DNI Blair Suggests the Bush Interrogation Policies Worked

If there was nothing wrong with the way the past administration conducted their interrogations, why were the tapes of so many of those CIA taped “interrogations” ordered destroyed?

Interesting. Sounds as if DNI Blair got his chain yanked by the boss. It’s okay, before long they will understand that governance actually differs from campaign season. When it comes to national security – you have to actually have a governance philiosphy, a practical policy, and experience… otherwise it’s just political blah-blah-blah. Until Obama articulates something more sensible than a defense of the ACLU – he won’t be winning the argument on the merits. If it bleeds, it leads. & Cheney smells blood in the water.

J House: “The question is, why is this admin debating the issue in the press?
Can’t they have an internal meeting and get their story consistent?”
===========================
This is a sensational story which diverts a great deal of attention away from the actions of the current admin.

The de-classifying of these memos also enables former Bush administration officials to speak out who otherwise were sworn to secrecy. People like:
Sec. of State Rices counselor at the State Dept, Philip Zellico, wrote a memo to the Bush Administration arguing that the legal opinions on torture were wrong and is speaking out for the first time this evening.

Because they didn’t want anybody to see them. The CIA is secretive like that.
*****************************
The CIA had a court order to produce all records related to its interrogation of terrorism suspects. The CIA answered by destroying 92 video tapes – some they admitted contained our torturing the detainees.
They were not being “secretive”. They were protecting their rear

They were not being “secretive”. They were protecting their
=========
I’m sure they were. Imagine if someone would have gotten a hold of them. Whether the stuff on them was legal or illegal, they were not going to let those tapes get into a 3rd party’s hands.

Coming soon to a state near you…
Many Mexicans and many Hispanics in the United States are now asking to re-examine the Treaty of Hildago, and the Gadsten Purchase. They are asking that a group of independent countries examine these treaties, and judge the “fairness” and recommend appropriate measures to assure “equity”. These treaties ceded California, Arizona, Nevada, parts of Colorado, and parts of New Mexico to the United States in the 1800′s. This movement is gathering strength. What will be the response of our Citizen?

Here’s a good one:
“One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.
“It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not.”
–Eric Holder, CNN interview, January 2002

Hi Enough,
Because they knew that eventually someone would release them to the press, where they would be put on endless loop, and serve as another propaganda tool against a country trying to protect its citizens from heartless terrorists…?

So ,torture is ok if it provides “useful” information ?
That is one of the big differences between (most) conservatives and liberals.
In general:
A conservative/republican will try to bend the constitution/law to achieve whatever end they desire at present with little regard for else ,e specially when they think/believe (truthfully or not) that the end overtly justifies the means .
A liberal/democrat will (for the most part) not allow unethical state behavior clearly prohibited by the constitution (like torture) to become the law of the land FOR ANY REASON.
If we can’t survive as a nation by upholding certain key intrinsic principles then so be it. If we can’t live by the constitution then so be it.
No country has a guarantee of success and the acceptance (or lack thereof) ,both public and political for this “torture for valuable information is ok ,constitution be damned ” OR “this isn’t really torture because WE say it isn’t ” attitude is going to be a key litmus test of the state of the national health and the actual tangible significance of the constitution and it’s true meaning as well .
(Btw ,Great Job Mr Obama , and Mr Gates as well…I feel safe enough tonight ,thanks!)

One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.
“It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not.”
–Eric Holder, CNN interview, January 2002

“The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security,” Blair concluded.”
Ok, let’s get this straight.
LA a smoldering ruin a la NYC 911 vs. the opinion of people who hate us anyway, no matter what we do.
Cheap Grace, baby. Cheap Grace.

“So, torture is ok if it provides useful’ information ?”
Waterboarding certainly is. If you want to call that torture, that’s your problem. And if God came down tomorrow and declared that waterboarding is torture, then I would unequivocally say that it is OK if it is reasonably likely to elicit information that would save innocent lives. Not a close call as far as I’m concerned, and not a close call as far as all the congressional Democrats who were briefed on the techniques were concerned, either.

The redactions in the Blair memo was a clear attempt to hide facts and opinions that would contribute to the debate of the issue.
More evidence that politics, not justice, is at the root of WH motivations.

Enough: “Terry – Actually, if you follow real foreign policy issues – you’ll know our torture has restricted our negotiating/directing power with countries who have horrible human rights violations. They have publicly questioned why they should listen to us.”
Earth to Enough–they’re still not going to listen to us.

Hi B. Bear
Of course you are right, how could I have been so foolish? I bow to your superior arguments…

Hi Sara,
Do be shocked – it feeds into the template.
But please don’t be misled either, don’t be swept along in the media fed frenzy, examine and judge for yourself…

So it’s OK to crash bullets through the brains of three men when one man is in imminent danger, but not OK to waterboard one man when all the denizens of an LA highrise are in imminent danger. Oh, the dissonance is dizzying.
How about an honest discussion of security? The subject is now being broached in interrogation situations, in hostage situations, and in surveillance situations. Maybe we’ll get around to contemplating NoKo and Persian nukes, and Russian soldiers massing in Georgia. Don’t expect a high profile in this important debate from Obama. For him, it’s run and hide. And apologize.
================================

Cheney needs to stay out of this. He’s not exactly the best face to put on this thing and he’s putting forth a stupid argument as Blair makes clear. Does he still not realize how unpopular he is?

RYAN!
Did you catch this? Do you rememeber that someone brought this up yesterday??
LOL

Jake
PLEASE ask Glibbs why they would even consider prosecute people when Congress did not object to the methods at the time and did not brand waterboarding as torture back then, but only after it became politically popular to do so. Especially in light of the value of the technique as noted by Blair.
thanks!

