What Was Churchill’s Torture Policy?
EmailLast week, in response to a question I asked him at a press conference about torture, President Obama said:
"I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, ‘we don’t torture,’ when the entire British — all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat. And then the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking short-cuts, over time, that corrodes what’s — what’s best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country."
White House aides say that they think the article the president was alluding to was a blog post The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan wrote about relatives of his hurt in the blitz, where he noted that the British captured over 500 enemy spies during that period.
"As Britain’s very survival hung in the balance, as women and children were being killed on a daily basis and London turned into rubble, Churchill nonetheless knew that embracing torture was the equivalent of surrender to the barbarism he was fighting," Sullivan wrote.
He then turned to a February 2006 Times of London story by Ben McIntyre about the chief interrogator at Camp 020, Colonel Robin “Tin Eye” Stephens, headlined: "The truth that Tin Eye saw: The celebrated wartime spy-breaker was terrifying — but he understood that torture never works."
Stephens "had ways of making anyone talk," wrote McIntyre. "In a top secret report, recently declassified by MI5 and now in the Public Records Office, he listed the tactics needed to break down a suspect: ‘A breaker is born and not made…pressure is attained by personality, tone, and rapidity of questions, a driving attack in the nature of a blast which will scare a man out of his wits.’
"The terrifying commandant of Camp 020 refined psychological intimidation to an art form. Suspects often left the interrogation cells legless with fear after an all-night grilling. An inspired amateur psychologist, Stephens used every trick, lie and bullying tactic to get what he needed; he deployed threats, drugs, drink and deceit. But he never once resorted to violence. …As one colleague wrote: ‘The Commandant obtained results without recourse to assault and battery. It was the very basis of Camp 020 procedure that nobody raised a hand against a prisoner.’"
McIntyre recently revisited his story noting that "the facts had altered slightly" as his 2006 story jumped from Sullivan to President Obama. Most notably, "Stephens’s prohibition on torture had been transformed into official Churchillian policy. But in a wider sense, Mr Obama was right: Churchill presided over a military machine that generally regarded torture as unnecessary, unethical, unproductive and un-British. He never exactly said ‘we don’t torture’, but he did not need to."
So did Churchill say "We don’t torture"?
Not literally, according to experts.
But more importantly did he hold that policy?
A November 2005 story in the Guardian details torture by British soldiers between 1940 and 1948, at the Combined Services Detailed Interrogation Centre — known as the "London Cage" — run by MI19, responsible for interrogating enemy prisoners of war.
The Guardian concluded that the London Cage "was used partly as a torture centre," where 3,573 German officers and soldiers were brutally interrogated. SS Captain Fritz Knoechlein, taken to the Cage in October 1946, alleged he was starved, beaten and kept awake for four days straight.
The author of the story, Ian Cobain, told NPR last Friday described The Cage as an interrogation center "the British ran during and immediately after the Second World War, which German officers, suspected spies or some civilians would be interrogated. And the methods used there, most people would agree, were torture. We used sleep deprivation. We used beatings. We used exposure to extreme heat and extreme cold. And at the Cage, at least, we used the threat of unnecessary surgery."
So did Churchill know about The London Cage?
* "We don’t know what detail he knew about what was happening in interrogation centers," Cobain said. "Clearly, he would have known there were interrogation centers. There’s no evidence that Churchill knew that people were being tortured there. And of course, Churchill was himself a prisoner of war, and during the Boer War, and wrote at length about his horror of war and his horror of imprisonment."
* Sullivan asked Darius Rejali, author of Torture and Democracy, what he thought as to whether Churchill knew about The London Cage.
"You can prove something is policy in two ways. The top down approach is to find the document that authorizes the abuse, torture or genocide. This is often hard to find. They are often classified, destroyed, or demolished by war. The second way the bottom up approach, and its axiom is the Nuremburg Rule which is foundational to all human rights work done today.
"The Nuremburg Rule is: Uniformity of practice indicates uniformity of intent," Rejali wrote. "When the same practices appear in different places and times within a given country, or among a series of prisons around the world, in cases of individuals who are unknown to each other, it is hard not to conclude that there is a deliberate state policy to torture."
In his exhaustive research, Rejali only found some accounts of torture in a single memoir by an Japanese POW, Iitoyo Shogo, who was in a British POW camps in Indonesia. "Thus, Torture and Democracy shows that the bottom up approach fails to establish that what happened at the London Cage was policy."
* On the other hand, of President Obama’s quoting Churchill saying "We don’t torture," Churchill scholar Richard Langworth writes that "While it’s nice to hear the President invoke Sir Winston, the quotation is unattributed and almost certainly incorrect. While Churchill did express such sentiments with regard to prison inmates, he said no such thing about prisoners of war, enemy combatants or terrorists, who were in fact tortured by British interrogators during World War II.
Langworth writes that the word "torture” appears 156 times in his "digital transcript of Churchill’s 15 million published words (books, articles, speeches, papers) and 35 million words about him—but not once in the subject context. Similarly, key phrases like ‘character of a country’ or ‘erodes the character’ do not track. Churchill spoke frequently about torture, mostly enemy murders of civilians. His daughter once told me, ‘He would have done anything to win the war, and I daresay he had to do some pretty rough things—but they didn’t unman him.’ But if Churchill is on record about ‘enhanced interrogation,’ his words have yet to surface."
The nearest Langworth could come to those sentiments "refers not to terrorists but to prison inmates. In 1938, responding to a constituent who urged him to help end the use of the ‘cat o’nine tails’ in prisons, Churchill wrote: “’the use of instruments of torture can never be regarded by any decent person as synonymous with justice.’"
* Carlo D’Este, author of Warlord: A Life of Winston Churchill at War, 1894-1945, writes that while "Churchill was ruthless in prosecuting the Second World War with strategic bombing of German cities…there is nothing in his behaviour or character to suggest that he would have condoned water boarding or other means of torture."
