Stephen Hayes: Cheney Himself Didn’t Actually Torture. So There!
Indefatigable Dick Cheney hagiographer Stephen Hayes, nervously typing away while Cheney glowers over his shoulder, has yet another post up attacking yours truly for suggesting that the newly-released CIA docs don’t prove Cheney’s claim that torture worked.
Hayes accuses me of dishonesty and cherrypicking, and then turns right around and cherry-picks in a comically dishonest way. To buttress Cheney, Hayes quotes the 2004 CIA I.G. report this way, referring to USS Cole attack mastermind Abd al Rahim al Nashiri:
“Following the use of EITs, he provided information about his most current operational planning and [redacted] as opposed to the historical information he provided before the use of EITs.”
Here’s what the report actually said, with the part Hayes left out in bold:
Because of the litany of techniques used by different interrogators over a relatively short period of time, it is difficult to identify why exactly al Nashiri became more willing to provide information. However, following the use of EITs, he provided information about his most current operational planning and [redacted] as opposed to the historical information he provided before the use of EITs.
Pretty clever omission. Hayes also points out that the report says that Al Qaeda mastermind Khalid Shakyh Muhammad provided little information before waterboarding, and then later became a “prolific” and “preeminent” source of info on Al Qaeda.
But, incredibly, Hayes doesn’t bother reckoning with the fact that the report itself says assessing which info torture produced is a “subjective process” that should cause “concern.” What’s more, the report’s author has clearly stated that “you could not in good conscience reach a definitive conclusion about whether any specific technique was especially effective.”
This couldn’t be clearer: Cheney vowed that these reports would settle the question of whether torture saved many, many lives. These reports don’t do that. That was the conclusion of The New York Times, Newsweek, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, ABC News, and probably others.
Best of all, Hayes argues I was wrong to describe torture techniques as Bush/Cheney administration policy because “they were conceived and executed by senior CIA officals.” Is Hayes really arguing higher-ups didn’t sign off on torture techniques? Why on earth is he pointing out that Cheney himself didn’t “execute” the policies?
Breaking: Cheney himself didn’t waterboard! Just wow.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Greg, drawing blood. Good job.
“ndefatigable Dick Cheney hagiographer Stephen Hayes, nervously typing away while Cheney glowers over his shoulder, has yet another post up attacking yours truly for suggesting that the newly-released CIA docs don’t prove Cheney’s claim that torture worked.”
Damn, you just keep getting better, Greg.
I love this fight – it’s too much fun. What happened to stories a few months back that had a direct line from Cheney’s office to the interrogators, who claimed they didn’t make one move until Cheney said “go”? Remember? It was also reported that Cheney kept a private file on detainees in his desk. At the time I recall shuddering over some very ugly thoughts I had about what he did with that file.
You sure are exposing this hack as a hack, and his master as liar.
You de best.
I commonly read Hayes and I recommend the exercise to anyone who wishes to better understand the techniques modernly employed to make citizens stupider. Quite a creature, our Mr. Hayes.
I have to disagree with Tena: I don’t like this fight. It’s not fun watching this happen to Greg.
Greg, when you write, “nervously typing away while Cheney glowers over his shoulder,” it might have made you feel better, but it makes you look small.
“it might have made you feel better, but it makes you look small.”
See, this is why I don’t understand the right – y’all see everything exactly reversed. The only “small” people here are Hayes, who is the one throwing hissy fits and keeping this going, and Cheney, who is pathetic in his attempts to justify his sadism.
Greg, Tena beat me to it. Your first graf was a-one smack on the face. And the closure was snarkilicious too. If Obama & Holder make these perps nervous, I will be the happiest man.
Wish msm had peeps like you.
Heh. I’ll bet Stephen Hayes’s screeds on Weakly SubStandard and other outlets have boosted traffic on The Plum Line, Greg. You can tell from the increased GOOPer trollage.
That directly contradicts the sworn testimony that FBI agent Ali Soufan gave to Congress. I.e., almost all the useful info from KSM came from traditional interrogation techniques. After waterboarding, he started giving up whatever bullѕhit he thought his torturers wanted to hear.
Hayes is a pitiful ѕcumbag, just another Cheney tool.
“[Hayes]is the one throwing hissy fits and keeping this going.”
????
Hissy fits?
And Greg himself requested a response (when replying to a comment of mine). Greg has still not responded to his own reraders to explain why he left out “the fact that Agency officials were concerned about being targeted by human rights groups and why [he] elide[d] the views of the officer who said, without qualification, “it has to be done?”
The two of them (Hayes and Sargent) sound more like Tena and myself going at it in comments than journalists. Knock it off – it makes you look small.
Yes, Soufan lied in his op ed. The CIA began using aggressive interrogation techniques almost immediately.
“That directly contradicts the sworn testimony”
Yes it does.
I can’t believe anyone would stick up for Dick Cheney.
my god. jzap – you have to be right about where they came from.
Greg: Stephen Hayes is a paid hack and even CNN stopped using him when their viewers complained that Steno Hayes mislead and lied about the lead up to the Iraq War. The best thing with his type is to confront them when issues involve accurate reporting and tendentious reporting come into conflict.
In Hayes’ world – NRO and the Sub-Standard – the Republicans do not make mistakes. They never do.
I have to assume that none of you have loved ones or children. You’re spending all this time “snarking” over the idea that a politician urged the CIA to press these terrorists for information.
You care so much for a childs ability to have healthcare or insurance, but snap at the idea that quite possibly the efforts, whatever they were, by CIA officials kept another terrorist from committing more death on americans.
If a person is dead, they don’t need healthcare or insurance.