Is anyone really surprised about this? Seriously. obama was indoctrinated by Rev Wright for 20 years. He heard “God Da American” every Sunday; he heard that America was responsible for the 9/11 attacks; Rev wright is friends with Farraquan and Farraquan endorsed obama. obama is apologizing for America, kissing Muslim Kings (Farraquan is smiling), releasing documents meant to hurt previous administrations (rev wright is smiling)…
No surprise here. You get what you voted for. The fun is watching obama an his people trying to carry out their vision with pushback from the average American. They can use everything they have in their arsenal (Soros’ money, high-tech marketing, psychological marketing, MSM support) but the strength of the average American pushing back will overpower this ridiculous administration.
They will leave in 3 1/2 years in embarrassment as the most incompetent administration in history.
More tea parties coming soon.

Ryan
Holder did agree that these guys are not protected by the Geneva Convention. Even militias are supposed to wear identifying symbols, else theya re not protected either. They are supposed to be indentifiable separate from civilians.

waterboarding is a psychological technique and doesn’t inflict physical pain. It is equivalent to making somebody cold or subjecting then to loud noise. Real torture is what our servicemen went through in Vietnam or Korea. Just look at John McCain and you see the results of real torture in his physical appearance. Moveon.org is running the country.

Too bad the CIA won’t just tell the Obama administration to go to h#ll.
How the CIA do their jobs, keeping us safe while worrying if BO will flip-flop and decide to prosecute them?
Let the all-knowing Obama try to keep us safe
with his charming smiles and deep bows.

In my experience, even an idiot may stumble across a good idea once in a while. With torture, you may get good information occasionally, but you will also get a lot of crap to which excessive credence is given. I remember reading about a Roman Emperor who started having people tortured and killed because he suspected a plot against him. Before he was overthrown the number of “plotters” had reached into the thousands. In the days of Stalin, people were admitting to plots which never existed simply because confessing would stop the pain now, getting shot later would be a minor issue of lesser immediate importance.
Torture does not elicit the truth, it produces what the torturer expects to hear. And to conservatives, the ultimate argument should be, as someone else has pointed out, What would Jesus do?

“Let the all-knowing Obama try to keep us safe with his charming smiles and deep bows.”
That’s the incredibly simple thing that you right-wingers just can’t seem to understand: That being friendly to the other people of the world and trying to establish friendly relations with them can save alot more lives than torturing people.

That’s the incredibly simple thing that you right-wingers just can’t seem to understand: That being friendly to the other people of the world and trying to establish friendly relations with them can save alot more lives than torturing people.
Posted by: Skip | Apr 22, 2009 8:55:43 AM
_______________________________________
Typical liberal short-sightedness! The problem w/ this argument is that there are people out there that don’t give a darn about making nice w/ us. They want to kill us, or have us convert to their religion! It’s that simple. You think there is reasoning w/ OBL?? Hah! There is no problem in talking w/ our enemies if they can be reasoned with. The problem is, our enemies now are the kind that can’t! How is it you libs can’t see this very obvious point??

ABC needs to have another “What would you do”
Simulate a kidnapping of Obama’s kids.
The Obama’s receive very disturbing and graphic messages.
Someone with possible ties to it is caught and not speaking.
Let’s see what happens….

Frightening that nick or anyone else would write that it would be good for the CIA to ignore President Obama. Think about it, a secret government organization operating without supervision. How long until the Secret Organization becomes the real government. A conspiracy theory come true. The day this happens is the day that the USA becomes the old USSR.

“trying to establish friendly relations with them can save alot more lives than torturing people.”
I want to see this kumbaya stuff work with the Taliban in Pakistan.
Or Osama.

“I want to see this kumbaya stuff work with the Taliban in Pakistan.
Or Osama.”
It won’t and is not intended to. We have to establish friendly relations with the established Muslim societies and governments to cut off the flow of new recruits to these militant groups.

The bottom line is that our tails would be fried by now if these interrogation techniques were not used by the Bush Administration. We better wake up to the fact that Obama has hurt our national security.

Jake,
Can you please ask the WH why they will not prosecute former Clinton officials for sending rendition suspects to third countries we knew were going to torture them (like Egypt, which electrocutes them and beats them to a pulp on a regular basis)
There is Congress. testimony by the author of the program under Clinton who swore under oath that was exactly the policy under Clinton.
Apparently, former Clinton officials (e.g., Richard Clark) have lied about the policy in front of Congress.
Why the double standard?

Posted by: Skip | Apr 22, 2009 9:28:07 AM
How’s that working out in Pakistan?
Afghanistan?
Iran?

Posted by: jim | Apr 22, 2009 9:47:39 AM
It worked. Blair said it worked. The CIA said it worked. The persistence paid off.
And you’re calling everyone else an idiot.

There is a real-world example of the consequences of torture as a policy – Abu Ghraib.
How many American lives were lost, how many innocent Iraqi civilians died, as a result of the torture of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib? Was there intelligence gained? Probably, possibly. But when those pictures came out, it almost cost us the war. Maybe in reality it did cost us the war, who knows yet if Iraq is worth what we’ve paid.
At the time, a few low ranking soldiers were blamed and sentenced, and the incident was explained away as despicable acts of a few unbalanced soldiers. Remember Rumsfelds reaction to the photos?
Think of the prisoners there who eventually went home and told the stories of what was done to them and others, and think of the damage that caused.
Now it turns out, as Andrew Sullivan said this weekend, that the torture that went on at Abu Ghraib was not the work of a few misguided low-ranking soldiers. The torture that went on at Abu Ghraib was codified, good ole USA policy.
Think about it….

