The ABC News headline to this story is a little misleading. It says that Sec. Clinton “questions” Dick Cheney’s credibility. There isn’t any question in Sec. Clinton’s words what she feels about Cheney’s credibility. She, like the vast majority of Americans, knows he has none.
“Are you in favor of releasing the documents that Dick Cheney has been requesting be released?,” asked Rep. Rohrbacher.
“Well, it won’t surprise you, I don’t consider him a particularly reliable source of information,” responded Secretary Clinton to a smattering of laughter in the hearing room.
Congressman Rohrbacher appeared none too pleased and went at it again. “Madam Secretary, I asked you a specific question,” he said sternly.
“Congressman, I believe we ought to get to the bottom of this entire matter. I think it is in the best interest of our country and that is what the president believes and that is why he has taken the actions he did,” said Clinton.
What will Obama do when we snag another high-ranking al-qaeda member with info about a planned attack? Will he have him waterboarded and risk prosecution, or let them finish their plan and kill a bunch of people?
It’s a legit question.
It may not have been too smart of the admin to release those memos, or to talk about prosecuting people. It could very well bite them in the azz.
Epic. Fail.
Also, why not release the memos Cheney wants then? If you’re sure the guy’s full of s**t, just do it and make him look like the fool you accuse him of being.
You may find this interesting too….
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/22/obamas-dni-reminds-obama-that-enhanced-interrogation-worked/
Waterboarding did work.
Meanwhile, Karl Rove is peeing in his pants over Obama’s “Hey, if ya’ll wanna investigate, investigate” stance.
Speaking of people with no credibility, yo mama, ladies and gents.
Sec. Clinton’s exchange with Rohrabacher was entertaining, but it didn’t hold a candle to her beatdown of Mike Pence.
Will he have him waterboarded and risk prosecution, or let them finish their plan and kill a bunch of people?
Oh, gosh, you’re right. These are our only two options. This is why every nation that refused to waterboard their prisoners were ultimately destroyed.
That lying piece of shit should be in prison for war crimes and sedition. Yomama can join him to provide “comfort” for him.
Not one intelligent response to my previous post.
Well spider j, you used ridicule and sarcasm to dodge the question – let me know when you actually have a real answer.
Thank You.
I enjoyed shutting you all down today with one post. LOL!
yo mama, it’s difficult to come up with an intelligent response to moronic garbage, so cut them some slack.
But I’ll try to answer your question seriously: The CIA can use the same interrogation techniques we used during World War 2. I can check my history book if you’d like, but I think we made it through that war.
Additionally, we will employ the myriad of other intelligence techniques at our disposal. Ones that do not require prisoners at all. Things like surveilence, breaking codes and one of the all time favorites: paying people to sing.
Your lack of imagination is not proof of U.S. impotence.
Yo, Eric beat me to the punch, but I’ll repeat his post anyway, just for emphasis. Your initial post in this thread is a fairly classic false dilemma – either we waterboard, or thousands of innocents die. I’d be more favorably disposed to your theory if you could show objectively – without linking to right-wing news sources or blogs – that it had ever occurred once in human history. As it is, I’m glad to report that the government will no longer make policy based upon fantasies and freshman philosophy class ‘bomb under the table’ hypotheses.
If an attack occurs and it can even be remotely shown that torture could have had a hand in preventing it and the attack wasn’t caused in part by the rest of the world viewing us as sickening ghouls little better than the people against whom we assume superiority, using the same interrogation techniques as the Khmer Rouge, I will gladly be the first to admit my mistake.
And also, props to Sec. Clinton. I hope she and Gibbs have a pwning contest.
I didn’t use ridicule to dodge the question. I used ridicule to ridicule you.
It’s a legit question.
No it isn’t. It is epically stupid.
Yo Mama: “Waterboarding did work.”
According to who? The Bush administration.
Like Clinton said, not a reliable source.
The actual evidence, the tapes of the torture sessions, were destroyed. Therefore, we don’t know what information was given.
I didn’t use ridicule to dodge the question. I used ridicule to ridicule you.
First of all, RFLMAO. Indeed.
Secondly, the argument against torture doesn’t begin or end with “torture doesn’t work.”
The argument begins and ends with the fact that torture is a crime against humanity, whether it works or not, whether it leads to lives being saved or not.
