said something about the "emperior having no clothes.'



Allow me to draw a parallel from cryptography, a field with real science behind it: if the algorithm is secure, disclosure poses no threat. If this device actually worked reliably, it wouldn't matter if ads for it were plastered on every billboard in Baghdad. The emperor may have clothes, but they could very well be limited to a pair of skimpy undies.



Quote:

I repeat my earlier assertion. George Maschke is a traitorous snake, so wrapped up in his blind goal to end the use of anything that even resembles polygraph...



Since we're busy hurling unrelated insults, your grammar blows chunks. You're using the word "polygraph" as if it were a proper noun. It's not, and use of a non-proper noun requires an article beforehand. The only people I've ever heard refer to the polygraph without an article are people who are polygraphers or are otherwise connected to the field of lie detection. I must conclude that you are one of those people. Am I correct?



Quote:

I think I am going to be sick...



Please come back after you've finished. Your auntie finds you amusing.



--Auntie



P.S.: I'd also like to add that for those who claim what is being discussed here constitutes "intelligence information" are perhaps barking up the wrong tree. The government does something special with intelligence information (which, by the way actually has a legal definition): they classify it. Is there classified material posted anywhere on this site?

nonombre wrote on Apr 18, 2008 at 7:06pm:Calling me a "Maschke minion" does absolutely nothing to further the credibility of your argument. You'll notice that I didn't bother calling you a "polygraph putz." Could you explain why you find that sort of behavior necessary?"The enemy" has had the information published insince before 2002, when a copy was acquired and translated. I would imagine that there are as many copies of that floating around the terrorist world as there are copies ofon Georgia coffee tables. In other words, the cat is not only out of the bag, he's lived a long, happy, post-bag life and died of old age. That's what makes it relevant.Your argument would seem to be that if we convince ourselves that "the enemy" doesn't know what the PCASS is, it must be so whether it is or not. That's not what I'd call a winning strategy. A good interrogator is mindful that his subject may very well know what the device is and isn't revealing that fact. Of course, if the device were able tell if a subject were lying with perfect certainty, that issue could be resolved very quickly and the remainder of the interrogation would be a breeze.Of course. The foot soldiers get given one mission, and if they return they may get another one. Good operational security practice would dictate that they be sufficiently insulated from those planning their activities. We don't send our generals out to kick in doors in Basrah, why should they? Those that are the "best and brightest" are the ones who end up in a position to know something of real value. They've read the manual and are intelligent enough to realize that something that someone says can tell if they're lying probably can't. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed never got anywhere near a lie detector when he was interrogated. Why do you think that might be?"The enemy" was about to be faced with a variation on a device they'd seen before. The only way an interrogator can make good use of a lie detector is if the subject believes it actually works, and the only way to do that is to say "this device can tell me if you're lying."The advantage the PCASS has over some other equipment is that it's compact and can be deployed. Unfortunately, doing so solves the dissemination problem because the process of making a decision about it happens multiple times in parallel over multiple, smaller areas. These guys aren't out preparing PowerPoint presentations for their Tuesday Jihad intelligence briefing, they're bringing back news of what they encountered for those directing their actions to sort out. You're thinking like someone who's part of a large, bureaucratic intelligence organization.George is, to the best of my knowledge still an American citizen. (George, please correct me if I'm wrong.) I am reasonably confident that if the United States thought it had a sufficient case of treason, he would be no more safely holed up in Holland than Cleveland. If he has committed crimes as heinous as you describe, I fail to understand why you, as a patriotic American, are wasting valuable time here on this message board and aren't spending every spare moment making sure the government brings this insufferable cur to justice.This story was given wide exposure by the American news media with nary a mention of the discussion on this site. How come you're not calling for Brian Williams' head on a pike?Allow me to draw a parallel from cryptography, a field with real science behind it: if the algorithm is secure, disclosure poses no threat. If this device actually worked reliably, it wouldn't matter if ads for it were plastered on every billboard in Baghdad. The emperor may have clothes, but they could very well be limited to a pair of skimpy undies.Since we're busy hurling unrelated insults, your grammar blows chunks. You're using the word "polygraph" as if it were a proper noun. It's not, and use of a non-proper noun requires an article beforehand. Thepeople I'veheard refer to the polygraph without an article are people who are polygraphers or are otherwise connected to the field of lie detection. I must conclude that you are one of those people. Am I correct?Please come back after you've finished. Your auntie finds you amusing.--AuntieP.S.: I'd also like to add that for those who claim what is being discussed here constitutes "intelligence information" are perhaps barking up the wrong tree. The government does something special with intelligence information (which, by the way actually has a legal definition): they classify it. Is there classified material posted anywhere on this site?