No where did he say “they worked”.
Blair actually said there is no proof that they could not have got the same information by OTHER means, other than TORTURE.
But that does not make such a great conflict and storyline which ABCNews will surely feed on.

“Blair actually said there is no proof that they could not have got the same information by OTHER means, other than TORTURE.”
Do you really think they went for waterboarding first?
Seriously?
I bet they tried plying KSM with a cup of tea and some lamb stew first. Then they probably made him watch Rosie and listen to Britney Spears.

Blair said “I made clear that the CIA should not be punished for carrying out legal orders.”
so Blair is the US Attorney General now? we let foreign nationals tell us what is legal and illegal in the US, who should and shouldn’t be punished? with all due respect, Mr Blair, stick to business and legality in your own nation.

drjohn—you completely misread my post, doctor. i said Clinton officials should be prosecuted. i did not say it was “cool in the Clinton administration.” i said “i agree with you on the “double standard.” officials from any administration should be held to the same standard, so definitely Clinton administration officials should also be subject to prosecution. and the current administration as well as the previous one.”
where did i say torture was cool in the Clinton administration?!

The problem Paul, is that they won’t, because they are more interested in politics, not justice.
This entire issue could have been handled without being played out in the press (even among the President’s own people,like Blair, yet at that!)
When the WH redacted the parts of the memos they didn’t like, it was clear then that politics took precedent.

There are things we *never* do to our trainees, like electrodes to the genitals, cigarette burns, hungry rats in open cages strapped to their bodies- and we didn’t do those to the terrorists either.
__________________________________
Some would argue, we did worse. Examples are given in the full article just referenced here, but they are to graphic to post.
“A fifty-three-page report, obtained by The New Yorker, written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba and not meant for public release, was completed in late February. Its conclusions about the institutional failures of the Army prison system were devastating. Specifically, Taguba found that between October and December of 2003 there were numerous instances of “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” at Abu Ghraib. This systematic and illegal abuse of detainees, Taguba reported, was perpetrated by soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company, and also by members of the American intelligence community. (The 372nd was attached to the 320th M.P. Battalion, which reported to Karpinski’s brigade headquarters.) ”
(New Yorker)

J House—and i still agree with you. i hope that changes. i hope if prosecutions come that they come against all administrations (current and previous). i doubt the current administrations would prosecute only Bush officials. of course right now it is only grandstanding, barely political. nothing will be done and no one will be charged and that is the true tragedy.

sorry, Enough, you were responding to someone else. i am not disagreeing with you.

J House—i’m sorry did the president say President Bush will or should be prosecuted? if trials ever do happen (which they won’t).

Posted by: Paul Wall | Apr 22, 2009 10:09:24 AM
I did not post it to quote you, but to get your attention and pose the question.

Regardless, if the U.S. mainland is hit again, the President’s motives are going to be questioned and CIA may just hang him out to dry because he politicized it in this way.
The President has the audacity to hope that that moment never comes.

“The information acquired from these captures allowed CIA interrogators to pose more specific questions to KSM, which led the CIA Hambali’s brother, al-HadL Using information obtained from multiple sources, al-Hadi “vas captured, and he subsequently identified the Guraba cell. With the aid of this additional information, interrogations ofHambali
confirmed much of what was learned from KSM”
Amy
This information stopped an attack on Los Angeles.
Now please tell all of us- if you could, would you reach back in time and stop these interrogations if it meant that Los Angeles would suffer an attack similar to 9-11?
Any of you can answer this.

Blair’s comments that our interests have been damaged is not supported by any data and his comment that those damages outweigh any benefit to our own citizens is outrageous. It is not unlikely that the lives of thousand of Los Angelenos have been saved.
Why do some of you swallow that line so uncritically?
=============================

Any objective observer noting the circumspection with which we applied these techniques and the indiscrimination with which al Qaeda applied its horror will not fault us. Thus, to objective observers, our interests have not been damaged.
What Blair is arguing is that to those susceptible to propaganda we have been made to look bad. Were he not a good match for the disinformation rampant in this administration, he would be trying to make the point for objective observers rather than reinforcing the decayed propaganda.
See how insidious this evil is? Oh, well, our enemies are not fooled. The chance that they will be emboldened to attack is much increased with this administration compared to the last one, and the course of future events is going to be quite persuasive. Our President, and his lackeys, are fools.
=========================

With all this talk of moral compasses from Obama, you’d think he didn’t vote four times to allow babies born alive after abortions to die on shelves alone. I digress…
Let’s hope that this petty hyper partisan act on Obama’s part pays off. For once, I hope he DOES succeed. God FORBID a city is wiped out because we were too afraid to threaten the lives of those who were determined to annihilate our citizens. What city or people group is expendable to you?
Oh, the cognitive dissonance of the left.

drjohn said “I did not post it to quote you, but to get your attention and pose the question.” i specifically said in my post that i thought Clinton administration officials should be subject to prosecution. you wrote “Why was torture cool under the Clinton administration?” i NEVER said i thought it was cool for members of the Clinton administration to torture. please read my posts. you got my attention by imlying that i thought torure in the Clinton administration was “cool.” that is diametrically opposed to all i have written. please read my post again, doctor.