Yo mama’s argument essentially boils down to: “It’s okay to commit an atrocity on the off chance that it might prevent one.”
Devising a rational for torture is like devising a rationale for genocide. There are simply no grounds upon which torture is defensible.
yo mama: Not one intelligent response to my previous post.
You reap what you sow.
Exactly. You can’t wag your finger at places like China, Cuba, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Congo, or Thailand about their human rights violations while simultaneously engaging in it.
Makes you look like a hypocrite.
Ohhhh….right.
Its amazing that the GOP are now coming out as unabashed “pro torturists”. Talk about tone deaf. Nobody wants a leader that appears to be scared of their own shadow willing to break the law on a whim. But hopefully they will continue to come out strong in their support of torturing people. It will make destroying them next year just that much easier. By the way I don’t think we tortured anybody to get the information included in the PDB that read “Bin Ladin determined to strike in the US”.
Abu Zabedah probably started talking around waterboarding session #56 right yo mamma? Your lack on insight into basic human conditioning is astounding. The problem with this non-debate is you have the violence fetish side who thinks that fufilling thier fantasy of beating/torturing using thier “ticking time bomb” scenario dignifies thier sick thoughts… then there is the rational side that realizes punishment and torture doesn’t even give a desired result from animals, much less humans. Yo Mamma, I will take the side of someone who has been tortured(John McCain) former CIA officials, psychologists and people who know what they are talking about than a miserable man with an philosophical axe to grind any day of the week.
Waterboarding does work…at making the person being waterboarded say ANYTHING to get them to stop. He might give a legit name, and he might give ten bogus names. Is it worth it to have to sift through all the bullshit? Does it make us the better side?
The wingnuts like Kristol and Cheney and Rove who have NEVER served in the military would be broken in about 5 minutes under duress, yet they are the first ones who scream for blood to be shed. Why? Because they are despicable cowards
And yo mama, Cheney is out of office now. He has no say in what gets released and what doesn’t. He’s already been proven a total liar in this regard. But I really hope he continues to show his face and talk shit about Obama, because in the end it only hurts the GOP that much more.
Rohrbacher Slapped Clinton should be the headline.
To top it off Clinton never answered Rohrbacher’s question. Typical.
It’s also funny how Clinton and her ilk wailed that Cheney was the evil matermind behind BushHitlerCo, but now he’s insignificant and not a reliable source of info regarding the “evils” of the previous administration.
Dana Rohrabacher was, as I recall, the same representative who didn’t even have the class to apologize to Maher Arar–an innocent Canadian who we renditioned to Syria–without adding in “but that doesn’t mean we were wrong.” So Fuck Him.
Pro-torturists are bed-wetters and weenies and my guess is that they’re so afraid of losing that they cheat at Candyland.
But hey, let’s play your game. Why stop at waterboarding? Let’s cut off a few digits. Let’s pluck out a few eyes. Let’s kidnap the mothers of suspected terrorists and rape them in front of the suspects. Let’s be exactly the sort of monsters we try to protect our kids from seeing in the theaters, because maybe it will save American lives.
Or, as Jon Stewart put it, if he’s says it’s the wrong thing to do, it probably is.
If these memos exonerate the Bush admin, why are they classified at all? Cheney had the power to declassify (or so he believed at the time, being neither exec branch or legis branch), so why wouldn’t he release these so-called successful torture stories to the NYT?
You can’t wag your finger at places like China, Cuba, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Congo, or Thailand about their human rights violations while simultaneously engaging in it.
Faking a Drowning != Removing limbs, extreme starvation, breaking of bones, permanent scarring/burning, lopping off a head or two.
I’m sure the process of undergoing waterboarding is unpleasant in the extreme. But to call it “torture” is to lump it in with a whole host of barbaric acts that are nowhere near as egregious as the sins perpetrated by the leaders of the UN Human Rights Commission. And to say they’re all morally eqivalent is Naiveity 101.
Faking a Drowning != Removing limbs, extreme starvation, breaking of bones, permanent scarring/burning, lopping off a head or two.
They are still human rights violations. They are still considered war crimes. Split hairs all you want, don’t make it right.
Fake drowning is how it starts, Farris.
Remember, 24 is just a show.