Jonah Goldberg asks about other shortcuts Churchill did take.
"Churchill ordered the firebombing of Dresden just 12 weeks before the end of World War II," he writes. "No one knows for sure how many civilians were burned alive, but tens of thousands surely were, in no small part to deliver a psychological blow to the Germans. If Churchill could have waterboarded a pris
oner to avoid that — or stop the Holocaust — would one shortcut have been preferable to the other? Why? Or why not? …You can ask the same questions about the shortcuts that flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Did these shortcuts erode the character of the American and British people? If so, how?"
– jpt
Rick Santorum Encircled in Prayer 
Boehner Slams Obama on Contraception Controversy
Interesting that Obama has backed off on the trying of Bush officials involved with waterboarding. Reason? It would force the opening of ALL THE WATERBOARDING MEMOS including the ones showing that positive results were achieved, preventing multiple attacks on this country. Also, any panel would end up trying Obama’s own people including Pelosi who gave her approval for the procedure. Torture? Bull!! What John McCain went through was torture.
Posted by: Jimbo | May 4, 2009, 7:12 pm 7:12 pm
Good work once again Jake! Obama will pretty much blurt out anything and expect it to be taken as gospel. It is truly nice to see people such as Tapper actually fact check the lies the Messiah spews, and then call him on it.
I believe Jake will be a very busy guy for the next four years!
Posted by: TxBoB | May 4, 2009, 7:26 pm 7:26 pm
The question of whether or not Churchill approved of torture is kind of silly considering that we can’t seem to define torture in a consistent manner. What seemed harsh to the Brits in WWII was very likely different among commanders throughout all the war theaters, much less with how the CIA defines harsh treatment now. The interesting part about this whole story is that Obama seems to have accepted a BLOGGER’s version of history that is not supported in any way by any public statements from Churchill. If Obama has the time to read blogs then he should also take the time to have someone verify the accuracy of what he reads online before giving a major speech. If he was given the info by one of his staffers then he needs to acknowledge the inaccurate attribution of this statement and put the fear of God into his staff so they stop screwing up and making him look bad.
Posted by: Jason | May 4, 2009, 7:32 pm 7:32 pm
If waterboarding isn’t torture Jimbo would you be ok with a soldier from an enemy nation doing it to your son or daughter to try and get info? Would you volunteer to have it done to you? People like you and Hannity can talk the talk but can’t walk the walk. I’m sure you would be the first one in line to call it torture if it was done to a family member.
Posted by: reybek | May 4, 2009, 7:32 pm 7:32 pm
Really good stuff, Jake.
Do you think you’ll get to present this on World News Tonight?
Posted by: MayBee | May 4, 2009, 7:34 pm 7:34 pm
I honestly never thought I’d see the day when Americans would slime the memory of Winston Churchill in an effort to defend the Bush administration using torture.
The last eight years are such a ugly blight on our history.
Posted by: Jan | May 4, 2009, 7:39 pm 7:39 pm
Jimbo,
Your hero, McCain, has stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture. And he should know.
Posted by: El_Pajaro | May 4, 2009, 7:41 pm 7:41 pm
reybec – Re. son or daughter given waterboarding by the enemy – Given the choice of what John McCain and others received, waterboarding would be a piece of cake. Even many of our current troops in training received waterboarding as part of their basics.
Posted by: Jimbo | May 4, 2009, 7:47 pm 7:47 pm
Txbob I’d rather be wrong about a blog quote which is essentially correct than wrong about intelligence gathering and verification that got us into a long drawn out unnecessary war. Let’s see who was that? Hmmmmmmmm
Posted by: reybek | May 4, 2009, 7:48 pm 7:48 pm
“If Churchill could have waterboarded a prisoner to avoid that — or stop the Holocaust — would one shortcut have been preferable to the other? Why? Or why not?”
This repeats the false “ticking time bomb” premise that torturing terror suspects was necessary and saved lifes. No evidence has yet come out supporting that claim.
In the words of Kiefer Sutherland who played Jack Bauer in 24:
“If you can’t tell the difference between reality and what’s happening on a made-up TV show, and you’re correlating that back to how to do your job in the real world, that’s a big, big problem.”
Posted by: El_Pajaro | May 4, 2009, 7:49 pm 7:49 pm
If Obama knew anything about Chuchill, he wouldn’t have curtly returned it to Britain upon moving into the White House. Now, he quotes him. Oy.
Obama has no insight into what drove Churchill and neither does Andrew Sullivan. Obama is not a well-read man, and obviously isn’t a student of history. Kind of a shame for a president of the United States.
It’s also pretty creepy that he reads Sullivan. Yikes.
Posted by: a free man | May 4, 2009, 7:49 pm 7:49 pm
I’m more interested in real questions like “was it enchanting the first 100 days in office” Now that’s hardball.
Posted by: jeff | May 4, 2009, 7:52 pm 7:52 pm
Jimbo,
“Even many of our current troops in training received waterboarding as part of their basics.”
For the 1001st time on these blogs: They were training to RESIST TORTURE.
Posted by: El_Pajaro | May 4, 2009, 7:54 pm 7:54 pm
DEFINITION OF TORTURE – “The infliction of severe pain as a means of punishment or coercion.” Please explain what kind of pain is experienced when waterboarding is used?
Posted by: Jimbo | May 4, 2009, 7:54 pm 7:54 pm
thoughtfull piece Jake. Not an easy issue to nail down
Thanks
Posted by: smith | May 4, 2009, 7:59 pm 7:59 pm
El_ The point is that our troops WERE EXPOSED TO THAT PROCEDURE. Of course they we learning defensive techniques – that doesn’t change the fact that they were given the procedure.