Now please tell all of us- if you could, would you reach back in time and stop these interrogations if it meant that Los Angeles would suffer an attack similar to 9-11?
****************************
Ah – yes, to be able to go back in time….
“But, in terms of the tragedy of 9/11, a particular regret lingers for those who might have
made a difference. The alarming August 6, 2001, memo from the CIA to the President-”Bin Laden
Determined to Strike in US”-has been widely noted in the past few years.
But, also in August, CIA analysts flew to Crawford to personally brief the President-to intrude
on his vacation with face-to-face alerts. The analytical arm of CIA was in a kind of panic mode at this point. Other intelligence services, including those from the Arab world, were sounding an alarm. The arrows were all in the red. They didn’t know place or time of an attack, but something was coming. The President need to know…And, at an eyeball-to-eyeball intelligence briefing during this urgent summer, George W. Bush seems to have made the wrong
choice. He looked hard at the panicked CIA briefer. “All right,” he said. “You’ve covered
your a.., now.” ” (Suskind)

Enough- that’s Abu Gharib.
Posted by: MayBee | Apr 22, 2009 10:18:18 AM
************************************
Major Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who commanded the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay helped set up U.S. operations at Abu Ghraib.
Miller went to Iraq in 2003 to assist in Abu Ghraib’s startup. He ordered to Iraq “Tiger Teams” of GTMO interrogators as advisers and trainers.

‘Enough’,
I’d be the first one to discredit the Bush admin re AQ prior to 9/11…they did little or nothing to advance the same feckless Clinton policy.
But, the Aug memo and Crawford meetings were not going to stop that attack. That analysis was general, weak and stale news.
Could the govt have stopped it? Yes.
CIA and FBI dropped the ball because of their longstanding pissing match.
They had 2 of the hijackers under watch at an AQ planning meeting in Malaysia,before they went to Bangkok, then L.A…they let them get into the U.S. FBI ‘says’ CIA didn’t notify anyone.CIA says ‘BS, we told you’
They did nothing about it for 2 yrs, THEN they started looking for them in 8/2001.
And then it happened…
What if we had caught and waterboarded THEM on 8/2001?
All you posters out there tell me, would it have been worth it?
Would it have really been ‘a false choice between our security and our principles’?

What if we had caught and waterboarded THEM on 8/2001?
J House—”All you posters out there tell me, would it have been worth it?
Would it have really been ‘a false choice between our security and our principles’?
if “THEY” had been caught in August 2001 there would have been no 9/11.
what is your strong attachment to torture. there are other ways of gaining actionable intelligence without torture. but since these are Muslims and from Islamic countries you are all in favor of torture whether they are innnocent or not.
we were attcaked because we had lax security and you can blame President Clinton and President Bush for that.
we weren’t attacked because we were not practicing torture.

Paul I don’t approve of torture, even though I seem to make the case for it.
I want the President to be HONEST about what he is saying.
Some experts and his some of his own Executive say this weakens our security, and the ‘take’ is valuable.If possibly giving that up is the tradeoff for our moral stance, then the President should say it.
But, when he calls it a ‘false choice’, I am showing you he is being dishonest about it.
He even went to CIA yesterday and told everyone ‘your job will be harder’ because of his new policy.
What does that mean?
To me, he is telling them,’we may not get the information from these interrogations any more.You’ll need to work harder and get it some other way”
Admitting he is tying their hands…

“If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is ‘America’.”
Quote by Captain Ian Fishback
Army Captain known for his letter sent to Senator John McCain re: Iraq & torture.. Widely available on-line.

J House—i don’t think the president is “tying anyone’s hands” (ironic metaphor). torture is against the law here in the United States and in international laws. not allowing CIA agents to torture people is THE LAW not some political talking point. should the president encourage american public servants to break the law? he is giving CIA agents good advice when he suggests they obey the constitution.

The debate isn’t so theoretical either when you are peacefully having dinner at the beach one night in Jimburan, Bali and 2 days later a suicide bomber murders the employees and guests at the exact same spot.
Those Muslim employees don’t give a damn about that guy’s beliefs and I know what Indonesia will do to them if they fail to detonate their load.

He even went to CIA yesterday and told everyone ‘your job will be harder’ because of his new policy.
What does that mean?
**************************
Al Zarqawi was the US’s biggest target in early ’06. Torture yielded nothing so a team of specialist were flown in to use “non-coercive” techniques. They were able to break the case. The success rate of cooperation jumps from roughly 20% with coercive techniques to roughly 75% with non-coercive.
The majority of seasoned military officials will tell you, this takes training and a lot of it. They have lamented our Government pulling money and resources away from this type of training.
Torturing someone does not require that much training and effort.
As an after thought, with FISA, Homeland Security and the billions upon billions we have spent making us safer – we still supposedly HAD to resort to barbaric, unAmerican torture tactics to save one of our own cities.. doesn’t add up.

Paul…”This is America, we care for the innocent?” What the current administration is doing is at “expense of the innocent.” Look I have a 2 week old and I live in Los Angeles…And that changes everything, personally. Yes, we must protect the innocent and if that means “enhanced interrogation” methods to save those innocent lives so be it…
May, 2005 memo regarding the two top al Qaedas operatives, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah: “the CIA believes the ‘the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a KEY reason who al Qaeda has FAILED to launch a SPECTACULAR ATTACK in the West since 11 September 2001……..Washington Post, April 21, 2009
A BIG THANK YOU TO THOSE INVOLVED…
Torture defined as SEVERE physical pain..you know like blowing bodies apart as in terrorist acts of violence; perhaps you should try to convince the terrorist that torture is wrong…We on the other hand DO NOT INFLECT SEVERE PAIN…BUT DO PROVIDE AN UNCOMFORTABLE AVENUE..
RELEASE THE MEMOS MR PRESIDENT AND LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE!!!