I’d love to see how you’d react if terrorist was holding your child with sword to his/her neck and KSM & Co had information on their whereabouts….”oh, don’t hurt KSM, it would be against my values as an American…don’t pinch him, don’t blow second hand smoke on him, let him get 8 hours of sleep, give him 3 square meals a day…we don’t torture”….as your loved one is toast.
Grow up and live in the real world where bad people do bad things.
regards Soufan:
Here is Mr. Soufan:
“It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.”
Here is David Johnston of the NY Times:
“Within days, Mr. Zubaydah was being subjected to coercive interrogation techniques — he was stripped, held in an icy room and jarred by earsplittingly loud music — the genesis of practices later adopted by some within the military, and widely used by the Central Intelligence Agency in handling prominent terrorism suspects at secret overseas prisons.”
“It is fair enough to say that they were getting results with a traditional technique. However, that traditional technique was not employed up to June, as Soufan claims, nor were harsh techniques only applied beginning in August. Per the IG, the CIA assumed control of the Zubaydah interrogation within “a few days” and made a quick judgment that they needed to “diminish his capacity to resist”.
Got that? Soufan says that up until August only traditional interrogation techniques were used. That is simply not true. The CIA IG states unequivocally that harsh techniques were used almost immediately within days of Zubaydah’s transfer from the hospital to the safe house.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/04/tradition-or-truth-get-your-boots-on.html
“I’d love to see how you’d react if terrorist was holding your child with sword to his/her neck and KSM & Co had information on their whereabouts”
Dude – get help. You’re taking your handle waaaaaaay too seriously. It’s a TV show. Anyone can think up any kind of terrifying scenario – just look at what Rob Zombie has done with Halloween!
You are on fire this week Greg! I liked yesterday’s opening shot to Hayes..
“Stephen Hayes, the Weekly Standard writer who seems so close to Dick Cheney that his posts sometimes read as if he’d written them while sitting on the former Veep’s lap…”
nice visuals.
Looks like sbj is along for a ride on Dick’s lap too…
I have to say, I’m not shocked that creepy people defend politicians who obviously commit crimes, I’m shocked at the number of creeps around.
*we should probably stop feeding the trolls as they are gonna head this way from Kristol’s House of Horrors, but I’m of firm belief that ridicule is the best medicine against crazy…
From Reagan’s signing statement ratifying the UN Convention on Torture from 1984:
“The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.
The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called ‘universal jurisdiction.’ Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.”
“Looks like sbj is along for a ride on Dick’s lap too.”
That is not nice at all!
“That is not nice at all!”
Then stand up.
“It makes you [Greg} look small”.
No it doesn’t. As Tena suggests, our glorious leader has a gift which is is reaching high hone. And Haye’s is a propagandist who needs to be called on his deceits.
@tena
good to see you respond in your typical childish manner.
you scoff at a person (cheney) for taking efforts to ensure the safety of americans, which includes you. he saw first hand what these people are capable of and you assume and snark that he enjoys the taste of blood and torture and just wants to inflict pain on anyone. for all your concern over he and gwb’s wiretapping, did you ever hear from one american how they were wronged?
you disgust me with your holier than now attitude and I encourage you to ask anyone from the 3000 families that lost someone in 2001 whether or not they care if Cheney pressed the CIA to get more information. Go ahead you libs, keep pressing this CIA stuff. A huge majority of Americans aren’t on your side and they know you’re just trying to change the subject.
Greg, you seem to be raising the hackles of repubs both here and the weekly sub-standard. Keep it up. Looks like they can handle neither truth nor humor. Love it.
ps…another fine writer (one of the best, I think)…see “Beck and Call”
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott/
Bernie – O nobody snarks like Wolcott – nobody since Pauline Kael died, anyway.
“And after Rush appeared Karl Rove, who decried the centralization of power taking place in the Obama White House while managing to keep a straight face.”
I love Wolcott
Jack Bauer ??? Really ? Really, really ?
It’s unfortunate that you aren’t as imaginative in choosing an anonymous blog name as in pushing darth’s dark deeds.
@mike
Of course we won’t torture someone from an actual country. These terrorists don’t where uniforms, and don’t espouse to be from any country, which is why Cheney had to walk in the grey area where all you see if black and white.
I don’t recall Saudia Arabia, Yemen or an other arab country asking for KSM and others to be freed. They didn’t care about them.
Your continuous post of this of this UN **** is old and shows you wear rose colored glasses. If we had a soldier from the Russian army, your post makes sense, but these (barely) humans weren’t from any country’s army, they were from their own terrorist group.
Go peddle that UN stuff to Friday Glib Lib Green Tea parties.
@AsMonKey
Its nice to see you shortened yours to just AMK from what it really is.
Thanks Tena!
Sorry, I’m not nice to people who countenance evil (and I’m sorry, for God and Country is NOT a good reason to order people tortured to death, it is evil and there is no God involved with people who engage in or apologize for torture).
I have engaged in back and forth with you sbj because you seemed somewhat rational on health care, but I’m done. And now that the rats from Kristol’s House of Horrors are going to flood in here on Hayes’ low-tide, I will only engaged with people making sensible arguments. Though, it’s frickin sweet that Cheney’s biographer is getting schooled by a blogger!,
…and I’m sorry, Bauer, but people who take the name of a fictional character and make the same arguments that those fictional characters would make are by definition not serious, and also are more than a little delusional.
Take that **** back to the Red State Strike Force, Erikson needs to eat more of your brains to live…
@bernie: “Our glorious leader has a gift which is is reaching high hone.”
And here I had thought you just told us the other day that such rhetoric was cheap and simple and a waste of time. My bad.
notice how they are also no longer calling it “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” but torture. Also.