Posted by: Jimbo | May 4, 2009, 8:00 pm 8:00 pm
I honestly never thought I’d see the day when Americans would slime the memory of Winston Churchill in an effort to defend the Bush administration using torture.
==================
Did you think you’d see the day when our president made up a quote from Churchill and then used the made up quote as a basis for his intelligence and security policy?
Did you think you’d see the day when our president relied on information from a blog that repeatedly reports that Sarah Palin is not the mother of her own child?
Posted by: MayBee | May 4, 2009, 8:00 pm 8:00 pm
Fair and evenhanded. Good research and insightful conclusions. I find it odd to think Churchill would condemn torture but would embrace firebombs to torch tens of thousand of non-combatants. Only now, it is still defining what interrogation techniques constitute torture. Regardless, the whole debate is ludicrous and out of context. The whole of America, including all the Democrat leaders embraced whatever methods necessary to prevent further terrorist acts in the US to prevent further loss of life. Now, Moveon has convinced have the unthinking nation that it was Bush and Cheney only. Hypocrits all, to attempt to absolve oneself of guilt by condemning others.
Posted by: linkster | May 4, 2009, 8:08 pm 8:08 pm
Obama deserves credit for the reference unless it is blatantly false. It is not.
Posted by: matt | May 4, 2009, 8:13 pm 8:13 pm
Jimbo,
Here’s the correct definition of torture from the UN Convention Against Torture (signed and ratified by the US):
“(…) any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession (…)”
Don’t you think drowning is severe enough?
Posted by: El_Pajaro | May 4, 2009, 8:13 pm 8:13 pm
El_ Definition from the UN? A guess that figures.
Posted by: Jimbo | May 4, 2009, 8:24 pm 8:24 pm
Reybec, Let me get this straight. If we were told by a terrorist that there would be an imminent attack on say, Los Angeles, but he refused to say how or when. He brags that it will kill more people than on 9/11, and lets say you have a family member that lives in LA. Would you be opposed to waterboarding said terrorist? And by waterboarding we mean covering his mouth with cellophane so only a limited amount of water goes down his nose or throat and he is monitored to make sure his oxygen saturation does not drop into a dangerous level. The effect of this waterboarding is to scare the terrorist, even though he has been told assuredly that he won’t die. Said terrorist finds the experience very unpleasant and agrees to talk, he provides info which we attempt to confirm with other sources and if we find out he lies we repeat process until we are confident he is telling the truth. Are you willing to allow thousands of people to die because you don’t want to waterboard someone who we already know was responsible for planning the 1st WTC bombing and planning and supporting the 2nd attacks on 9/11?
Posted by: Jason | May 4, 2009, 8:26 pm 8:26 pm
from El_Pajaro: “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession”
=======
from the article about Stephens (who morphed into Churchill for Obama’s purposes):
” “A breaker is born and not made…pressure is attained by personality, tone, and rapidity of questions, a driving attack in the nature of a blast which will ***scare a man out of his wits.*****’
“****The terrifying commandant of Camp 020 refined psychological intimidation to an art form****. Suspects often left the interrogation cells legless with fear after an all-night grilling. An inspired amateur psychologist, Stephens used every trick, lie and bullying tactic to get what he needed; he deployed ****threats, drugs,**** drink and deceit.
===============
So leave waterboarding aside. Are the things Stephens DID do torture according the the definition above?
Would we accept drugs as a means of enhanced interrogation today?
How does a scary caterpillar compare?
Posted by: MayBee | May 4, 2009, 8:29 pm 8:29 pm
One thing we know for sure: the British used torture repeatedly over a long period of time during and after the war.
One thing we don’t know: whether Churchill ever said they didn’t.
Another thing we know for sure: Churchill said that “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”
Make of it what you will.
The alarming thing is that anything written by the known lunatic Sullivan is brought to the president’s attention.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 4, 2009, 8:31 pm 8:31 pm
A lot of people have brought up the issue of the president relying on, much less using in any way information from a blogger who has some pretty outrageous statements out there about Palin, among others. I wonder how the news media would react to find out a republican president used information, exclusively or otherwise, from a controversial conservative blogger?
Posted by: Jason | May 4, 2009, 8:34 pm 8:34 pm
What really scares me about his statement is President Obama quoting a blog by Mr. Sullivan, who has been proven over time to be a liar. Who the heck on his staff is reading this and feeding it to him?
Posted by: Jeff | May 4, 2009, 8:43 pm 8:43 pm
You wrote: “The Guardian concluded that the London Cage “was used partly as a torture centre,” where 3,573 German officers and soldiers were brutally interrogated. SS Captain Fritz Knoechlein, taken to the Cage in October 1946, alleged he was starved, beaten and kept awake for four days straight.”
Churchill lost the 1945 election and was in opposition for all of 1946. How is this alleged incident pinned on him?
Posted by: grantd | May 4, 2009, 8:45 pm 8:45 pm
If, in the late summer of 1940, Winston had got his hands on Herman Goering, he would have wrung him dry. Count on it.
Posted by: mesquito | May 4, 2009, 8:49 pm 8:49 pm
MayBee,
that is a very good question and I am not sure how mental pain can be defined clearly. I don’t think just scaring someone is torture and deceiving is definitely not, but I guess driving someone permanently insane would qualify.
Posted by: El_Pajaro | May 4, 2009, 8:55 pm 8:55 pm
“Last week, in response to a question I asked him about torture at a press conference, . . .”
There was torture at a press conference? Serious allegation!
Oh what a difference the placement of a modifier makes, ironically so when one parses words for a living . . .
Posted by: Jesse | May 4, 2009, 8:56 pm 8:56 pm
El_Pajaro- thanks for the response.
What do you think of the use of drugs?
