More On The Blair Memo
There seems to be some confusion about whether Obama intel chief Dennis Blair’s private memo saying torture has yielded “high value information” is in contradiction with his public statement saying that torture has done us far more harm than good.
So let’s go over this again. I’ve got a copy of the full memo right here.
Down below is a screen capture of the relevant part (click it to enlarge).
In his private memo, Blair said that in some cases, torture yielded “high value information” that has “provided a deeper understanding” of Al Qaeda. He said he couldn’t promise he wouldn’t have approved such tactics in the wake of 9/11.
In his public statement, he said that despite those facts, torture still does more harm than good and is not essential to our national security.
Sorry — these two statements are not mutually exclusive. Many will disagree with Blair’s initial statement. Many will believe that his real views skew in the direction of the private memo. All fine. But the simple fact is that his public statement deserves to be part of this discussion, and it isn’t contradicted by what’s in the private memo.
Blair can believe that torture has worked in isolated cases and believe that overall, torture is bad policy. Period.
Here’s the relevant part of the memo:
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Misses my point, in any event.
First, torture does not produce benefits in the form of intelligence because all information gleaned from torture is suspect and knowing what is credible and what is not is impossible. so Blair is just wrong on that point.
Second, Blair reduces the discussion to a “policy difference” of opinion on the relative benefits and harms caused by using torture. Here affirms John Hinderaker’s argument that this is a “policy difference.”
Which leads to my third point, even giving Blair’s memo the charitable interpretation you ascribe, you must accept Blair ignores the fact that torture is a war crime and prohibited by US law. He states EXPRESSLY that he does not find fault with those who ordered the torture.
Thus, Blair becomes the first witness for the defense of those who ordered or rationalized torture.
This is precisely the worst outcome. “torture” become a “policy debate,” with no regard to the fact that torture is in fact a war crime and a crime under US law.
The right wing is correct to take solace from Blair’s statement – it legitimizes torture as policy, even though as a question of policy, Blair is against it, at least for now.
but armando, we already knew that he’d said he doesn’t find fault. that isn’t the new revelation that’s being bandied around today. the focus today is on the claim about “high value info.”
Armando
.
You can’t really know if there was no information extracted under torture. The truth is there likely was some. That doesn’t mean it saved lives or prevented an attack but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t valuable either. You miss the point by trying to argue efficacy. The main point is that its ILLEGAL. The reason he said he doesn’t find fault is right there in his memo, because the OLC memos had given the CIA director at the time reason to believe what they were doing was legal. In that context he is saying that he doesn’t find fault with them for following the orders of the CIC. Now I am not happy that he put any of this in a memo but lets talk about the real world consequences should Blair step down.
.
1. The wingnuts will say and the MSM will repeat that he was forced out for political reasons.
.
2. The wingnuts will say and the MSM will repeat that President Obama doesn’t want to acknowledge that torture works ignoring whether its legal or not.
.
3. The next DNI will damn near have to promise to torture if “the situation calls for it’
.
4. The wingnuts will say and the MSM will repeat that Obama is making us less safe by jettising someone who was “realistic”
.
Nothing will be gained by Blair stepping down or being punished because of this memo.
Greg – Exactly so. That’s just how I read Blair’s statements. Like I said – this is not a question really of whether or not it works – it’s a question of right and wrong and Blair said pretty clearly that it has done more harm than any good that may have come out of it.
He did indeed say it on March 17,m and it was just as bad then as it what we found out today.
But today is worse. He expressly discusses it in terms of a policy debate and gives credence to the false view that torture does in fact work in producing intelligence (contra to what the NYTimes reports today, see the Mazzetti and Shane article) and the issue is just a good faith debate over policy.
Blair’s statements, both this one and the one from the 17th, are outrageous and harmful. he should go. Of course he won’t. but that is the point. Blair has completely undermined the idea that torture is an unacceptable policy, in violation of the laws of war and US law.
Heck, he has conceded the “benefits” part of the argument and now the Right can debate on the “harm” part.
This is terrible. It is the final nail in the coffin of prosecutions (which I doubted anyway) but also a nail in the coffin of a Truth Commission. Why do we need a Truth Commission the Right can legitimately ask? We know the truth and even the Obama Administration sees this a a policy difference, not a legal or criminal question.
“First, torture does not produce benefits in the form of intelligence because all information gleaned from torture is suspect and knowing what is credible and what is not is impossible. so Blair is just wrong on that point.”
You are misreading Blair and you are doing it willfully at this point because everyone else reads this differently than you insist it be read.
sgwhite:
you and Greg choose to ignore the fact that it is BLAIR who adopted the fficacy argument. Not me. He is wrong on the efficacy argument. But more importantly, he does not say, as you do in your comment, that torture is a crime. you say that is the main point. Perhaps you need to tell that to blair, who instead wrote “I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time.”
It is difficult to address responses to me that simply ignore what I have written and more importantly, what Blair actually wrote.
Tena:
You’ll excuse me if I find this unpersuasive – “You are misreading Blair and you are doing it willfully at this point because everyone else reads this differently than you insist it be read.”
Please quote Blair’s words that you think support your interpretation.
Armando
.
Prove that they didn’t get any evidence from any of the people they tortured. Please provide links or evidence or climb off your sanctimonious high horse and admit that you don’t actually know if we got any information from them. The truth is while torture ISN’T terribly efficient that doesn’t mean we don’t get any information. And when you keep bringing the conversation back to that you will lose. All somone has to do to thrash your argument is to prove that ANY information was gleaned. Thats why its much better to focus on whether its legal or not. You can keep pushing this issue but it isn’t getting you anywhere especially with the people who are pro torture.
sgwhite:
Give me access to the information, via a Truth Commission, and we will all see.