Asshats
“which is why Cheney had to walk in the grey area where all you see if black and white.”
God you moral midget – there is no gray area when it comes to torture. It is illegal under our signed and ratified and thereby incorporated into the constitution treaties and obligations.
@ jack frigging bauer
It’s ***, you ***. You just proved the point that GOP is the party of unlettered.
@willc
All examples of how you change the topic b/c you don’t or can’t answer how you’d handle the situation any differently than Cheney.
I use bauer b/c I know how much you hate 24 and it raises the hair on the back of your neck or just back. Maybe I’ll change your willc over to josiahb(west wing) after your favorite fictional character b/c you make the same arguments as him ….therefore, you’re delusional too I guess.
LOL. Thanks Greg for that filter. It was unintentionally funny and our jb boy here is now completely lost.
“All examples of how you change the topic b/c you don’t or can’t answer how you’d handle the situation any differently than Cheney.”
Libby? Libby is that you?
The day I handle anything like Dick Cheney is the day I slit my own throat.
tena – I was rather fond of…
“First, Sarah Palin, who appears to have vanished into a spa or perhaps is having electrodes attached for a Bride of Frankenstein unveiling”
As had been noted elsewhere, Sarah again avoided a public appearance. Walcott’s got the game-plan figured out here…no public appearances where she might/will screw up again…text written for her…propaganda pump-up from Limbaugh/Gingrich/Kristol et al.
And Walcott’s piece (re Beck’s defenders in this time of need) points out some of the key players in this strategy.
@midget tena
illegal when they are from a country…are they from a country? did Saudia Arabia or Yemen complain to UN that we were handling their citizen inappropriately….keep trying know it all.
@tena: “There is no gray area when it comes to torture. It is illegal under our signed and ratified,” blah blah blah.
And so, just as clearly, our president is complicit in his failure to seek justice. And yet you do not condemn him for his illegal inaction?
It’s not up to Obama – it’s up to his AG and his AG is looking into things, no?
might have made you feel better, but it makes you look small
Oh, I see. He observes, and points out the logical contradictions, but that makes him small.
I see………
That’s called “concern trolling”.
It’s also the sort of milder comment that must have been directed at Sy Hersh and the New York Times when they published the Pentagon Papers, as well as at Woodward/Bernstein and the Washington Post when they exposed Watergate.
@tena: Um, no. Stop playing this game. You know that the “investigation” is severely circumscribed.
You “know” that torture was committed and you “know” that Bush and Cheney are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Obama repeatedly says he is not in favor of looking back.
How can you “know” such blindingly obvious things that the president can’t see? How can you claim that “it’s being looked into” when you know that the investigation is limited? How can your head not explode when you try to think of ways to justify Obama’s inaction?
Pish posh. Of course Dick Cheney never personally tortured people. He only watched the tapes.
A lot.
In private.
With a fresh box of kleenex and the door locked.
@odd one indeed: “He observes, and points out the logical contradictions.”
Dud(ette): I made explicit reference to Greg’s snark – which did NOT involve an observation.
“How can you “know” such blindingly obvious things that the president can’t see? How can you claim that “it’s being looked into” when you know that the investigation is limited? How can your head not explode when you try to think of ways to justify Obama’s inaction?”
How can you see where you’re going with your head up your ***? This isn’t about Obama – who I’ve told you a million times, isn’t perfect and I’ve also told you I don’t expect him to be.
This is about Cheney and his lies. The only reason you want to bring Obama into it is because you know I’ll defend him. That’s it – it’s a transparent tactic on your part.
Get up of Dick Cheney’s lap, and we can talk.
sbj said: “And here I had thought you just told us the other day that such rhetoric was cheap and simple and a waste of time. My bad.”
I wondered if you might bring that up. There are differences here which it would take longer to explicate than I can manage while running my store. But let me give you one helpful tip…you can get a lot of reader mileage if you avoid tired and over-used phrasing. Study Walcott. Not a cliche anywhere in sight with that fellow.
@bernie: “Nervously glancing over his shoulder?”
Jack Bauer, I have family, many people I care deeply about, and I will go on the record right now and say it: Neither my life nor those of anyone I know and love is worth the total compromise of everything that my country was founded on, believes in, and should forever aspire to be. Safety is nothing when you lack moral fiber, which every citizen of every country that tortures lacks for allowing it to happen.
@tena: There’s a big difference in being imperfect and knowingly failing to prosecute war crimes.
“Dick Cheney’s lap” = tired and over-used phrasing, study bernie.
We’ve clearly become a lit-crit site.
Just wow.
“@tena: There’s a big difference in being imperfect and knowingly failing to prosecute war crimes. ”
For the love of god, sbj – if you think they are war crimes, then what the hell are you doing arguing in support of the criminals?
Look – this isn’t over, it’s just beginning. Barely. It takes time for these things to develop and you know, in the meantime, there was a small matter of the brink of another Depression, and then there is the tiny thing about trying to culminate 60 years of work to get Americans decent, affordable health care, regardless of their race, or their income.
Some things have to wait. I would prefer to see the criminals prosecuted, I’ve told you that.
You have no room to needle me when you are defending the criminals – that’s just insane. Obama stopped the illegal policies – that was the main goddamn thing I wanted.
And as for your sitting in Dick Cheney’s lap being said too much?
Not nearly enough.
Hey Jack we are make believe remember? If our countries security was as inept as portrayed on the show we would all be dead by now! Anyway you are defending domestic terrorists.It did not take a genius to realize Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Just as it does not take a genius to realize that the last administration broke the law and violated our rights under the blanket of keeping us safe. We have a Constitution and laws. That’s what make us the greatest country in the world. As for people not complaining about wiretapping, they don’t know it’s being done to them. Where are we suppose to look for that info, IllegalWiretapping.gov?
