Comments on: CIA Postpones Release Of Big Torture Report That Could Undercut Cheney

By: smintheus

smintheus — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:17:25 +0000

Of course torture “works”. Whatever pretext they start out with, ultimately the torturers’ goal becomes the infliction of pain. In that sense, torture works.

However it ought to be anathema to stoop to the level of nuts like Cheney and debate whether torture is “effective” in eliciting useful information. The question is irrelevant because torture is illegal.

Because it’s illegal, both Cheney and Bush have always denied that their policies authorized torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. Therefore the debate need not stoop any lower than the question of whether the US did in fact inflict torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment on prisoners. And since waterboarding is all of those things, that “debate” is over as soon as it begins.

If Cheney tried to shift the terms of the debate again to, say, whether waterboarding etc. was merited in the case of these prisoners, would you follow him down that path as well Greg? Why not just stick to the point – that cruel and degrading treatment is illegal?

By: JMP

JMP — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:19:19 +0000

Greg, I see you post a lot of “news” that appears to be what you want (GOP humiliated, Dems bolstered) more than what is the full story.

I thought your job as a partisan was done. Yes or no?

By: Karla M. McGowan

Karla M. McGowan — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:12:43 +0000

I am accustomed to Stupid (from politicians or what politicians think about public) but this takes the cake. This handling of this issue has gone so far over the cliff, I don’t think anyone will bother helping Prez. Obama pull his people involved in this back to safety.

By: Jenn D

Jenn D — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 04:14:42 +0000

sbj~ at home and one bottle of wine later…i am also waving the White Flag…

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:34:21 +0000

@sbj, and nothing about moving goalposts. I forgot we are never to bring up George Bush and the Republicans since they are irrelevant to anything happening today. I just think it’s rather pointless to accuse Greg of moving goalposts when no administration moved more goalposts than Bush.

By: sbj

sbj — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:11:45 +0000

@Chris: I am serious, dude. I’ve read your post and you appear to be asking rhetorical questions about why we invaded Iraq . . .
.
@JennD: White flag!

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:04:02 +0000

@sbj, no I suppose I didn't. Just love how I get glossed over.

By: Jenn D

Jenn D — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:59:43 +0000

sbj~ Please copy and paste all of the comments that you have made on the anti-Obama blogs suggesting topics and encouraging honesty (just because you disagree with a point of view doesn’t mean it is dishonest)…also, it is interesting that you accuse me of “wearing blinders” and “only listening to those I agree with” – you don’t even know me or the fact that half of my family are raging conservatives and trust me, our conversation is notoriously stimulating (intellectually and otherwise) – I have voted for both parties in the past, Dems and Reps – so don’t even start with all of this BS about only listening to those I agree with, because you are dead wrong. I am however, a moderate and with the way the GOP is going (Cheney/Limbaugh/Rove)(defending torture/going to war without raising taxes), I am safely in the Democratic catagory for a good long while.

By: sbj

sbj — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:38:49 +0000

@Greg: This looks like it will be an interesting report. I hope you will include the CIA response and be sure to tell your readers that even after the report was issued that the program was again provided legal justification to resume. It seems to me that Panetta is merely trying to protect national security secrets and persons who felt they were operating legally.
.
One little bit jumped out at me: “The report said waterboarding, meant to simulate drowning, was used more often than had been proved effective.”
.
Does that mean that waterboarding had indeed been PROVEN effective?
.
@Chris: Did you even ask me a question?
.
@JennD: I have been commenting on Greg’s posts both here and at TPM for, I guess, 2 or 3 years now. I appreciate his honesty and reporting. He encourages readers to suggest topics. I have never argued that Greg’s site must be balanced – honest, yes. I like to read the ‘opposition’ and, apparently unlike some (wink, wink), I don’t want to wear blinders or only listen to those I agree with – it does not strike me as intellectually stimulating.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:30:28 +0000

I love how sbj just skips over me. But he doesn’t pick and choose, not at all.

By: Jyrinx

Jyrinx — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:11:22 +0000

The letter says they’re aiming for the 26th, a week from today.

By: Jenn D

Jenn D — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:10:03 +0000

sbj- and by the way…why does Greg have to post negatives on President Obama? It’s his blog, he can post whatever he wants to. Why does it need to be balanced? There are plenty of other blogs out there that are anti-Obama…its not like we are short of them, what do you care??? If you want to see anti-Obama posts, then go to the hundreds of other blogs out there…certainly all comments are welcome (obviously)…but why in the world should Greg listen to you as the ulitimate “blog-police”…let me ask you a question…do you go to the anti-Obama sites and ask them to post something more “balanced”, more “pro-Obama”? Do you make a diligent effort to point out the pro to their anti argument…Greg should post what he wants…it’s his site.

By: Jenn D

Jenn D — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:03:05 +0000

sbj~ oh…I use to be interested in your responses, but you have become anti everything Greg posts, to the point that one questions your true desire for dialogue, as opposed to just being the anti-whatever Greg posts. And in this case (torture) no I won’t believe or consider anything that you have to say on the issue. Anyone that is trying to justify torture by saying – ‘yea, but we got intel’ – lacks the necessary skills to be reasoned with.

By: sbj

sbj — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:51:38 +0000

@JennD: “I am sure that you will come back with some sort of post with this link or that link or this guy says _____, but you trying to excuse this behavior on behalf of our Government says way more about you than anyone else.”
.
So you’re not really interested in my response and are, in fact, saying that you won’t believe or consider whatever I write.
.
THAT says a lot about you.

By: sbj

sbj — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:47:44 +0000

@Greg: Thx for the reply. Cheney said, “I’m convinced, absolutely convinced, that we saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of lives.” And you are arguing that this report will not be able to prove that torture foiled specific terror plots.
.
The two are not one and the same.
.
By gathering intelligence about the structure and leadership and arresting leadership we MAY have, indeed, “saved thousands . . . of lives.” Who is to know? How can that be quantified? If you catch the number three man did you save a life? Would he have later hatched a plot? That’s my point. I don’t believe Cheney has said that we stopped any specific plot – and you repeatedly argue that “torture” did not stop a plot. I’ll read the story, though, shortly.
.
Kudos to Greg for reporting on topics (gay revolt) that do not reflect too well on Obama.