Well, ‘enough’, I have to agree that if we have something that is more effective, we use it…call it whatever you want.’Non-coercive’?
Is that like, ‘pretty please’?
The argument breaks down to three issues
1) Morality-is it right, or wrong?
2) Cost/Benefit- you addressed it in your post, as do other ‘experts’ who disagree with you
3) Legality-Did the former President do it legally?
The former President seems to have done it legally (although you can argue he ‘shopped’ legal opinions for a favorable memo)
1) He got a legal opinion from Justice/WH counsel
2) He wrote an authorization for it
3) He notified Congress
4) CIA seems to have stayed within the legal guidelines of the auth
If Bush admin had NOT done any one of these things, there would be a clear case to move towards prosecutions, it seems.
They want to go after them for (1).

Posted by: Parallax View
” Release the memos and let the people decide not the politicians..”
I want to know about everything about the 8 years of Bush’s administration… get it all out in the open

whether torture is effective or not is irrelevant. it is against US and international law. international law has included “waterboarding” as torture and never allowable. torture is against US law (not just statutory law but constitutional law as well). the president has ended the practice of torture by CIA agents so the US is now in compliance with its own laws and those of the international community.

J House—the Congress doesn’t need to do anything. torture is illegal in the US. as i suggested earlier you can change that with a constitutional amendment. if you want congress to act you must get involved and contact your congressman and tell him/her you want the constitution amended.

MayBee—it’s as simple as this. do we obey the constitution, US laws against torture and international laws or do we break them? are laws there to break, easy-come-easy-go? do laws mean anything? should we all be anarchists?
TORTURE IS AGAINST THE LAW, in the US and outside it.

Enough What does the Constitution have to do with enhanced interrogation techniques???? Your definition of moral ethics???? I believe saving hundreds it not thousands of innocent lives, through these techniques, has EVERYTHING to do with moral ethics, don’t you…Let’s see, should we save countless lives or should we step back and let our children die in the name of your definition of ethics…Guess I am a person who sees an unjustice about to happen against the innocent and tries to prevent it rather than stepping back to think about the consequences to our image or your version of ethics….NOW WHO IS REALLY THE LIBERAL HERE???

I’m not a lawyer so I won’t profess to know what is considered ‘torture’ or if what they did was ‘legal’.
I do know that if Congress thought it was illegal and they did nothing, they are culpable.
I also applaud Jane Harman for coming forth today and asking that the NSA woretap transcripts be released, as well as welcoming a Justice investigation.
Ball is in your court, Mr. Holder.
You’ve got to wonder..she claims she ‘had a written guarantee to be committee chairman’, but she got the boot.
Why? For what reason did she become ‘radioactive’ to Nancy Pelosi?

“Sorry BO, in spite of your weaknesses, you are the president. It’s your call.”
Actually, no it isn’t. Or it shouldn’t be. Regardless of what the president thinks, if the Justice Department under AG Holder determines that laws were broken, they have a duty to pursue legal action, even if the president doesn’t agree. If Holder feels he cannot be honest broker due to his ties to the president, then a special/independent prosecutor should be appointed to handle the case. At least that’s how it’s supposed to work. Didn’t work that way under Bush where the DOJ was highly politicized, but that’s the way it’s supposed to work. (the president, of course, always has the option to pardon/commute any sentences handed down)
And second those calling BS on the “but it worked!” argument. Torture is illegal according to US and international law. It’s also inhumane and immoral, at least by Western standards. Executing all people who commit a crime, no matter how minor, will ensure that they will never commit a crime again. It would be very effective. But we’d never do that, would we? (although I fear that some of the folks out there defending torture might think that that absurd scenario I just laid out actually is a good idea)
The conventional wisdom that the release of memos proving the Bush administration justified, ordered, and carried out torture is a problem for Obama is just more evidence of how ridiculous our political discourse has become in this country. And I put a large portion of the blame for that on the media, who are more focused on how this might effect Obama’s agenda (how, I don’t know…but that’s Jake and his pals are saying) than on the fact that the previous president of our nation made torture a policy of our intelligence services. These are the same brave souls – ie, the media – who STILL refuse to refer to obvious torture as “torture” because they live in mortal fear of the right wing attack machine. Heck, Jonah Goldberg even said that waterboarding somebody 183 times is torture (not that he’s against it) yet the most folks like Jake will say is, “Some have said that these methods constitute torture.”
I find it hard to believe there are actually two sides to this issue. I do still live in the United States, right? It’s bizarre that we are arguing over the effectiveness of torture. The only thing we should be saying is that torture is wrong/immoral/illegal and we don’t torture. Period.

“I do know that if Congress thought it was illegal and they did nothing, they are culpable.”
Yes, they are….regardless of party.

“Torture is defined, UN Convention, as SEVERE physical pain or mental….Yes, we signed the UN Convention of Torture as defined above”
After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: “I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure.” He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. “Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning,” he replied, “just gasping between life and death.”
“There is NO Federal Law criminalizing torture.”
In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners’ civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to “subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning.”
The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in priso

Once again Obama has really stepped in it.
Not only did his own man (Blair) say that harsh techniques yielded high level info–but Congress was briefed and knew all about it.
Good job rookie.
Way to throw Rahm, and the CIA under the bus.

“The constitution doesn’t really have laws against tough interrogation,”
The 8th amendment seems pretty damn clear.
“and I doubt you could have gotten our founding fathers to stop putting prisoners in the stocks in the townsquare long enough to car about it.”
Now our founding fathers supported torture!
How low will the right wing go?
But in all seriousness, are you that clueless about American history and the issue of pressing into service by the British Navy?

nobody has been convicted for a war crime strictly for water boarding, ryan.
The sheriff wouldn’t have been allowed to hit the guys to get a confession, let alone water board them.