If they ARE criminals then YOU are the one defending them by defending Obamas’s inaction! Quoth Reagan: “Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.” I’m not sure there’s anything in there about waiting for the right time. Wasn’t this the website that argued and argued and argued that Obama could do more than one thing at a time? C’mon, Tena! The main thing you wanted stopped was the policy? Are you kidding me? “So long as they’ve stopped now I don’t care if justice is served?” If you are, indeed, one of the best, then you appear to now lack all conviction. Are you a mere partisan or do you hold any core beliefs?
“illegal when they are from a country”
I don’t think you quite understand how the law works. The Geneva Conventions say torture is illegal no matter who you’re torturing. Please learn to consult sources of information that aren’t named Beck, Hannity or Limbaugh.
@tony
You’re alive…its amazing…typical though, you weren’t paying attention…i’m not focused on domestic terrorist..foreign ones…not from iraq…they had nothing to do with 9/11…remember.
Ok, sbj – you win. Happy?
Your win has all the weight that it should have coming from someone who is arguing both sides of the issue at the same time.
sbj
Are you quoting the same Reagan who negotiated with terrorists?
@Tena: I win!
I don’t think that Bush or Cheney did anything illegal. I’m perfectly consistent. You aren’t.
SULLIVAN: Its obvious that the President is shirking it by saying “It’s the attorney general, I have no say”, and the attorney general is saying “I have no say”…
ROVE: The attorney general works for him! He needs to be circumspect about it, but if he believes he is irresponsible to do this, which he said on several occasions that he wants to look forward not back, then he ought to step in and he should have told Holder “don’t do this.” And if Holder didn’t agree with him he had the ability to resign.
SULLIVAN: Even Holder said, “I don’t want to do this,” and now he’s turning around and using the special prosecutor card.
ROVE: Well and that’s another thing, rather than taking responsibility upon his own shoulders and saying there will be a Justice Department investigation led by people that I name who will be responsible to me, he’s putting it in the hands of a special prosecutor so he can wash his hands of it and not be held responsible for it. Again I do not use the word “cowardly” loosely, I use it advisedly, but this is cowardly on both the part of the White House and on the part of Attorney General Holder and its irresponsible o the part of both.”
Cue the tired and over-used Rove comments.
@sg: “Are you quoting the same Reagan who negotiated with terrorists?”
That’s the best angle you could come up with to get in on this?
“Are you quoting the same Reagan who negotiated with terrorists?”
IOKIYAR.
I can actually envision strategic reasons why Obama wouldn’t want to open war crimes trials right now – the evidence comes out in open court. We are trying to disengage from Iraq.
As long as the right is throwing plots for 24 Hours out there, I don’t suppose any reasoned speculation is totally out of line. But what is weird is that my argument sounds like something the traditional conservative would say – if there were any left in America.
pssst….OT but quite related to what Hayes is up to…
Pentagon propaganda machinations… http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/27/pentagon-profiling-reporters/
“I don’t think that Bush or Cheney did anything illegal. I’m perfectly consistent. You aren’t”
Look, mofo, I said you win, not that you got the right to gloat or insult my ***. Where am I inconsistent? I have told you that I don’t agree with Obama’s decision not to prosecute, but what part of this is just getting started do you not understand? You have selective hearing/reading problems apparently.
Sorry, tena. I do not want to make you angry. Please stop bolding at me.
[rolleyes]
oy!
sbj
Im just asking if you are quoting the same Reagan who was a coward and negotiated with terrorists. That’s all.
Its not really worth it trying to argue with you on substance. Waterboarding has been against the law for a millenia and we have prosecuted and executed other country’s soldiers for doing it to us. The same Reagan you are quoting also signed the Convenetions Against Torture into law putting the legal nail in the coffin of anybody ordering torture. You saying you don’t think its illegal is like me saying I don’t think the sky is blue. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US was the title of the 2001 August 6 Presidential Daily Briefing. But because its sources included a few Clinton-era hold-overs, it was dismissed as non-resonant with the then-current neocon ideology. Besides, Dubya had just started his month-long vacation.
When Bin Laden did strike a month later, Cheney was cripplingly mortified. His actions since then have been consistent with obsession for revenge and for vindication of his ideology, not with concern for the safety of American citizens.
He knew they were cooking the intelligence to suggest Saddam had WMDs. He knew the Saddam-9/11 connection was bullѕhit, but he kept pushing it anyway. He lied us into a war that’s now cost 4500 American lives — 50% more than Bin Laden took on 9/11. And for what? To salve his embarrassment at having been smacked by Bin Laden. Petty, delusional, and traitorous.
The war in Iraq has (and Abu Ghraib in particular) has stirred up so much anti-US sentiment among Arabs and other Muslims that we are much less safe here in the homeland, compared with how we’d have been otherwise. Do you think Cheney really gives a dаmn?
@sg: Actually, I quoted MikeA quoting Reagan – so I’ll take his word for it.
Did you happen to see the list of 12 Dem Senators who may oppose the public option? Can I laugh for a moment and yell, “Told you so!”
Not trying to argue but could you please provide details about the soldier we executed solely for waterboarding? I haven’t been able to verify…
I don’t think it’s that hard to figure out my position regarding the EITs. You don’t have to twist it so. The CIA developed the procedures, DoJ lawyers said they were legal. What are you gonna do?
Jack Bauer at 4:17 p.m.
“Grow up and live in the real world where bad people do bad things.”