Bottom line – we waterboarded 3 people. We got intelligence from them that saved lives. There are going to be some very tough decisions that have to be made by any president given the level of insanity of our enemies. Whether to waterboard or not is one of these. Do I think it should be practiced regularly? Of course not. Are their instances where we may have to do so to an hvt with information about a pending attack in order to save American lives? You bet. And prosecuting people for this is highly unproductive and potentially dangerous for all of us. I don’t think Obama ought to go after any Bush admin officials, because he could be setting himself up for some real trouble. If and when we do capture another hvt with info, and we don’t get what we need from them because well, you could get thrown in jail now for doing what is necessary to get the info to save lives, people could die. And it is far more criminal to let something like that happen than it is to dump water on someone’s head.
If we get hit because of Obama’s policy change, he ought to be impeached. And people, including myself, will be calling for it for sure.
Thank you.
Good day.
I’ve been getting the impression from the distinguished right wing gentlemen among us that if the choice is between using torture and using conventional methods to get information, torture will be favored, because conventional interrogations are considered wimpy and unbecoming of a strong nation such as ours.
The right has always had a kind of jealousy of authoritarian regimes and finds civilized norms spiritually unfulfilling. To them, I recommend going to church as a means to fulfill their spiritual voids, rather than advocating the use of torture.
Save Ferris, please read a Nazi interrogation manual and not the scripts of Saw and Hostel.
But if deaths are what you want, how about the
108 who died under our care. Or do they not count because we didn’t drill out their eyeballs?
Whether to waterboard or not is one of these.
No it muthafucking isn’t.
We as a country are no better than the Viet Cong, is that what you’re saying? We HUNG Japanese officers for this very thing.
Christ, why are we even talking about it?
I just think using terror to combat terrorism is a little… well, stupid, to put it mildly.
yo mama: “Bottom line – we waterboarded 3 people.”
That we know of.
“We got intelligence from them that saved lives.”
And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
“If we get hit because of Obama’s policy change, he ought to be impeached. And people, including myself, will be calling for it for sure.”
Memo = ‘Bin Ladden Determined to Attack the United States.’
Bush = ‘You’ve covered your ass.’
Yo Mama = ‘Bush kept us safe!’
Idiot.
If we get hit because of Obama’s policy change, he ought to be impeached. And people, including myself, will be calling for it for sure.
Like that’s a threat. People like you are started calling for it weeks ago.
Strowbridge makes the point I was about to — pity he didn’t realize it.
Short version of the exchange:
Rohrbacher: “Dick Cheney wants more secret records released that will give us a more complete picture. What do you think?”
Clinton: “Cheney is a liar.”
Seems to me, then, the records ought to be released, just to prove Cheney a liar. After all, if we believe the records that have been released so far, why shouldn’t we trust the ones that the Obama administration is keeping sealed?
Cheney says that they will help exonerate him and the administration. Obviously, we can’t take his word for it. So let’s see the rest of those records.
The people who carried out those interrogations thought that they were justified and successful. Let’s see what made them think that. Let’s take a look at what sorts of results were achieved thanks to the interrogations.
Or, alternately, we can just leave them sealed and weigh the word of Dick Cheney against that of Hillary “I landed in Bosnia under sniper fire” Clinton.
J.
I agree with Jay. Release all the records of the Bush DOJ. Let’s see what you got.
If 2 suspects tortured out of hundreds actually revealed pertinent information that actually saved lives, does that justify it?
I was opposed to any release of confidential records. Obama decided to release the details of methods, meaning that future prisoners can prepare themselves for what they might be subjected to. So fuck it — let’s get it all out in the open. We know what was done. Now let’s see what was done leading up to it, and what was gained from it. This “modified limited hangout” (bonus points to who recognizes that phrase, and its applicability here) is bullshit political gamesmanship with national security.
And part of me can’t wait for the end of the Obama administration. We can start by hauling Geithner in for tax evasion, Hillary Clinton for taking bribes (heard about the contest to retire her campaign debt), and Joe Biden for being a chronic bullshitter who believes his own bullshit.
And that’s only since January 20th. That’s the consequence of criminalizing policy differences. If that’s the game, then let’s play. We’ll send the country down the shitter, but we’ll be having fun doing it.
J.
randy: It’s also funny how Clinton and her ilk wailed that Cheney was the evil matermind behind BushHitlerCo, but now he’s insignificant and not a reliable source of info regarding the “evils” of the previous administration.