Posted by: MayBee | May 4, 2009, 8:58 pm 8:58 pm
Great. What’s next, Obama giving a discourse on the parentage of Trig Palin? This is going to be a LONG four years.
Posted by: DocinPA | May 4, 2009, 9:02 pm 9:02 pm
A President who gets history lessons from Andrew Sullivan. No telling what he will make up next. Maybe he can get some medical information from Jim Carrey, and the rest of his history from the Huffington Post and Kos.
Posted by: mike | May 4, 2009, 9:05 pm 9:05 pm
MayBee,
forcing a detainee to take drugs in order to extract information from him? I guess that would qualify as torture too, though not as severe as waterboarding in my opinion (depending on which drug and what the side effects are).
But professional interrogators can reach pretty impressive results through various non-coercive technics. So why bother?
Posted by: El_Pajaro | May 4, 2009, 9:18 pm 9:18 pm
It’s good to know that Obama is taking his talking points from Andrew Sullivan. It’s better to know that Obama is going to be wrong a lot.
Posted by: drjohn | May 4, 2009, 9:20 pm 9:20 pm
It’s funny, not in a ha ha kind of way, that Obama used the British when answering a question about torture. Read Dreams From My Father, page 193. And why Churchill? Because of Sullivan? Very weird indeed.
Posted by: Sue | May 4, 2009, 9:20 pm 9:20 pm
But professional interrogators can reach pretty impressive results through various non-coercive technics. So why bother?
====
You would have to ask Stephens, who was the celebrated war-time spy breaker whom Andrew Sullivan held up as an example for America. *He’s* the one who is reported to have used drugs.
Posted by: MayBee | May 4, 2009, 9:22 pm 9:22 pm
I don’t give a hooters damn about torturing terroists or their rights…I don’t want another 911 and unlike Obama I don’t thing harsh language or coddling of our enemies will keep us safe.
Posted by: Michael Thomas | May 4, 2009, 9:34 pm 9:34 pm
“Winnie” was rather a brutish sort (in Afghanistan, he was in favor of using poison gas) but nowhere does he approve of such a barbaric action as torture – not even against his most hated enemies, the Nazis.
Churchill advocated the summary execution of captured Nazi leaders, presumably in no small part because of THEIR proclivity to torture POWs & partisans.
Was Obama claiming to quote him, or was he paraphrasing? The answer will determine whether he is in error, or his critics are.
Posted by: jim | May 4, 2009, 9:39 pm 9:39 pm
It is unbelievable to me that Obama takes Sullivan as the final word on history. What’s next? Is Trig really Palin’s son?
This should be beyond embarrassing and I give Tapper credit for the blog. You really wouldn’t get it from NBC.
Posted by: thatcher | May 4, 2009, 9:42 pm 9:42 pm
The truth doesn’t really seem to matter much to the Obama administration. Just as long as they have some throw away line to give “his followers”, they are happy to repeat the lie.
If this is considered torture, I want my brother arrested:)
Posted by: Rhonda | May 4, 2009, 9:48 pm 9:48 pm
MayBee,
Good point. But I do think that waterboarding, walling and sleep deprivation are worse. Just like I think that cutting fingers and pulling out nails are worse than waterboarding.
Posted by: El_Pajaro | May 4, 2009, 9:50 pm 9:50 pm
MayBee,
Good point. But I do think that waterboarding, walling and sleep deprivation are worse. Just like I think that cutting fingers and pulling out nails are worse than waterboarding.
==========
I agree that cutting off fingers is worse than waterboarding.
The thing is, we have real decisions to make – or rather, the people in charge of wars and national security have real decisions to make. Repeating platitudes like “coercive techniques aren’t necessary” don’t get us anywhere because there is really no evidence that is true. They aren’t necessary until they are, as this example shows.
Andrew Sullivan and Barack Obama laud a man (Stephens) who didn’t “torture”, but who did terrify and apparently give drugs. Would that really be ok with the current crop of critics? I don’t think so (keeping in mind Sullivan finds it abusive for scantily-clad women to stand near an interrogation subject).
There really isn’t some bright moral line, even when AS and POTUS are trying to give an example of one.
Posted by: MayBee | May 4, 2009, 10:00 pm 10:00 pm
Mr. Tapper, I am 60yrs old and thank God for you and your honest reporting. Our GREAT country is in turmoil and all of us as citizens must have WATCHDOGS as yourself to keep us informed and also to protect us from the government if they are doing things that can harm us and our families. My prayers are with you, THANK YOU! Gayle
Posted by: gayle m. | May 4, 2009, 10:00 pm 10:00 pm
Torture never reveals the truth. that isn’t the purpose of torture.
The purpose of torture is to produce false information, information that the torturer needs to produce in order to justify actions that would be otherwise unsupported by the actual facts.
Posted by: Flash Override | May 4, 2009, 10:03 pm 10:03 pm
Jan, I must take issue with your statement: “I honestly never thought I’d see the day when Americans would slime the memory of Winston Churchill in an effort to defend the Bush administration using torture.” Who on earth was “sliming” the brilliant Churchill? He is a heroic and revered figure to many of us. What irritated me no end was the facile way in which President Obama used the memory of Churchill, putting words into the man’s mouth that were never said in that form by that person– as some candidate used to say, “just words?” Words matter. I do not think Churchill was deliberately insulted by anyone, but if he was slighted in any way, it was by the president attempting to use Churchill’s good name to score political points for his (OBama’s) side in the “where do we draw the line” debate.
Further, you say the sliming was intended to defend Bush administration “torture.” I would respectfully point out that one reason the debate over the “torture” memos has been so heated is that the issue is so complex and delicate and there is no easy, simple answer to whether the interrogation methods under discussion lately are torture or not. There are people who in good faith disagree completely about that, and people who can not be sure either way.