The point is, we’re not supposed to be the bad peopl
Greg…
It is you who is being deceptive, and not so cleverly I might add, suggesting that Hayes has deliberately omitted something from the quoted passage that militates against his position. In fact, in Hayes’ original post on this subject (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/not_so_mysterious.asp) he quoted the passage to an even fuller extent than you have here, including the supposedly incriminating words. His second post, which came in response to your non-rebuttal (in fact all you did was make an appeal to authority rather than make a logical argument), he simply reiterated his point, quoting the same passage albeit in briefer form.
Given that his original included the entire passage, your suggestion that he is somehow “cleverly” trying to hide something is both plainly incorrect and not a little bit deceptive itself. You owe Hayes a retraction, if not an apology.
BTW, Greg, you also clearly missed Hayes’ point (or perhaps are “cleverly” ignoring it) with regard to the fact that the EIT’s were conceived and designed by intelligence officers, not Bush/Cheney. You have attempted to portray interrogators as victims of Cheney, even to the point that they themselves were concerned that by following “Bush/Cheney torture” policies, they were putting themselves in legal danger. Hayes’ point is that the intelligence agents themselves devised the policies, and so cannot properly be portrayed as victims of Cheney.
So Greg thinks he omitted ‘Because of the litany of techniques…’ yet that phrase is mentioned twice in Stephen’s original post.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/not_so_mysterious.asp
Who is ‘comically dishonest’ now?
Oh, you might want to read Stephen’s reply:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/sargents_big_catch_oops.asp
Greg…bravo.
Sargent, I don’t know whether you are more of a sociopathic liar or pathetic buffoon at this point. Your own posts on this topic have been entirely BUILT FROM misleadingly selective quotations.
To all of you hate-driven lemmings, read the passages quoted in Hayes’ posts. Read pages 90-91 of the IG report. Read the passages quoted here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/what_made_ksm_talk.asp#more
You are in a deep state of denial. You keep citing the statement of the IG he couldn’t reach a “definitive” conclusion that it “worked.” That’s really powerful. You have a consistent opponent of EIT saying the proof of its effectiveness isn’t “definitive.” Read the facts described in the reports and try to do it objectively. (And note that many key passages remain redacted. We still haven’t seen all the facts.) I know that presents a challenge to your twisted mings, but try. Then try to face and deal with the hatred that has blinded you to truth.
Here is how you, Sargent, excitedly promised the world the “holy grail” IG report would settle the matter:
“The White House has decided to declassify and release a classified 2004 CIA report about the torture program that is reported to have found no proof that torture foiled any terror plots on American soil — directly contradicting Cheney’s claims. The paper cites “allies” of the White House as a source.
Dem Congressional staffers tell me this report is the “holy grail,” because it is expected to detail torture in unprecedented detail and to cast doubt on the claim that torture works — and its release will almost certainly trigger howls of protest from conservatives.”
And you reminded everyone, “The release of this thing is going to be a big deal. You heard it here first.”
Who was lying about the report again? You said it would “directly contradict[]” Cheney about the effectiveness of EIT and draw “howls of protest” from conservatives. Now you are reduced all the way to repeating that the report isn’t “definitive” proof that Cheney was right. It isn’t “definitive” proof that specific EIT’s yielded specified information that saved X lives on Y date. Whoopee. Where is this holy grail report that would prove EIT didn’t work, Sargent? Why did you lie to us?
In addition, you (all of you) aren’t content to serially lie about what the reports say, but you now habitually lie about what Cheney said. Here is what he actually said on Face the Nation, from the CBS site you, Sargent, linked when you lied that the IG report would “directly contradict” what he said:
“”No regrets,” Cheney declared during an appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “I think it was absolutely the right thing to do. I am convinced, absolutely convinced, that we saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives.”"
Why are you lying about what Cheney actually said, Sargent? Even in your original post, you said he had claimed EIT “may have” saved many lives. Now that the report doesn’t “directly contradict” him, as you told us it would, you are lying not only about what it says but about what he said. By your own standard, you are a liar. Why do you lie like this? Because without lies you apparently having nothing to say.
By the way, I have repeatedly asked you haters to specify which EITs constituted torture, under what specific legal authority, and what your proof is that each one did or didn’t “work.” None of you ever do it, because you have no idea what you are even saying. Most of you probably haven’t even read the memos that describe the EITs. Almost all of you operate from the explicit or implicit premise that all EITs were “torture” and so, by definition, could never “work.” That alone exposes you for the ignorant loudmouths you are. You have this foolish article of faith that “torture” can never produce useful information, and you cling to your fantasy that the use of any EIT was “torture” and therefore by definition could not “work.”
You love to argue that “torture” doesn’t “work” because elicits false information. You have seen this on TV and read it in all the smart lefty blogs, and you feel so smart and sophisticated when you say it.
Have you noticed that non-torture elicits false information, too, and loads of it, as well as noncooperation? Doesn’t common sense tell that must be the case? Or are you so oblivious to facts and logic that you blocked out this inconvenient fact? In fact, did you notice that in the excerpts from the reports that have been quoted in these posts traditional methods either elicited little information or false information? So, by your standard, ordinary interrogation doesn’t “work” either. Very brilliant of you. We should just give up. And, did you notice that the reports explcitly conclude that EIT elicited greater cooperation and more information than ordinary methods? How do you explain that?
Sargent, your problem is that you aren’t a journalist or even a commenter but just a propogandist and sensationalist. You aren’t even a mature adult. You aren’t content to have a reasoned discussion of what the facts are and what the reports tell us about interrogation. I don’t believe you are even capable of it. You are instead compelled by a malicious character to stretch and twist and make it about whether Cheney “lied” when he said what he believed the reports show. That is why you look like a fool. You said the reports would show he lied. If you had just stuck to facts and more restrained discussion, you wouldn’t have made both a fool and liar of yourself.