What’s inconsistent about that? Would you really consider the person who denied they’d ever done anything wrong to be the most reliable source to honestly reveal what wrong they had done?
SaveFarris: I’m sure the process of undergoing waterboarding is unpleasant in the extreme. But to call it “torture” is to lump it in with a whole host of barbaric acts that are nowhere near as egregious as the sins perpetrated by the leaders of the UN Human Rights Commission. And to say they’re all morally eqivalent is Naiveity 101.
To say something isn’t torture it it doesn’t leave a physical scar is Naivety 101.
Are you saying that when we prosecuted and convicted Japanese offenders for using waterboarding to torture US POWs in WW2 that we were wrong to do so?
Yeah, why can’t these liberal, America-hating fascists understand that torture is necessary and patriotic anyway?
Jay Tea: Or, alternately, we can just leave them sealed and weigh the word of Dick Cheney against that of Hillary “I landed in Bosnia under sniper fire” Clinton.
If (if!) that’s the choice, then I would take the word of Hillary “While on the campaign trail I said I landed under sniper fire, and I said harsh things about the person who gave me my latest job” Clinton over Dick “I’m my own branch of government, I don’t care what the court says you don’t get to see who attended the meeting, Saddam was behind 9/11 but now I claim I never said that” Cheney.
To top it off Clinton never answered Rohrbacher’s question. Typical.</i?
The question was based on a false premise, and Clinton did not dignify idiocy by responding. Instead she exposed the question as a GOP talking point, since Mr. Cheney has neither (a) the credibility nor (b) the authority to question the current president’s policy. Remember how much advice W. wanted from previous VP Al Gore? Me neither.
If the committee wants documents, they can ask for them through normal channels, i.e. a committee request or a subpoena. Instead the congressman invokes Cheney to insulate himself from having to serve a subpoena that he knows he’ll never get through the committee. The question is pointless grandstanding, and Hillary knew it.
Alberto Gonzales couldn’t remember a single day of his tenure in office, or a single person he talked to, or a single act that he accomplished while Attorney General, but Hillary has to respond to false assertions, or she’s…what? Where was this Republican outrage when Gonzales was forgetting his own name?
If waterboarding is so effective in the ticking time bomb scenario, why did they have to do it dozens of times?
How do we know any pertinent or better still accurate or reliable information was gained? I am sure they tried to get pertinent information, since they repeatedly grilled the abused about non-existent Al Qaeda/ Saddam Hussein looking for statements that could be used to further the propaganda case for war.
So given that, we are faced with the unreliability of the information given by the tortured and the unreliable motives of the torturers.
Now look at it from the international perspective as other countries stop cooperating with the US and don’t give us access to valuable prisoners who might have reliable intelligence thatn could save real lives.
Next question, do we apply those techniques to domestic terrorists like right wing militia members who stockpile weapons and chemical-weapon making supplies?
Jay Tea: That’s the consequence of criminalizing policy differences.
No, it’s not criminalizing policy differences. It’s criminalizing illegal acts.
Is violating the Constitution (aka, breaking the law) not illegal?
Seriously, what if the policy followed is illegal? “It’s my policy to use blackmail as a political weapon and to assassinate foreign leaders who don’t toe the line.” That OK with you?
Obama decided to release the details of methods, meaning that future prisoners can prepare themselves for what they might be subjected to.
Oh come on. These techniques have been known since before the election. Don’t go blaming Obama for that.
To top it off Clinton never answered Rohrbacher’s question. Typical.
Yes, she did. Just not in that snippet.
Remember, context matters!
Repack Rider: since Mr. Cheney has neither (a) the credibility nor (b) the authority to question the current president’s policy.
Minor quibble. As a citizen of the US, Cheney does have the authority to question government policy. No more than any other private citizen, but he does have it.
That’s the consequence of criminalizing policy differences.
Policy differences? That’s excellent, Mr. Tea!!
What should the current administration do if the policies of a previous administration were criminal? Shall we decline to enforce our laws?
Obama decided to release the details of methods, meaning that future prisoners can prepare themselves for what they might be subjected to.
But not by us, since Mr. Obama made it clear that these would not be used again as long as he was president. So your point is moronic. Why would anyone need to “prepare” for torture that won’t take place? And how do you “prepare” for torture in the first place?