So when I, for one, argue that the memos should not have been released and that a “truth commission” or trials of Bush administration officials would be extremely detrimental to our country, I am not “defending torture.”
You concluded by saying, “The last eight years are such a ugly blight on our history.” I agree to a tiny degree, but not in the way you mean that. *G* That is, there was much ugliness in the last few years in terms of politics, but it was not George Bush ugliness. There was Bush Derangement Syndrome as well as some uncompromising figures on the far right. The administration made some mistakes, but did far more good than harm. Bush often made hard and unpopular decisions that he was honestly convinced were necessary to keep our country safe.
Posted by: moderate | May 4, 2009, 10:03 pm 10:03 pm
Pathetic when Obama quotes Andrew Sullivan.
Posted by: RobCon | May 4, 2009, 10:07 pm 10:07 pm
Sullivan and Obama.
Dumb and Dumber.
Posted by: ceeLeelee | May 4, 2009, 10:34 pm 10:34 pm
===The answer will determine whether he is in error, or his critics are.===
I think the answer will depend on how much koolaid a person has drunk.
How is it Obama can use drones to kill innocent civilians and nary a word is uttered, but Bush waterboards 3, count them 3, terrorists and he is evil incarnate. Maybe we should ask ourselves why we could kill those same 3 terrorists without a trial and no one would bat an eye, but drop a little water up their nose and you have committed a crime on par with the Nazis (per Chris Dodd).
Posted by: Axey | May 4, 2009, 10:43 pm 10:43 pm
Obama was being dishonest awhile ago when he said he never reads blogs (according to ABC’s Political Radar blog). But the reality is that most of his misinformed opinions are derived from his reading far left blogs.
Posted by: OxyCon | May 4, 2009, 10:50 pm 10:50 pm
The question now is not what Churchill said about torture, but what Philip Zelikow said about it, and why the Bush administration attempted to destroy all of the copies of what he said.
This is what lawyers call ‘consciousness of guilt’
Posted by: Flash Override | May 4, 2009, 10:51 pm 10:51 pm
The question now is not what Churchill said about torture
=======
Then perhaps our POTUS could have left his comments about what Churchill said about torture out of his prime time press conference.
Posted by: MayBee | May 4, 2009, 10:54 pm 10:54 pm
===But the reality is that most of his misinformed opinions are derived from his reading far left blogs.===
His misinformed opinions causes him to gravitate to those blogs. He formed those opinions a long time ago. From his mother, his grandfather, Frank Davis, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers. He himself said he sought out people with Marxists leanings. Everyone chooses to ignore what he said/says when it is inconvenient to their own idea of who he is.
Posted by: Axey | May 4, 2009, 11:02 pm 11:02 pm
Everytime one of his deluded followers says that this fool is “brilliant” I fall out laughing.
To date, he has not shown any sign of brilliance.
Magna cum laude, my foot!
Posted by: ceeLeelee | May 4, 2009, 11:04 pm 11:04 pm
Then perhaps our POTUS could have left his comments about what Churchill said about torture out of his prime time press conference.
======================================
Maybee, in defense of the president, he had some protocol mishaps during the Gordon Brown visit and was ridiculed by the UK press. The Churchill historical inaccuracies were probably just an off the cuff attempt to sooth some ruffled feathers that fell a bit short.
Posted by: mad | May 4, 2009, 11:06 pm 11:06 pm
“But professional interrogators can reach pretty impressive results through various non-coercive technics. So why bother?”
You bother only when time is thought to be of the essence, as it was (by everybody) in 2002.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 4, 2009, 11:14 pm 11:14 pm
It’s a great topic…the ease with which history is re-written. I credit The President with raising it and a New American elite in media for taking it up. Now, if it sparks earnest re-evaluations, research, and reflections in average people like me, then we’re all on the UP.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | May 4, 2009, 11:15 pm 11:15 pm
“Torture never reveals the truth. that isn’t the purpose of torture.”
This is simply false, and its falsity has been attested to by five consecutive national intelligence directors as well as Mr. Obama’s current intelligence czar. Its falsity was even confirmed by Mr. Obama himself, when last week he conceded that it would be more difficult to get vital information now.
Torture as punishment is abhorrent and inexcusable. Torture for the pleasure of the torturer is even worse. Torture for the purpose of obatining information that could reasonably be expected to save innocent life is a difficult thing to do, but a majority of Americans think it must nevertheless be done. So did the congressional democrats back before Bush made the nation safe from these murderers.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 4, 2009, 11:18 pm 11:18 pm
On the eve of the Mexican holiday, Obama on Monday had an event in the East Room of the White House with Mexico’s Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan (sahr-oo-KHAN’).
Obama joked that it was “Cinco de Cuatro,” botching a play on the Spanish word for “four” when he meant to say “Cuatro de Mayo,” or the Fourth of May. He tried again, but he still did not get it right.
====================================
I hope this incident won’t lead to more historical inaccuracies.
Posted by: mad | May 4, 2009, 11:51 pm 11:51 pm
Obama said “detainees”. Churchill never had any “detainees”. Churchill had POW’s who were accorded all the rights provided by the Geneva accords, AND, Churchill had foreign agents, spies, sent by the Nazi regime and for the most part these were hanged.
Posted by: tucanofulano | May 4, 2009, 11:52 pm 11:52 pm
Fascist Hyena
“but a majority of Americans think it must nevertheless be done”
so why was slavery abolished, so many Americans wanted it…… so many Americans wanted ‘separate but equal’….so many Americans think it’s all right to kill gay Americans,.. so much ‘falsity’ in your posts
Posted by: Tired of your Rap | May 5, 2009, 12:04 am 12:04 am
This is why Obama wanted to keep his blackberry. He wanted to make sure his friends could still email him links to bloggers with incomplete historical records. How else is he going to know what to ‘believe’?