Tena, I see you are here having fainting spells over Cheney’s depravity again. You are a child living in a world of delusion. More words than that would be wasted on you.
Didn’t Hayes ever hear of the “Unitary Executive”? Whatever was done by any Executive Branch minion, it was done as an extension of the will of the Decider.
Greg, you’re playing their game, allowing them to choose the line of argument. It doesn’t matter whether or not torture is effective. The truth is it’s illegal. That is all that matters. The law was broken, and if we don’t have an investigation and prosecutions we aren’t a country of laws.
Egypt Steve, you have no idea what unitary executive means. It means there is only one executive branch, officers of which are under the President’s direction and not that of Congress, nor is there a fourth branch of government. Please do some reading about it before spreading urban legends spawned on leftist blogs.
Since Hayes set the record straight and pointed out that he not only included what you said he exlcuded, and that he in fact quoted what you said he excluded twice, we’ll wait to hear why you are too busy to read what you critique. I’m sure you are for the healthcare bill also, even though you are too busy to critique. Lazy journalism, you owe your employers a refund.
Greg, you are playing the liberal game. It doesn’t matter whether or not the techniques were effective, they weren’t torture.
Greg, did you hear. They blew cigar smoke in the face of the terrorists. The horror. We’ve outlawed smoking in public places, blowing smoke in someones face is assault. They assaulted the terrorists. I demand prosecution.
What’s more, the report’s author has clearly stated that “you could not in good conscience reach a definitive conclusion about whether any specific technique was especially effective.”
Right, but you could not in good conscience reach any conclusion other than collectively, the enhanced interogation techniques worked, and they worked extremely well. So I agree, we shouldn’t just limit ourselves to waterboarding, we should employee all legal means of interogation.
Thanks for proving the point.
“We aren’t a country of laws”.See Holder’s dept.’s decision on the investigation of Bill Richardson and cronies: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/27/politics/main5268490.shtml
sometimes it appears they actually time these things to make thier own supporters look like fools.
“Greg, you are playing the liberal game. It doesn’t matter whether or not the techniques were effective, they weren’t torture.”
I see what you did, you turned my argument around. Clever!
Greg:
Another dishonest attempt by someone with Bush Derangement Syndrome to twist words his way.
Hayes report DID quote the sentances you want everyone to think he left out, not only one, but twice. On top of that, his conclusions were the ONLY conclusions possible based on the totality of the reports contents.
Sorry that you don’t like those conclusions, but them the apples.
JZAP:
Bush and Co. NEVER tried to link Saddam directly to 9/11, other than the PROVEN help and assylum he gave to certain Al Queda operatives. The supposed linking of Saddam and 9/11 was a figment of the imaginations of the media.
Gus:
Yes, torture is illegal. The problem is, there is no list in those treaties of the techniques that are considered torture – only a general guideline the it must “shock the conscience”, or words to that effect. The so-called “Torture Memos” are more appropriately called “Anti-Torture Memos”, since their sole purpose was to try to set an actualy definition of when that boundary would be crossed, SO THAT IT WOULD NOT BE CROSSED IN ACCORDANCE TO THE TREATIES.
While the Right certainly has its issues with honesty, the Left really takes the cake in that department.
Whoops. Hayes just used more of the pesky facts to prove your whole point false.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/sargents_big_catch_oops.asp#email
Don’t you just hate that when those darn facts get in the way of being all Hopey-Changey Greg?
But hey, you go back to your writing style, (a combination of an angry Queen writing about fashion on the red carpet and Stephen Glass) and don’t worry about those silly little facts. Bitchiness Rules!
@ bat — aptly named, I might add. Bush’s numerous signing statements invoke his authority to “supervise the unitary executive.” This means that the Executive Branch is specifically under the control of the President. Units of the Executive Branch are not autonomous in this conception, and so for the President or his apologists to say that a given policy is not that of the Administration because it came from some Executive Branch agency is nonsense, self-contradictory.
I might add that the whole thing is bullshit, because the Constitution, Article I, Section 8 gives the Congress the power “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.” So to say that the President alone is responsible for the Executive Branch is obviously contrary to the intent of the Framers. But that was Bush’s position.
Stephen Hayes needs to read “The Dark Side” by Jane Mayer if he thinks all this torture **** originated with the CIA. What a tool.
Interestingly, there is no comment section on his blog, either. Doesn’t want to be made a fool of by the readers, I guess.
Bush and Co. NEVER tried to link Saddam directly to 9/11, other than the PROVEN help and assylum he gave to certain Al Queda operatives. The supposed linking of Saddam and 9/11 was a figment of the imaginations of the media.
LOL, he was doing it as late as THIS YEAR, when he once again blamed anthrax on Saddam Hussein!
The so-called “Torture Memos” are more appropriately called “Anti-Torture Memos”, since their sole purpose was to try to set an actualy definition of when that boundary would be crossed, SO THAT IT WOULD NOT BE CROSSED IN ACCORDANCE TO THE TREATIES.
Actually, the administration came to them with the techniques from the SERE program they wanted to try on detainees, and asked the JD to pretzel-twist to try and make them legal. Which they failed at miserably.
They blew cigar smoke in the face of the terrorists.
They also killed them by crucifixion.
Nothing more to add, just wanted to break up Lisa K’s string of rants.
“Breaking: Cheney himself didn’t waterboard! Just wow.”
Where’s the evidence or has that been redacted too? After all, he did shoot some old guy in an unprovoked attack…and evaded prosecution for attempted murder.
Egypt steve:
“”Bush’s numerous signing statements invoke his authority to “supervise the unitary executive.” This means that the Executive Branch is specifically under the control of the President. Units of the Executive Branch are not autonomous in this conception, and so for the President or his apologists to say that a given policy is not that of the Administration because it came from some Executive Branch agency is nonsense, self-contradictory.”
