Comments on: What Obama’s Intel Chief Really Believes About Torture…

By: Dino

Dino — Mon, 04 May 2009 00:04:05 +0000

A hypothetical scenerio for you anti torturers. Your child has been taken and you catch the kidnapper. He then tells you that your child has 3 hours to live and then he will run out of air. The kidnapper then laughs in your face. Are you going to politely question him for 3 hours or are you gong to question him for a while and then try to beat it out him. Anyone who who says they would be polite must not have children. I believe that all of us would give in and beat (torture) someone given the right circumstances.

By: Dave H

Dave H — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:47:38 +0000

Interesting that the blogger says let’s look at what DNI really believes then doesn’t quote but rather paraphrases (inaccurately.) What DNI really believes was so damaging to the Administration it made him retract it from the published memo. When the “most transparent Administration ever” covers things up, of course his opposition will attack. Who’s stupid enough to think they wouldn’t? Oops, never mind…

By: porchhound

porchhound — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:21:28 +0000

CONGRESS KNEW AND APPROVED THESE TECHNIQUES ACCORDING TO BLAIRE

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:06:32 +0000

So I guess most of you who post here have trouble sleeping at night just knowing that a guy from an extremist group that plotted to kill as many Americans as possible (yes possibly you too there in the starbucks while I’m working) was subjected to a few days of torture to get “valuable information” in an attempt to prevent what we all know is very likely to have happened again….. I guess the real question is, I wander what it was like being in one of those towers as they crumbled to a big pile of rubble?? Or the plane that slammed down to the ground with so many yous and mes in it trying to live their lives as peacefully as possible?? I could care less what they do to the enemy if its an honest attempt to keep my family safe…. AND YES thats what happened.. poor guy… I bet he can hold his breath a lot longer now..

By: Courtney H

Courtney H — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:05:59 +0000

Two things: First this was a leaked private memo from a government official. He should be able to state what he actually feels and not constrain himself do to some hazy concern for people twisting his words for political reasons. So, the DNI can’t state a fact if torture elicited some useful info, even if he concludes that the policy was wrong overall? Demanding his head for it?

That is why we need something like a truth-commission, to get all this stuff out in the public and debated to know where everyone really stands and why. Maybe we could even suss out some useful ways forward that might bring some of the not-so-crazies from the brink. Ending all discussion and attacking anyone who might pose reasonable questions is not a way to change minds. I thought we were the side that supported diplomacy. I guess only when it comes to foreign challenges, not domestic political ones.

And for the person claiming

By: julia

julia — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:26:49 +0000

If in fact the Obama team believed that harsh methods resulted in meaningful cooperation, they wouldn’t be working this hard to convince people who were complicit in the Bush administration’s crimes, lies, and mismanagement that they respect their seriousness and plan to make sure they don’t face any consequences.

The boss just told the people who tortured that they did good work. What he said in a press release later on means very little next to that.

By: AllButCertain

AllButCertain — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:19:00 +0000

SG – In response to das’s question about just taking Blair’s statement at face value, you say this: “Because it will be used as a political argument and justification for torture which is not what his statement was about at all. Besides that his words will be twisted to infer that he is saying something that he didn’t actually say, ie that torture works and it saves lives.” I’m wondering if you think officials should censor what they say for fear that they’ll give talking points/ammunition to the right. I personally would rather have a broader discussion in which people say what they believe to be true and journalists/bloggers/the rest of us call out those who misuse or misrepresent what they say. I’m tired of having to play some game with rules designed by the crazies. Let’s take them on with a little more confidence. I don’t think we should be frightened of what Blair said. It’s not an endorsement of torture but the opposite.

By: mk3872

mk3872 — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:16:31 +0000

CNN & Jake Tapper today are creating stories claiming that Blair is walking away from admonishing torture and Tapper ran a blog post today saying that this memo says that Blair thinks “torture works”. I am not certain if I believe that the press is that daft or if they are intentionally trying to make this into a story of greater conflict.

By: Mary

Mary — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:14:38 +0000

Hillary just basically called Cheney a liar in front of a House Comittee in which Dana Rohrbacher (R CA) asked her if she agreed that memos regarding the effectiveness of torture should be released.http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/Clinton_knocks_Cheney.html#comments

By: Greg Sargent

Greg Sargent — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:20:30 +0000

Here’s a pdf of the memo and more about it:

http://tinyurl.com/d3d3q9

By: Armando

Armando — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:08:19 +0000

As for talking about whether it works, that was Blair, not me. I am responded to his take on whether it works. It doesn’t.

By: Armando

Armando — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:07:23 +0000

Tena:

I did not mention Obama and in fact wrote a post last night noting that blair and Obama have utterly contradictory views on the subject.

Further, you write “And that’s what I read Blair as saying – it might work in some instances, but it doesn’t matter if it “works” it’s wrong; illegal, immoral and wrong.”

Problem is Blair did not write that. Nor does it address my critque – that you actually do not know those instances when it works, because of its unreliability. But truth be told, blair didnot say that it produced unreliable information. You and I did. Therein lies the problem.

By: Tena

Tena — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:04:08 +0000

“How did you miss that?”

I think you are totally misreading Blair and Obama – and there’s nothing new about that.

By: Tena

Tena — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:01:18 +0000

And that’s what I read Blair as saying – it might work in some instances, but it doesn’t matter if it “works” it’s wrong; illegal, immoral and wrong.

By: Tena

Tena — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:55:22 +0000

“Number 1 – torture has proven to be ineffective because of the UNRELIABILITY of the information gleaned. ”

What difference does it make whether or not it is efficacious? It’s illegal regardless and immoral regardless. And anti-American, regardless of whether or not it works.

I thought talking about whether it “works” was totally beside the point. This is a moral and legal issue, not a policy or practical issue.”