No. I’m saying the people who keep trying to “prove” that water boarding = torture and should be prosecuted on the basis that the US has convicted people for water boarding are comparing apples and oranges.
People disagree about what constitutes torture and whether the CIA programs were justified, and I think if we’re going to have a reasonable debate we should be honest about the information we’re presenting.

It is becoming a pattern with this President to make it sound all too easy-
*We can run our national debt to $9.3 trillion and the ‘rich’ will pay for all of it, along with the ‘back-end’ savings’
*We’ll get national health care too for that amount, and, it’ll save us money!
*…And a new national transportation system (something called ‘trains’), which will make huge paybacks later
*The Iranians are just like us and share the same hopes and dreams.Surely they will give up their 20 yr quest for nuclear weapons and the security they provide a nation-state that has them
He mentioned that ‘all Americans’ would share in the burden’ during the campaign…but has he asked all Americans to pay for this? No.
He should raise EVERYONE’s taxes to pay for this if he is honest about it.
But he can’t, because he is a captive.

ryanc Confessions of robbing your local 7 eleven or confessions relating to the plan execution of hundreds of people by blowing them apart…..PLEEEZE there has to be a point of reality here…Does making my kid eat brussel sprouts constitute torture…my kid may think so………
YES…Force the issue, we need a Federal Law stating when is it ok to use enhanced interrogation methods….PUT IT ON PAPER…

“Please state WHAT FEDERAL LAW IS BEING VIOLATED???? Cite WHAT FEDERAL CRIMINALIZING TORTURE??”
I leave it to you to scour the law books to prove your point. But I will say this – if a member of a police department in any US city, town, state, etc, engage in the torture that the Bush administration implemented as policy, he/she would be thrown off the force, charged with whatever crime applied in his/her state, and likely end up in the slammer. Regardless, your argumement is as strained as those that Bybee, Yoo, et all put forward – ie, using whatever legal argument that is available out there – however specious – to justify torturing human beings. Systemized torture, my friend, is unbecoming of our great nature. In fact, I’d say it’s un-American.

In 1945 seven German POWs on American soil were tortured by “kicking and gassing” until they confessed to the murder of one of their fellow prisoners who they believed was an informant. They were tried by a military court and convicted solely on the basis of those confession. They were sentenced to death by hanging; Harry Truman personally authorized the execution; and in August–after the end of the war–the seven men were serially hanged at Ft. Leavenworth.
Now close your eyes and try to imagine President Dwight Eisenhower publicly disclosing memos surrounding these events, and suggesting that his attorney general might elect to prosecute anyone involved, from Truman on down.
Imagine Ike electing to investigate and prosecute those responsible for FDR’s unlawful imprisonment of thens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry.
Ask yourself where we have now arrived.

“if it is so innocucous why don’t you and your family do it for fun or use it as a disciplinary tool for the kids.”
If it is unlawful torture how come they did it to me and thousands of others at SERE training?
(I don’t suppose those kids were likely to have any information that could save innocent lives. Waterboarding was never used on any unlawful combatant for discipline or punishment.)

“Your willingness to throw away America’s constitutional principles and law during a time of turmoil makes you what?.”
It makes me Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, among others.

OGLiberal—i agree with your point completely. i think any police officer performing this “method” on a US citizen would not only be fired but criminally charged for assault, battery and perhaps attempted murder. civil rights charges would face the officer. any information gained would be inadmissible in any court of law.
as a society we are not a nation that would ever see waterboarding as anything other than what it is—criminal brutalization of a suspect.

” if a member of a police department in any US city, town, state, etc, engage in the torture that the Bush administration implemented as policy, he/she would be thrown off the force…”
Of course they would–they’d have been using it to extract confessions or to punish, not to gather intelligence to save American civilian lives.

“any information gained would be inadmissible in any court of law.”
Of course it would, which is why it is pointless for cops to do it. It is altogether different if the goal is not to obtain evidence for use at trail, but to acquire intelligence that could save innocent life–as Admiral Blair and countless others have acknowledged occurred here.

Fascist Hyena—”If it is unlawful torture how come they did it to me and thousands of others at SERE training?”…ROFLMFAO. you seriously don’t get it do you? IF you ever did have SERE training it was precisely for the purpose that you might be tortured with it and the armed services want their soldiers to know what to expect. this training is well-controlled. the subject (service-man) can stop the waterboarding at anytime it becomes physically or psychologically intolerable. it is an assimlation of torture. what makes waterboarding torture is that the subject (victim) does not know that this form of torture won’t kill him. indeed waterboarding does have a grave physical risk, laryngospasm, which is lethal. we do not know if there have been any fatal waterboardings. but with secret governement, extraordinary renditions, etc. you don’t get answerts to these questions.

Throwing away constitutional principles???? Please state what constitutional principles I would be throwing away??? Here’s one…how about LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS…I AM ALL FOR THAT BUT ARE YOU..How about you Enough…just how much, or who, are you willing to scarafice for the world community in order to create your image on how the world should view America AND are you willing to preach to our turbulent foes as well…as Bush did in Iraq and Obama is doing now….Again, WHO IS THE LIBERAL AND WHO IS NOT….TEND YOUR OWN GARDEN…

“Here’s one…how about LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.”
That’s the Declaration of Independence.

Throwing away constitutional principles????
**********************
Asked and answered. I can’t animate it for you.
Habeus corpus; 5th and 8th amendments.
If you can’t see how we are sacrificing our principles, I must surmise you don’t have any from which to draw an acceptable and reasonable conclusion.