You win the non sequitur contest for the day. With a bonus for false secondary premise. Congratulations.
“I might add that the whole thing is bullshit, because the Constitution, Article I, Section 8 gives the Congress the power “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.” So to say that the President alone is responsible for the Executive Branch is obviously contrary to the intent of the Framers. But that was Bush’s position.”
So the necessary and proper clause nullifies the separation of powers, huh. And here for two centuries the executive was thought to be an independent and coequal branch. Why didn’t 42 other presidents know this?
nnd please let us all know when Obama acknowledges that he doesn’t have exclusive supervisory power over the executive branch and cedes that power over to Congress.
Your suprised?Republicans didnt care we were lied into war,whats a little torture.And Im sure the 93 videos(that we know of} of torture-rape have become Cheney family clasics.
Wow, 93 known videos of torture-rape. Your stories just keep growing.
quarterback:
“nnd please let us all know when Obama acknowledges that he doesn’t have exclusive supervisory power over the executive branch and cedes that power over to Congress.”
You win the non sequitur contest for the day. With a bonus for false secondary premise. Congratulations.
There’s no sense arguing with trolls. They’re heading towards another civil war because the racists just don’t like the nice, intelligent and articulate black man being in power. Just about all of the issues we are facing right now are a result of the Bush administration’s “leadership”,racism and the right’s fear of change. You can’t expect people who are incapable of self reflection to be honest with themselves or any one else.
enzo: “Bush and Co. NEVER tried to link Saddam directly to 9/11, other than the PROVEN help and assylum he gave to certain Al Queda operatives.”
Yes, the Bush administration was very careful about what they said. But they mentioned “9/11″ and Saddam together so frequently that they sure created the association for the public.
At the time of the US invasion of Iraq, more than half of Americans thought Saddam had a personal role in the 9/11 attacks. One poll six months later found the number to be 69%. Even in 2006, nearly a third of the country thought Saddam was personally involved. http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/09/21/saddam_fiction/
Another poll from Oct. 2002 showed 66% of Americans believing Saddam “helped the terrorists” in the 9/11 attacks. http://www.cfr.org/publication/5051/most_americans_support_war_with_iraq_shows_new_pewcfr_poll_commentary_by_lee_feinstein.html
Where did this misinformation come from? The liberal media? And if the Bush administration didn’t actually imply the association, they did nothing to dispel it.
Here are some things Bush administration said in the run-up to the war:
““We know that Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network share a common enemy: the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaida have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.” (Bush, 10/14/02]
“The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” [Bush’s Letter to Congress, 3/21/03]
“If we’re successful in Iraq … we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” [Cheney on NBC's Meet the Press, 9/14/03]
So yes, I agree that they never explicitly said “Saddam was involved in 9/11.” But it sure seems to me that they were not at all unhappy when the public drew that association from what they said. And it was a tactic that was not limited to Iraq, but was used in many other policy areas.
“Jack Bauer” (did you dress up like Keiffer Sutherland for Halloween?) said to Tena: “[Y]ou disgust me with your holier than now attitude . . . ”
You and your co-ideologues have had that attitude, like, ever since Barry Goldwater ran for president.
And Tena isn’t “holier than thou”, just you, “Jack”.
And even if she were, it’s based in reality, unlike your know-it-all attitude based on an extremely unlikely scenario, with no real world context. Like, how did the interrogators come to know someone had a bomb (or holding your child with sword to his/her neck)? Torture? So it’s always ok to torture, because we might find out someone is holding your child with sword to his/her neck? Great reasoning, you ignorant a$$clown.
Does your little costume have a picture of the TV character, just like a store-bought Halloween costume?
Jack Bauer | August 27th, 2009 at 04:30 pm
@tena
good to see you respond in your typical childish manner.
you scoff at a person (cheney) for taking efforts to ensure the safety of americans
—
Sorry Jack – too much too late. Cheney, Bush et. al failed to protect the country when it mattered most – prior to 9/11. All this blather about doing such a bang-up job protecting the US is hooey. They failed once again.
@Jack Bauer — we scoff at Dick Cheney because he cares not a f*cking whit about keeping Americans safe. He cares about one thing: preserving his and his party’s power. If that keeps Americans safer, bonus! We scoff at you because of your ridiculous handle, your lack of grasp on reality, and your willingness to throw your (dubious) humanity out the window when a Muslim says Boo! Your own conservative hero, Reagan, unequivocally opposed torture. Maybe he didn’t have 9/11 to face, which means I’ll bet he would have gone down the dark path too if he were in that situation. We are a nation of laws: fighting terrorism does not mandate that we violate our own laws. We follow them or we perish as a nation in the process.
dsimon:
Having watched every single news broadcast every single morning amoung the 4 major TV news organizations, I can categorically state that the media made it up as they went along – expecially NBC.
Not too long after 9/11 (probably in November), Katie Couric, that bastion of impartiality, read off, with quite a bit of incredulity, the polls that said the public believed that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Her reaction was (paraphrasing) “Incredible!. The bush administration has never said that!” In other words, she knew that Bush and Co. had not said any such thing,
In all subsequent interviewes with Cheney, Rice, Powell, etc., when each was asked about the supposed direct link between Iraq and 9/11, they ALL denied any direct link.
Yet, as time went on, you could see the change in the way the likes of Couric presented the news: First, agreement that Bush%co never said any such thing, then on to only stating that “the polls show tyhat x% of Americans believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11″, then on to stating “the polls show that x% of Americans believe the Bush administration claims that there is a direct link between Iraq and 9/11″, and then finally, “The Bush administration believes that Irag is responsible for 9/11″.