We see that these people were waterboarded dozens of times, up to six times A DAY. How many times do you think it took before they “knew what to expect” and were able to “prepare” for it in whatever manner one uses to prepare for torture?
I’m pretty sure that by the second or third time on the morning of Day One, he knew what was coming. Since he did, why would there be any more point in doing it again if that knowledge somehow enabled him to “prepare” for it?
If waterboarding isn’t torture, why has it been used by so many historical torturers who can choose from a wide spectrum of “techniques?” You would think they would want to use something unpleasant on the prisoner, but you say it isn’t torture.
Everyone who has been waterboarded says it’s torture, but they are clearly biased. I’ll bet somebody made them say that.
OK geniuses. If breaking up the LA plot is proof that “torture works,” explain this one to me.
<a href=”http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070523.html”Right here is a Bush administration fact sheet, dated May 2007, that says the LA plot was busted up in 2002. KSM was captured in 2003. How did waterboarding him “save American lives,” huh?
J.G.Thayer: “And that’s only since January 20th. That’s the consequence of criminalizing policy differences.”
And there you have it. J.G.Thayer proves yet again that he is worthless as a human being.
The crimes don’t matter. Only the political affiliations matter.
yomama, the link you posted says that it worked on two people. Assuming that they’ve waterboarded 100 people (they did it to more), that’s a 2% success rate, which is pathetic. Even ignoring the moral issues with doing it, it just wastes time and money, when the same information (and more) can be acquired cheaper.
The people who carried out those interrogations thought that they were justified and successful. Let’s see what made them think that. Let’s take a look at what sorts of results were achieved thanks to the interrogations.
Again, 2% success rate.
I was opposed to any release of confidential records. Obama decided to release the details of methods, meaning that future prisoners can prepare themselves for what they might be subjected to. So fuck it — let’s get it all out in the open. We know what was done. Now let’s see what was done leading up to it, and what was gained from it. This “modified limited hangout” (bonus points to who recognizes that phrase, and its applicability here) is bullshit political gamesmanship with national security.
We could, you know, STOP waterboarding people for shits and giggles. This is just like when you and Fox News were complaining about “the criminalization of politics” when a bunch of pubs were busted. They could’ve just stopped committing crimes.
Also, they feel justified in torturing for the same reason the ‘pubs support the death penalty. They want REVENGE!
“we waterboarded 3 people. We got intelligence from them that saved lives.”
This is absolutely not true. In fact, we got false information.
So please leave America and move to Iran where torture is acceptable. Adults like me want to go back to a time when America didn’t torture and when we had a moral authority that we know lack.
“Right here is a Bush administration fact sheet, dated May 2007, that says the LA plot was busted up in 2002. KSM was captured in 2003. How did waterboarding him ’save American lives,’ huh?”
I guess they assume no one will double-check their claims.
These cons get sexual gratification from torturing Arabic men. Cheeto addicted Dr Mengele’s on the march
And the **** rolls on…
Charles Grodin just kicked Hannity’s Soft ***.
JK
Clinton and credible in the same sentence.
Wow.
What a change from a year ago.
What a change from her visit to Tuzla.
Change we can believe in.
It’s cute how matt621 still thinks it’s 2003.
Ahem. Fact sheet is right here.
Faking a Drowning != Removing limbs, extreme starvation, breaking of bones, permanent scarring/burning, lopping off a head or two.
And I ask again, why do we limit ourselves, torture apologists? If waterboarding fails to produce the information we want, why shouldn’t we feel free to go further?
And hey, Farris, if faking a drowning is no big deal, I’d love to hear you undergo the experience and tell us how you came out of it all hunky-dory.
SpiderJ, he doesn’t need to. Idiot protesters waterboard each other in public almost every week to show how terrible it is. They don’t seem to be any the worse for wear.
Hell, some of ‘em probably needed the bath.
jr blathers:
These cons get sexual gratification from torturing Arabic men. Cheeto addicted Dr Mengele’s on the march
jr better not read this article:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=7402099&page=2
So, if what was done to these terrorists was “torture,” we need a new term for what this Arabic man did to another Arabic man.
“Turborture,” perhaps?
By the way, Obama’s DNI says that the enhanced techniques produced solid, critical intelligence. And CIA officers are looking to get out of the counterterrorism business — they are getting the message that their president won’t have their back if they act in good faith and try to find ways to reconcile the demands for actionable intelligence and the limits of the law.