Posted by: Bob O. | May 5, 2009, 12:07 am 12:07 am
All you right wingers constantly say ‘if’…
all about ‘what if’… something happens
your boy ‘W’ was given info that said Bin Laden will attack….. he did nothing but cut brush on vacation…..
Posted by: Truth Be Told | May 5, 2009, 12:12 am 12:12 am
I hope this incident won’t lead to more historical inaccuracies.
Posted by: mad |
at least Obama knew the difference between Sunni & Shia, unlike a certain recent Bush who also liked to start wars after speaking to invisible beings……
Posted by: No Sale | May 5, 2009, 12:22 am 12:22 am
This column isn’t so much about torture but the fact that BHO quotes Andrew Sullivan. I would think that before the POTUS gives a major speech he would have triple checked his quotes and “facts”. I mean – the POTUS quoted a left wing blogger w/out checking the facts. And yeah, I’d say the same if he quoted a right wing blogger. Other resources are available on something this important. Yeah – other sides too.
Didn’t they teach History at Harvard?
It’s called CRITICAL THINKING Barry – your kids probably have a workbook you can look at and figure out that you can’t or shouldn’t pull a quote from someone because it helps you make a point.
I wonder who else tells him how to form an opinion?
Posted by: Liars are everywhere | May 5, 2009, 12:35 am 12:35 am
Cmon, you cant blame Obama… he is only saying whats on the prompter. Had it not been there… Im sure he would have said… ummmmm ummmmmm ummmmmm ummmmmmm
Posted by: D | May 5, 2009, 12:39 am 12:39 am
I never heard of the WH aides associating Obama’s quote to Andrew Sullivan. According to one of the links in the Political Punch report, the Huffington Post traced Obama’s quote to Andrew Sullivan,which was supposedly drawn from the Times of London. I guess of you find Huffington Post reliable or references to unnamed aides reliable sources, then it can be assumed Obama’s primary source was Sullivan; but really, it’s all a morass of speculation.
Posted by: kim | May 5, 2009, 12:54 am 12:54 am
What this piece shows, more than anything, and has been exposed before but covered over by the president’s public relations team, the mainstream media, is that Barack Obama is somewhat ignorant of history.
Posted by: Thank God for Karma | May 5, 2009, 2:02 am 2:02 am
Can’t blame Obama, he is an ignorant fool. You have to blame his teleprompter.
Also Everyone knows Obama hates Churchill, he inslaved his grandfather.
Posted by: jon | May 5, 2009, 4:07 am 4:07 am
It is pathetic! Mr. Obama is wrong.
Posted by: anonymous | May 5, 2009, 4:55 am 4:55 am
It will be a glorious day for all decent people when Obama goes back to his well-deserved obscurity in the cesspool he came from.
Posted by: tanarg | May 5, 2009, 5:48 am 5:48 am
Obama ran on the promise that he would look foward.Hope and change.A new politics.So why has he attacked the last administration more than any other president in our history.No president has ever put the previous administration on trial ever.not for nuking a country not for concentration camps for Japanese CITIZENS.Not for anything.Obama has lied about so many things and has gotten away with so many faults its no wonder the media stands at attention when they see him.They created a false image to get him where he is now.Thats what Bush derangement syndrome got them to do.
Posted by: tyrone | May 5, 2009, 5:58 am 5:58 am
I find it deeply disturbing that the president doesn’t know better than to make the statement that Churchill refused to torture despite the fact that London was being bombed into the stone age and it’s people dying, LIKE THAT WAS A GOOD THING.
Great. So, the American people are under threat of extinction, being bombed and pummeled, but Obama’s lofty conscience won’t stoop to taking any measure necessary to keep us safe. Oh, that Obama! He’s my man!
You see, what Obama admires here isn’t Chuchill’s fierce integrity and sense of preserving English history as he fought WWII, but that he thinks Churchill let his people suffer in order to keep his own conscience clean, and that shows what a good man Churchill was. Is there any more perverted, twisted notion to have of Churchill?
Who would believe such a thing? Who would believe Churchill wouldn’t have gone to hell and back to win WWII? Including torture?
The point itself is asinine. Anytime you reach back into history and try to judge the character of men according to current mores, you’ll get in trouble. As Obama and Andrew have found. Now, we know Obama doesn’t know anything about Churchill. Kind of disturbing for an American president.
I’m sure Churchill would be appalled that anyone think he would stand aside and do nothing while London was being bombed. Obama, on the other hand, thinks it’s the height of morality to let your people die rather than do what you have to do to protect them.
Morality is a complex thing. It requires choice, sometimes the lesser of two evils. Only in unicorn land are these decisions clean and absolute. What of the human rights of the English civilians as they were being bombed?
What about Churchill’s moral duty to his own people, to keep them safe? What do they rate? So, now we know Obama has no compunction about serving his own conscience before keeping the American people safe. I’d like to know where the cutoff is, 500,000 dead? One million?
The fortitude to carry the weight of such decisions is what makes one a leader, or just a “man”. It’s decidedly unmanly to boast that you would stand aside while your people are bombed to smithereens, and expect to be congratulated and praised for your exquisite moral character in return.
So now, poor Andrew Sullivan, who can’t just be happy that he got gay marriage in Iowa, has to exploit Chuchill’s magnificent legacy to make his own silly, feeble point. It’s the point of people who see love of country as evil, the will to defend it as barbaric, and any grimly realistic understanding of human nature as positively icky.
You want icky? I got your icky right here, Andrew. Plastering the mincing values of 2009 on Chuchill and the imperatives of WWII will get you no where. That’s not what history is for. And that goes for you, too, Obama. Have a nice day.
Posted by: jordan | May 5, 2009, 8:04 am 8:04 am
Did we ever find out why Obama returned the White House bust of Churchill to England when he moved in?