John Adams’ Alien and Sedition acts were wrong. What Lincoln did re: suspending habeas corpus was wrong. What Wilson re: the Palmer Raids was wrong. What FDR did re: the Japanese-Americans was wrong. Two, three, four, etc, wrongs don’t make a right.
And guess what none of them did? They didn’t torture anybody and they certainly didn’t make it government policy. We can have a argument about whether or not those who ordered, justified, and carried out the torture – or who turned away upon learnding of that torture (I’m looking at you, congressional Dems in the know) – should be subject to criminal prosecution. But I’m seeing a uncomfortable number of people not only saying that nobody should get in trouble for this activity but that the activity itself was A-OK. That’s the most disturbing part in all of this.
I’m a liberal so of course I do nuance and I see lots of shades of gray when it comes to many issues. But some things really are black or white. Torture is one of those things. It’s wrong. Period.

Parallax View—the reason you are so sensitive about a family waterboarding weekend is that you know very well what waterboarding is. it was a rhetorical question not a literal one. i apologize if i hurt your feelings. my aim was just to point out that waterboarding is torture (and sorry you don’t recognize the jurisdiction if the International Criminal Court—it just sentenced chief perpetrator of the Rwandan genocide, Theoniste Bagosora, to life in prison and is currently trying Charles Taylor, President of Liberia for War Crimes and Crimes against humanity). i know you are unconcerned about any other nation or international crimes until they happen to “precious, innocent” americans.
it’s pointless to debate the issue any further because there is also a moral consideration to the arguement and since you have no problem with torture just as long as it saves amaerican lives, i do not inhabit the same moral universe as you.
sorry again for my remarks that offended you.

Enough…With all due respect the same may be said about your opinions…
RyanC…To use a term that is all too familiar today, please let me clarify, Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness is simply used to express how I feel about our right defend…and if ENHANCED INTERRORGATION is incorporated to pursue this ideal so be it….

“I’m a liberal so of course I do nuance and I see lots of shades of gray when it comes to many issues.”
Oh, congratulions to you! It’s quite clear that you are my moral superior; I wouldn’t dare contest that obvious fact.
“They didn’t torture anybody.” False. Look into Lincoln’s Camp Douglas outside Chicago–makes Gitmo look like Michael Jackson’s place.

No Paul….you made it personal..and yes, I would use water boarding on a monster who has absolutely no respect for innocent life, weather that life be Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or whatever and NOT regret it for an instant…

Is this indeed one of the cornerstones of the right-wing argument? -That since great American leaders of the past admittedly made mistakes that we should be free to repeat them?

“Is this indeed one of the cornerstones of the right-wing argument? -That since great American leaders of the past admittedly made mistakes that we should be free to repeat them?”
No. It has heretofore been one of the cornersones of the American argument that our remedies in such matters lie at the ballot box. We have over two centuries of an accord by which presidents do not undertake criminal prosections of their predecessors, Ford’s pardon of Nixon being a salient example. Ford paid for it two years later, but there is a rather large consensus now that he did the appropriate thing in sparing the nation a true ordeal.
If Obama allows prosecutions to go forward, I can give you my solemn promise that he will regret it, and so will the country.

What disincentive is there then for an administration to disregard the law if they weigh the risk and decide that a penalty at the bailout box is worth paying? At some point the crime may exceed the possible penalty.

“Just that they managed to be remembered in history as “great leaders” rather than “convicted ex-presidents”.”
Because US history is taught more as propaganda than actual history?
“Do you think the country would be a better place now had we convicted the former members of the Lincoln and Roosevelt administrations?”
Perhaps.
It would at least stop right wingers from claiming we cannot prosecute the latest injustice since we did not do so for another injustice 150 or 60 years ago respectively.

If you’ve read my posts, you will notice that I am not making any arguments for or against pursuing prosecution. My point is that what we did was torture and torture is wrong. The Bush administration was wrong for ordering and justifying this torture, the CIA was wrong for proposing and implementing this torture, and those in the know in Congress were wrong for keeping their mouths shut. My biggest problem with this debate is that many of the folks arguing against taking criminal action against the responsible parties are arguing that no action is needed because this torture was not a big deal, not illegal, and completely justified and moral. I’ll take heat from my liberal brethren for this statement but I actually lean towards not prosecuting anybody over this matter. But I can also see the other side of that argument – if you do nothing, what’s to prevent this from happening again? Regardless of what happens on that front, shedding light on what happened and how it happened is necessary and important, especially if there are not going to be prosecutions of those involved.
And, again, none of those former presidents tortured people and if it happened on their watch, it was not sanctioned by them and it certainly wasn’t official government policy.

Fascist Hyena
your trying real hard to justify torture, not working, you can quote the entire history of the US f you want, still does not mitigate now….
your boys tortured to try to establish a non-existent link between Al-Queda and Iraq…

“They didn’t torture anybody.” False. Look into Lincoln’s Camp Douglas outside Chicago–makes Gitmo look like Michael Jackson’s place.”
Yes, it was a horrible place and so was the Confederate prison at Camp Sumter. but mostly because of the living conditions, not because of active torture. If POWs were tortured in these and other Civil War-era camps, was that torture the official policy of the Lincoln Adminstration (or the Jeff Davis administration)? Did folks working for Edward Bates write memos justifying that torture?

“Because US history is taught more as propaganda than actual history?”
Taught by whom? What would the teachers’ unions and their Democratic handmaidens have to say about that canard?
At least we have a clear view of where Ryan C is approaching us from. Folks, we’re talking fever swamps here.