Gee, why does this sound so familiar? Oh, yeah. More 70’s reruns.
J.
Shorter JayTea: It’s OK, they’re used to it.
Next up on Limbaugh: fun times with Arabic fraternity pranks.
And JayTea, are you sure the CIA officers are leaving because of this President? I seem to recall the last president exposing covert operatives for political purposes.
Gee, midder, could you be any more wrong? It might take some effort.
1) What happened to that poor guy in the UAE WAS torture. REAL torture. Not this bullshit that the CIA did.
2) Your recollection is grotesquely flawed. Plame was exposed by Richard Armitage.
But you bring up a good point. No laws were broken in the Plame case, but that didn’t matter. People were furious, so SOMEONE had to pay, whether or not any laws were broken. Kind of like in this case…
J.
So, if what was done to these terrorists was “torture,” we need a new term for what this Arabic man did to another Arabic man.
“Turborture,” perhaps?
Well, no, we don’t need a new term. It doesn’t help your case to turn a debate into a contest of extremes, nor is it useful for you to write things that seem so purposefully blind to reality.
“There is worse torture,” does not make what we did not torture. Yet every time this subject comes up, that’s the defense that ultimately gets brought out. “Other people do worse things.” Great, yes, they do. Astute observation. There are people and countries with interrogation programs worse than ours.
Jay, in another thread you tried to make an issue out of Obama’s bow to a Saudi. How can you be so hypersensitive about what that says to the world, yet be so utterly unsympathetic for what our interrogation program says?
At the very least, doesn’t our treatment of prisoners tell the world “You can also do this to our soldiers”? There’s a reason treatment like this was deemed to be illegal by the Geneva Convention. It wasn’t that it never had an effective point, but that even if torture makes our citizens safer, it makes our soldiers less safe. And they’re citizens, too.
It’s not just the waterboarding. Torture isn’t about pain alone. It’s about sleep deprivation, starvation, threats and fear. It’s about breaking down the will and defenses of an individual. Pain is merely a component. You don’t need to light someone’s testicles on fire to break them. That kind of treatment has psychological consequences. In the end, it’s not the scars you can see that were the problem.
Someone being worse than you does not excuse your behavior. A thief should not be able to get out of a charge because other thieves steal a lot more than him, and cause more damage when they’re on the way out.
And frankly, the day we need to start comparing ourselves to guys who light other guys’ testicles on fire to make ourselves feel better is not a good day.
Eric, the problem is this: there is a legal definition of torture. Passed by Congress. The CIA concocted interrogation techniques that they believed were within the letter of the law, and sought legal guidance from the Justice Department. The Justice Department carefully studied the proposed techniques and the letter of the law, and gave its opinion: they didn’t violate the law.
My point was that simply calling something “torture” because it’s unpleasant is not only dishonest, but dilutes real torture. It’s hyperbole, it’s crying wolf.
Would I want to undergo these interrogation techniques? Hell, no. (Well, maybe the caterpillar one wouldn’t be so bad.) But I wouldn’t want to undergo a standard police interrogation, either. I’m not also fond of colonoscopies, for that matter. But they do not reach the level of “torture” — except in the eyes of those with a partisan axe to grind.
As I said, kind of like the Plame case — the letter of the law doesn’t matter to the outraged; they need HEADS on PLATTERS! to sate their need for vengeance.
J.
Eric, the problem is this: there is a legal definition of torture. Passed by Congress. The CIA concocted interrogation techniques that they believed were within the letter of the law, and sought legal guidance from the Justice Department. The Justice Department carefully studied the proposed techniques and the letter of the law, and gave its opinion: they didn’t violate the law.
First, I – and the Obama Justice Department – would agree that CIA interrogators who were directed to actions under the belief that what they were doing was legal should not be punished. Yes, there are people calling for all the blood they can get, but I think it’s fair if we focus on what our government’s likely position is.
The people we need to focus on are the ones who directed the programs, and who created the legal defenses of them. If illegality is determined, these are the people who should be punished.
All that said, I believe that our laws against torture are clear and do not sanction what we did. My belief is that the Justice Department did not study the law formulate the opinion that it was legal, but worked very hard to find arguments that got them around existing laws. If that’s the case, the people who came up with these programs and the legal defenses to support them broke the law by providing the means of subverting it.