I’ll just add that the thought of there being some kind of “torture policy” also likely would have struck Churchill as oddly reductive. He had a “win the war” policy, and adhered to centuries of English tradition, principle, and jurisprudence to do it.
Posted by: jordan | May 5, 2009, 8:11 am 8:11 am
YOU SAY POTATO…..I SAY POTATOE.
YOU SAY TOMATO…..I SAY TOMATOE.
YOU SAY TORTURE…..I SAY OPPORTUNITY!!
Stay safe and sound…..if you can!
Posted by: American Infidel | May 5, 2009, 8:20 am 8:20 am
How come Mr. Tapper’s insightful articles only ever show up on a “blog” for ABC? He is obviously the only MSM journalist I have seen who is willing to research and report(like a real journalist should).
It would be great to start seeing non-biased journalism again in the MSM. One reason why the viewership is down…Freeedom of the press used to be our gatekeeper in this country..Now it is just a PR wing of the Obama party.
Is it true that the WHPC can be “sicked” on people who speak out against him? So sad. Americans are not ignorant rubes, we see what is happening here. Look at the sales…
Posted by: sue | May 5, 2009, 8:34 am 8:34 am
Agreed, I’d be hanging my head in shame to be in the WHPC. But Jake does seem to be holding up the pillars of a free press in a democracy quite well.
Posted by: jordan | May 5, 2009, 8:47 am 8:47 am
Meanwhile, Obama continues with the process of Rendition–handing over terror suspects for questioning by countries with their own history of torture–which he denounced as evil when Bush did it. But it’s OK for Obama, becuase these countries wink at us and promise not to abuse the suspects.
Posted by: Welcome to Cinco de Cuatro at the White House | May 5, 2009, 8:53 am 8:53 am
Obama is an idiot. He’s a constitutional expert who appears to never have read the constitution. From the second amendment to the auto bailouts and illegal seizure you would assume he wants to emulate Chavez.
It is unlikely Churchill didn’t know about the torture center since he likely got intelligence from it many times. As far as i know, this would be the first time in human history that a country at war didn’t torture/if we hadn’t.
If waterboarding is so bad, why are reporters lining up to try it like it’s a roller coaster?
Posted by: K | May 5, 2009, 9:09 am 9:09 am
===at least Obama knew the difference between Sunni & Shia, unlike a certain recent Bush who also liked to start wars after speaking to invisible beings……===
Seriously? This is your defense of Obama’s misstep?
Posted by: Axey | May 5, 2009, 9:14 am 9:14 am
Let’s remember. These were folks complicit in the cold blooded murder of 3000 New Yorkers. These were folks who when asked about what their future plans were, they told us You just wait and see. These were folks who had plans and intents to kill as many Americans as possible.
Posted by: Medbob | May 5, 2009, 9:25 am 9:25 am
Interesting that the revision isn’t noted.
The entire press conference was about torture, then? If not, I would suggest:
“Last week, at a press conference, in response to a question I asked him about torture, . . .”
Posted by: Jesse | May 5, 2009, 9:26 am 9:26 am
Jake is no hero. Anyone who has read this blog for the past year knows that Jake strongly supported Obama’s election bid. It is now becoming fashionable to counter Obama’s comments. That’s all we’re seeing here.
Posted by: tina | May 5, 2009, 9:39 am 9:39 am
Nazi’s were coerced into becominng double agents, by the British intelligence group, their option was execution. German POW’s in the Southern U.S. were treated better than Japanese Americans and ate at lunch counters where African Americans were denied service.
I believe the ethnicity plays a part in these decisions.. even today.. and I am a conservative/moderate.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 5, 2009, 9:41 am 9:41 am
===. It is now becoming fashionable to counter Obama’s comments.===
It is? Where?
Posted by: Axey | May 5, 2009, 9:45 am 9:45 am
Just another example of Obama pushing the limits, making up things to sound good for his own benefit.
Why does he do it?
Because his supporters either don’t care that he lies/stretches the truth or because he thinks they are too in love to doubt him.
In other words he thinks most Americans are stupid.
Posted by: lester | May 5, 2009, 9:48 am 9:48 am
Now we know why BO doesn’t want anyone to see his college grades. He’s not so good in History.
Probably had a few problems in public speaking too–that was before TOTUS.
Wonder how he did in Ethics?
Posted by: tyler | May 5, 2009, 9:58 am 9:58 am
===. It is now becoming fashionable to counter Obama’s comments.===
It is? Where?
Posted by: Axey | May 5, 2009 9:45:11 AM
Certainly NOT in the worshipping, slobbering news media, which is “Enchanted” with Obama’s every move and word.
Posted by: carl | May 5, 2009, 10:09 am 10:09 am
Do neither Sullivan nor Obama ever read past the headline?
So we see the start of this whole thing comes from the Times of London story about Stephens. The writer says Stephens never “tortured” then provides sufficient details to see that Stephens did pretty much everything encompassed by “enhanced interrogation” but perhaps waterboarding.
So Obama doesn’t know what he’s talking about because Sullivan doesn’t know what he’s talking about because neither apparently give even a moment of thought to the actual words past the first paragraph or two.
Would Churchill have waterboarded? Give me a break. He allowed his own citizens to die in bombings to keep secret they knew so much from Enigma. Think he would have traded that for some waterboarding? What moral person wouldn’t?
Posted by: CMR | May 5, 2009, 10:22 am 10:22 am
“It is now becoming fashionable to counter Obama’s comments.”
How impudent of him! Doesn’t he understand that the role of a free press in a democracy is to stand up and cheer for the president?
Question authority? “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism?” Hey–rip those bumper stickers off; they’re only appropriate when a Republican is in the White House.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 5, 2009, 10:23 am 10:23 am
“Happy Cinco de Cuatro”
Isn’t Obama brilliant?