I can tell you that the reports of the unreliability of information extracted via torture is not an invention of mine.
BTW, do I take then you are arguing for torture as an acceptable policy, if we could, for example, keep the fact that we do it secret? that seems the natural implication of your comment.
For the record, if arguing that torture does not work and is a war crime is sanctimony, then I plead guilty.
Frankly, I think you make my point about the damage Blair has done. What say you Greg?
Armando has a compelling point here. As we can see from what the right is now doing with Blair’s memo, the door is opened widely to claims, however faulty, that torture was/is justified. And Armando is also correct in underlining that it’s the “merely a policy difference” which provides a propaganda bonanza for the bad guys.
I doubt (I’m not a lawyer) that a strong legal defense can be constructed or even made more compelling through the memo but the primary battleground before any court or investigatory steps are decided upon is the propaganda fight we’re in the middle of.
“You’ll excuse me if I find this unpersuasive – “You are misreading Blair and you are doing it willfully at this point because everyone else reads this differently than you insist it be read.”
Please quote Blair’s words that you think support your interpretation.”
My – you must be important.
“, he said that despite those facts, torture still does more harm than good and is not essential to our national security.”
Bush blamed our intel services for 9-11. Then Cheney merrily outed an undercover agent. Like it or not, the CIA is a branch of our government and they are getting kicked repeatedly in the nuts. I think Obama and his administration are damn smart to try to mitigate this and put the blame where it belongs: Bush, Cheney and their lawyers.
It’s absurd to keep saying Blair thinks torture is OK – it’s absurd. Obama has closed all the CIA black sites and is in the process of closing Gitmo. How can anyone imagine for one second that his head of intel doesn’t agree with his policies?
What information did they gather after the 100th time the waterboarded KSM? Also it’s one thing to use the defense that they were scared and panicked after 9/11, but these techniques and torturing went on through 6+ years.
Tena:
I am too important to discuss this issue with someone who has decided to engage in personal attacks and who does not address what I actually write.
Here’s a quote for you, Greg and others – “I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time.” what did Blair mean by that?
ps…McClatchy has a piece up this morning which reports on the motivational connection between some torture that was carried out and the administration’s desire to redeem their political credibility through torturing people in a anxious desire to find proof of an Iraq and al Qaida connection. Simply put…torture for future electoral gains.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html?ref=fp1
Such a level of amorality is, of course, despicable. Which makes Blair’s contribution here that much more potentially damaging.
“- “I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time.” what did Blair mean by that?”
Exactly what I just said –
You aren’t paying any attention to what I’ve written already, so you can come down off your high horse any ol’ time now.
The bright light of law has been dimmed, and we are witnessing the polemic of throwing darts in the dark! I would hope all elected and appointed political agents here in America know where the bright light is, even if any immediate reality calls for a more nuanced approach.
Torture is illegal, immoral, inhumane, ineffective, and repugnant to the way of life I have been taught by being an American for the past 55 years! As a continuing Republican, I can say my favorites are long gone and the lot we are left with (Kristol, Boehner, McConnell et.al) are a disgrace to the rule of law! -Kevo
OK, I’ll spell it all out again: The intel services have been the scapegoat for the Bush Administration every single time they did something wrong – Bush blamed the CIA for 9-11.
I believe that the Obama Administration is trying to repair those relations so that **** like this doesn’t happen and not get reported. Obama needs to be able to work with the CIA – he’s the president.
It’s really easy for those of us who don’t have the responsibility to try to keep the country safe, to pass judgment on the CIA when they’re entire raison d’etre is keeping the country safe. I believe that the days of the US waterboarding prisoners is over – Obama said so. I also believe that he’d rather not see the CIA destroyed over this inasmuch as it was not the CIA who came up with it – it was the Bush Administration, right at the top.
Tena
.
That might not exactly be true that they didn’t come up with it.
.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/04/levin-torture-interrogation-senate-report.html
Tena: You act as if that statement was about the CIA interrogators. It was not. Blair addresses the CIA interrogators here – “I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”
So “exactly what you just said” is simply wrong.
And as long as we can engage in personal attacks, I’ll stay on my high horse while you play in the uninformed mud.
“And as long as we can engage in personal attacks, I’ll stay on my high horse while you play in the uninformed mud.”
Ok, that’s the third time you’ve accused me of personal attacks – What personal attacks?
Besides noting that you are rather haughty, which I didn’t even spell out.
Of course torture “works” in the sense that a prisoner will spill anything and everything under torture that he would have given up had legal interrogation methods been used. The problem (strictly from an intel quality standpoint) is that the victim of torture also has the most powerful incentive possible to say anything else, true or not, that he thinks will make it stop. If the torturers signal what they want to hear, that’s what they’ll get, true or not. Thus, if you’re a sadistic psychotic seeking “confirmation” for the paranoid fantasies you’ve concocted to justify a war of agression, torture is definitely going to be your favored intelligence gathering means. It is the best possible method for extracting the lies necessary to confirm your delusions and has the added benefit of making you feel powerful and godlike and, quite likely, getting you off. Any accurate intelligence the victim throws off in the initial efforts to make it stop is either a bonus or, if it doesn’t plug into the delusions, can be easily dismissed as the victim’s efforts to resist before he broke and gave up the “truth.”
Armando,
I get your point that Blair is treating torture like a policy difference and that is exactly what the Bush administration set out to do by drafting the OLC memos. They muddied the waters.
However, I don’t think Blair deserves to be fired or needs to step down for saying he will not assign any blame. He has clearly stated he does not support torture and will not allow it to be used. Ultimately, the DOJ is the one who has to decide whether or not it will prosecute. Blair is not even a side player in that whole process. His opinion about the legality of what the Bush team did means practically nothing.