Neither of us are in a position to judge the innocence or guilt of those who directed and defended these programs, but our legal system is. I believe we need to be strong enough as a nation to shine a light at this and determine if our government broke the law. That’s all I want to see happen.
Eric, the problem is this: there is a legal definition of torture
Which allowed us to EXECUTE Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American prisoners.
Once again, JT, if waterboarding isn’t torture, why has it been a favorite method of torturers for centuries, when they could use a lot of “techniques?” (Don”t you just love that euphemism?)
I’ll tell you why. Because it doesn’t leave a mark.
JT, do you think a court would accept a confession from a defendant who had been subjected to any of these “techniques?”
You know, like banging the prisoner’s head against the wall?
And why wouldn’t the court accept a confession obtained this way? BECAUSE IT WOULDN’T BE RELIABLE.
But as far as you know, torture elicits accurate and timely information, even though the courts have found that a little slapping around or anal rape with a plunger leads to false confessions and the perversion of justice.
How do YOU know that “torture works?”
Here’s another question. Could YOU torture a bound and helpless prisoner? What kind of sick human could do such a thing?
I think that the “Does it work?” argument is irrelevant when it comes to torture. There are plenty of effective solutions to problems that we have decided not to do because they are a violation of our values or because there are consequences to their use that are worse than being less effective.
It’s more important to ask what kind of America it is we want when we’ve weathered this crisis. Do we want an America that was so risk averse, so afraid of its enemies that we would be willing to throw away the very things we once claimed made us better than them? If our enemies hate our freedom, of what value is their defeat if that freedom is the cost?
These are not esoteric questions. If this country is the greatest on Earth, it is not because we were the most effective at winning wars. It’s because we decided, as a nation, to concern ourselves more with our liberty than our security. Because the ethical ramifications of our actions were as important as the the efficacy of those actions.
I don’t care if torture works, because the America I believe in is above it.
Eric, the problem is this: there is a legal definition of torture. Passed by Congress.
Jay Tea, the problem is this: You have no idea what you’re talking about. Here’s how US law defines torture:
I’m afraid that it is people like you who are playing semantic games here.
Waterboarding, banging someone’s head against a wall, depriving them of sleep for prolonged periods, confining them in a box and placing an insect in it (specifically because the prisoner is fearful of insects), is not, as you put it, simply “unpleasant.”
All of these things are, rather, “intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” In the case of waterbaording, it is specifically designed to induce in the prisoner “the threat of imminent death.”
Only someone who is playing semantics, or else who is incredibly ignorant, would suggest that being waterboarded is akin to voluntary undergoing a medical procedure, such as a colonoscopy, during which pain medication is administered to reduce discomfort under a doctor’s care.
This is the kind of deceitful argument that the right has pushed since they first became champions of torture. But it’s the left that’s “diluting what real torture is.” Brilliant.
SpiderJ, he doesn’t need to. Idiot protesters waterboard each other in public almost every week to show how terrible it is. They don’t seem to be any the worse for wear.
See, it’s funny, because I don’t really think you’re this obtuse when you make arguments like this. I just think you’re being willfully ignorant to make what you think is a point.
The demonstrations lack the psychological subtext that somebody might actually allow them to drown. There remains a subconscious glimmer of knowledge that tells them this will end and they will be safe.
But you do know this, JT. Which beggars the question; why do you insult the very serious nature of the argument by tossing such fat ones across the plate?
As has been pointed out: the Allies won World War II without having to do any of this.
And I will ask yet again: why do we impose limits, if everything should be on the table to save American lives? Allow rape and dismemberment, Jay. Call for its legalization. It stands to reason, after all, that the more horrific we can be the faster we will get the information we need to stop the ticking time bomb.
By the way, Obama’s DNI says that the enhanced techniques produced solid, critical intelligence.
True statement.
However, Mr. Tea tells only the part of the story he likes. The DNI made other observations that Mr. Tea chooses to ignore.
J.G.Thayer: “My point was that simply calling something ‘torture’ because it’s unpleasant is not only dishonest, but dilutes real torture. It’s hyperbole, it’s crying wolf.”
And refusing to acknowledge torture when it is really torture…
Well, it’s like when you refuse to acknowledge systemic racism within the GOP. You do it because it conflicts with your political ideology.