If Bush or Biden had said that….
Posted by: bailey | May 5, 2009, 10:27 am 10:27 am
If we use “national security” as an excuse to torture captives or intentionally kill innocent civilians, our enemies could torture our own soldiers and kill our own innocent citizens using the same excuse.
War crimes are crimes for a reason: to protect civilization, both in our own lives, and throughout the world.
And didn’t a widely respected great man once say that what you do to the lowest among you, you do to me?
Posted by: Danny | May 5, 2009, 10:48 am 10:48 am
Dropping bombs on villages in pursuit of terrorist, killing women and children–Obama is OK with that.
But dunking a terrorist head under water for 20 seconds in order to save lives–Obama thinks that is wrong.
I can see why the CIA has lost morale.
Posted by: max | May 5, 2009, 11:02 am 11:02 am
They used “drink” and drugs. By current US law, that is torture (any mind-altering substance). So they tortured.
Posted by: MB | May 5, 2009, 11:04 am 11:04 am
If we use “national security” as an excuse to torture captives or intentionally kill innocent civilians, our enemies could torture our own soldiers and kill our own innocent citizens using the same excuse.
=============
Our enemies do it just because they want to.
Posted by: MayBee | May 5, 2009, 11:04 am 11:04 am
===And didn’t a widely respected great man once say that what you do to the lowest among you, you do to me?===
He was also known to take a whip to a person when warranted.
Posted by: Axey | May 5, 2009, 11:19 am 11:19 am
This isn’t the first time the President made up a canard in order to further his argument.
Remember, he campaigned in ‘all 57 states’ in order to win the primary.
Oh, and he told AIPAC ‘the U.S., under his Presidency, would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon’.
He forgot to mention that we need a ME peace agreement in order to do it.
Next, he is going to say we need health care reform first, then we’ll disarm Iran as a result.
Posted by: J House | May 5, 2009, 12:13 pm 12:13 pm
Free TOTUS! He is being tortured every day.
Posted by: Jon Brooks | May 5, 2009, 12:38 pm 12:38 pm
This entire argument represents the triumph of Pollyanna over reality. Thanks Polly.
Posted by: Todd | May 5, 2009, 1:28 pm 1:28 pm
If Keith or Rachel ever counter Obama..that will be news.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 5, 2009, 2:22 pm 2:22 pm
Ding ding ding, we have a winner. No Sale is the first to EXPLICITLY use the “well, Bush is dumber” defense for the president in this particular thread. By the way, No Sale, Bush knew very well the difference between Sunni and Shi’a– and I doubt you know much about them yourself. I think you were thinking of McCain’s misstatement (and we’ll leave to the side whether or not McCain actually knew the difference).
Now, to be fair, Reybek beat you to the strategy, when s/he wrote, “Txbob I’d rather be wrong about a blog quote which is essentially correct than wrong about intelligence gathering and verification that got us into a long drawn out unnecessary war. Let’s see who was that? Hmmmmmmmm” But by being too clever by half and not including Bush’s name, this entry must be eliminated from the competition. Still, it’s an sterling example of the “hey, they’ve got our man dead to rights, quick, invoke the evilness and ignorance of George Bush as a trump card.”
I propose a corollary to Godwin’s Law: In any Political Punch thread, the more tenuous the defense of Obama policy, statement, or behavior in question, the more quickly the “evil Bush was moronic” card will be played. And no thread can reach 100 posts without such a reference.
Posted by: moderate | May 5, 2009, 2:50 pm 2:50 pm
“If Keith or Rachel ever counter Obama..that will be news.”
Huh?
They’ve been blasting the Obama admin every day about torture and the seeming reluctance to prosecute or even investigate.
You’re thinking of the sycophantic FoxNews and the Republican party.
Posted by: Ryan C | May 5, 2009, 3:09 pm 3:09 pm
Our enemies do it just because they want to.
_________________
What about Abu Ghraib?
Posted by: Danny | May 5, 2009, 4:28 pm 4:28 pm
John Schwenkler on willful ignorance to torture by the Bush administration:
“At some point, we can only say of those who continue to dwell in darkness that they do so of their own willing . At some point, ignorance passes into deliberate self-deception, naïveté into apologetics, good intentions into a willing blindness to the harsh reality of sin.”
Posted by: Danny | May 5, 2009, 4:41 pm 4:41 pm
Thanks Ryan.. I’ll watch them.. that’s still sort of bashing Bush via Obama..
do you think so?
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 5, 2009, 8:23 pm 8:23 pm
When did waterboarding become the most evil thing that could be done to a person?
I always thought torture was breaking bones, burning flesh, and a whole bunch of other tactics that I don’t want to list. I’m thinking waterboarding is not even in the top 50.
So what if Bush did authorize waterboarding? I can guarantee you that Al’Queda never waterboarded anyone as a means to get info.
If anyone would like me to accept their opinion that waterboarding is torture, then they should accept my opionion that Bush was being nice to those he waterboarded compared to what they really deserved.
Posted by: ET | May 9, 2009, 1:01 am 1:01 am
The ultimate ‘fact’ here is intent, is it common policy to deem torture (whatever the definition) as standard operating procedure; or as proscribed (actively) except under certain circumstances.
My feeling is that it should be demonised and ACTIVELY discouraged except under a very constrained set of circumstances.
Paramount among these is the ‘opponents’ approach to torture. If they condone it or encourage it we will occaisionally have to resort to it too, albeit with extreme distaste and strong controls.
Remember, the Japanese were most considerate to POW’s and the rules o0f war during WWI, WWII involved a whole different kind of people.
Intent is the ultimate arbritator of history; plus you have to live with the consequences of that intent when the fighting stops…
Posted by: UnclearFizzyCyst | December 26, 2009, 6:28 pm 6:28 pm