“it’s was OK to impeach Clinton for lying about sex but it’s not alright to investigate Bush & Co. about Iraq, torture, wiretapping Americans and so much more?”
Clinton was not criminally prosecuted, although he was sanctioned $90,000 dollars for lying under oath, there being no exception when the subject matter is sex.
Shall we investigate Mr. Obama for wiretapping Americans? He’s been in officer three months and it’s already happening.

“But you could find out about any ties they had – or, as it turned out, lack of ties – without torturing people.”
Perhaps, perhaps not. I wasn’t there, but it’s my understanding that waterboarding was used on only three men, and only after all other measures had run dry.
Let’s be honest: this entire uproar, fueled unnecessarily by Obama, ia about Bush hatred and the absolute rage the left has about the fact that he kept the nation miraculously safe in the aftermath of 9/11. It is simply not in the leftist DNA to give credit for that signal achievement.

“If…B) We did not live thru the Republican prosecution of all things Clinton in the 90′s.”
Please identify each and every Clinton administration official who has been prosecuted by a Republican president.

“I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life…. And how stands the city on this winter night? … After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true to the granite ridge, and her glow has held no matter what storm. And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.”
America can not remain the shining city on the hill as Reagan so often spoke of and condone torture.

“America can not remain the shining city on the hill as Reagan so often spoke of and condone torture.”
Was it a shining city under Lincoln? Under FDR? Under Truman?

And if Matt Drudge hadn’t ‘outed’ the whole Lewinsky affair, Jonathan Pollard would be a free man today.
The Israelis were tapping Clinton’s calls and knew about it.When reporters got word of it (Isakoff), it compromised the operation.
In the Starr Report, Lewinsky says under oath Clinton told her his phone was being tapped…by guess who?
The Israelis came back anyway to get Pollard sprung at the end of Clinton’s term, during the ‘peace talks’. He didn’t do it, because Tenet told him he would quit immediately. it is more likely they had nothing on him anymore.
The greatest story never told.

“Let’s be honest: this entire uproar, fueled unnecessarily by Obama, ia about Bush hatred and the absolute rage the left has about the fact that he kept the nation miraculously safe…”
I’ll be honest with you: I don’t need Obama to fuel my rage, and it’s not because I hate Bush. I don’t want any administration to think that they can just violate the Geneva Convention as they see fit. I realize that there is debate over whether or not that is the case, or whether or not we should prosecute anybody for it. But if you recognize the hornets nest these issues stirred up in this country, imagine how mad the Muslim world is about it.

“Please identify each and every Clinton administration official who has been prosecuted by a Republican president.”
ROFLMAO!
Keep moving those goalposts.

“What proper US history course would teach that Lincoln and Roosevelt were convicted ex-presidents?”
None, since neither were convicted.
But the discussion of Lincoln beyond Gettysburg and the Emancipation Proclamation would be nice before college.
As would a look at FDR’s various policies including internment.
And that doesn’t even touch on the last 50 years or so which is not taught with any depth whatsoever.

fascist Hyena:
re: ‘If Obama allows prosecutions to go forward, I can give you my solemn promise that he will regret it’
‘my solemn promise’…?
dude you’ve seen ‘V’ way too many times,
put the remote down and walk away from the TV

Hey I want President Bush et.al. to be put on trial by his peers and the full story released! I would like Pelosi,Harman,Rockefeller to also be defendents as they were:
In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
“The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,” said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange”.
ASKED if the METHODS were tough enough!
Yes lets put all of us on trail because right after 9/11 I was looking over my shoulder for any potential attack! People also seem to forget the anthrax attacks close after. No one seems to remember that paranoia event. So let the truth be known. These thug/terrorists were not covered under POW/Geneva Convention …at that time!
so please let the truth come out and all of you Bush haters will wither in the light of the truth!

Parallax View—i know well your opnions and who you would use waterboarding it on. the debate has always been about is waterboarding torture. that you call those you wish to apply it to “monsters” implies clearly that you do belive waterboarding is torture and relish in its application. that you would apply these techniques with relish to people you know might be innocent is abhorrent but not suprising. because you can never know if a person is guilty of not. and torture yields false confessions. and it hurts innocent people. and could not care less. “kill them all, let God sort ‘em out.” i understand you now.

Maybee—”we have always understood that convicting our former presidents for difficult security decisions was/is a horrible idea.”
i agree with you. i do not think President Bush should be prosecuted. i consider Cheney to be much more culpable and responsible and do not think his prosecution would be a bad idea at all. throughout his career he has shown nothing but contempt for the rule of law.
i also believe President Bush was given legal advice which he relied on and shouldn’t have, which makes the lawyer culpable.

the point that is lost is that torture isn’t up for public opinion or a vote. it’s prohibited and we know it is prohibited because the president had to have an elaborate legal philosophy constructed to enable its use. no federal judge would grant that torture by the government is legal in any circumstance.
it is well-documented and agreed that water-boarding is torture. that’s intolerable in US law and the law of nations.

Torture prohibited…up for debate…Mass murder prohibited…absolutely…

I sometimes wonder if Fox didn’t create ’24′ just for this purpose. They certainly have the motive and the resources, especially if they knew they could make a boatload of money while they were doing it.

This is reality RyanC..No matter how much you wish to bury your head in the sand and avoid this…Tell the family members of every terrorist attack that has taken place on American soil that it really did not happen, they are imagining it and stuck in a TV land that their love ones really didn’t die….WOW probably about the stupidest thing I’ve seen written, by you, yet on this site….

“Someone tell Parallax that “24″ is a fictional TV show.”
The funny thing, Ryan, is how close it came to attack on Los Angeles.
You do make us wonder whether you believe 9-11 really happened or whether a man really stepped on the moon.