Amazing how the media can so easily promote something that is patently not true and get away with it.
To claim that that startement by Cheney was somehow promoting the thought that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 is a rediculous stretch, especially in light of his answer to the following question:
” Some might think from what you just said that you belive that Saddam was responsible for 9/11?”
Cheney : ” You could think that, but I don’t”
So, to the end, Cheney denied any claims that Iraq and 9/11 were directly connected.
Yet, when that interview was replayed immediately before the 2004 elections, NBC conveniently cut out Cheneys final statement!
Yes, lots of mistakes were made both in the setup for the war and the running of it subsequently, but the press, as the main cheerleaders against all thing Bush and Cheney, were the ones lying.
Amazing just how gullible the rabid anti-Bush crowd is.
Craig huber, cute but you lose. Guess you didn’t know Obama and every other president adhere to the unitary executive principle. Like this from one of his own numerous signing statements:
“[P]rovisions of this bill within sections 1110 to 1112 of title XI, and sections 1403 and and 1404 of title XIV, would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions.”
Yes, believe it or not, your own messianic President arrogantly claims sole executive authority.
Okay, you can start scrambling for a double standard to apply or your next ingenious put down.
I am stunned to read the latest reports of routine EIT’s, like “2 hours in a small box” thrown out like it is evidence of careful avoidance of “torture”. We must not allow an incremental acceptance of these EIT’s, lest we turn around and need to accept them on our own troops in captivity as acceptable. “Torture”, as it should be universally understood, is the use of pain and extreme discomfort to coerce information from detainees. How can these EIT’s which are supposedly carefully supervised be seen as anything else?
enzo: “In all subsequent interviewes with Cheney, Rice, Powell, etc., when each was asked about the supposed direct link between Iraq and 9/11, they ALL denied any direct link.”
If you read what I wrote, you’d see that I didn’t dispute the claim that they never made any direct link.
But you don’t address a single one of the quotes I provided which sure imply it, which the administration did repeatedly. Nor do you dispute the absence of any real effort by the administration to correct public opinion.
In fact, Bush in his 2004 RNC convention speech said: “Do I forget the lessons of September 11th and take the word of a madman,or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time. Because we acted to defend our country, the murderous regimes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are history.” And as late as a 2007 FVW Convention speech, Bush said how ““A free Iraq is not going to transform the Middle East overnight. But a free Iraq will be a massive defeat for al Qaeda…”
And Cheney also continued to conflate the two into 2007. Arguing against troop drawdowns in Iraq, he was quoted in the Feb. 24 NY Times as stating: “Al Qaeda functions on the basis that they can break our will . . . that if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we’ll quit and go home” (article, Feb. 24). But the Iraq Study Group and other governmental reports had concluded that most of the violence in Iraq was not caused by Al Qaeda, but was the result of factional and sectarian violence among Iraqis.
You might also want to check this study which looked at major administration speeches from 2001-03 and found that “those who regularly heard the Bush administration’s rhetoric were more likely to think that there was a strong connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorism.” http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/2/5/9/p82590_index.html So I don’t think NBC was the driving force here.
This isn’t about being a rabid anti-Bushite. It’s about how the administration conflated 9/11 and Saddam over and over again, even though they were careful not to claim a direct link. To argue otherwise is to ignore the clear historical record.
Boo Hoo! 2 hours in a small box for a 9/11 mastermind who killed 3,000 people. Obama’s own intelligence chief said EITs were effective and Obama is continuing the CIA renditions, secret prisons and no due process rights for terrorists.
The Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to these scum and Bush and his people had the right approach – carefully monitored EITs.
dsimon:
Yes, I noticed that you did not dispute as fact that Bush, et al did not directly connect Iraq with 9/11.
However, that did not stop the media from continually stating it as “fact” that they did.
It is with continual amazement that I see people like yourself are still trying to push that idea, along with the idea that it was their plan in using the rhetoric that they used to push the thought that the Iraq and 9/11 were directly connected.
To then try to use the fact that al Qaeda actions in Iraq after the initial invasion were not amoung the instruments that started the sectarian violence, is disinqenuous at the least, and then to ignore the linkage between the desire of al Qaeda to defeat the US anywhere and everywhere and the need to not allow that defeat in Iraq – which most certainly WOULD be a “victory” for al Qaedas aims – is unbelievable. Al Queda most definetely was behind some of the violence in Iraq (they actually claimed it as so) especially at the beginning, and had some fairly high level connections in Saddams regime, as was seen from Saddams own papers once they were finally translated. Too bad that project never got the funding and the media coverage that it should have.
For that report (allacademic) to NOT think that there was a strong connection between Saddam and terrorism, is also unbelievable. Saddam DID host some training camps, he DID pay suicide bombers families a stipend, and he DID provide safe haven and medical help for some al Qaeda operatives, among many other things that are most certainly point to a strong connection to terrorism.
It does not surprise me at all that some people think that Bush et al’s talking about the reasons that they thought getting rid of Saddam was a good idea with plenty of justification, was somehow disingenous, rather than laying the facts out for everyone to see – it shows a built-in bias against everything Bush and an actual desire to paint him as some sort of evil demented crusader.
Don’t get me wrong. Bush most certainly was no saint – I haven’t seem a politician for way too many years that was actually honest, and Bush certainly fit that category – but some of the things the Left has attributed to him and accused him of go beyond the pale in partisenship tactics.
That;s the last that I will post on this – it really isn’t worth my time!
Keep kicking these evil, anti-American goons and thugs right in the ‘nads, Greg! As someone else said, these amoral, evil wingnut pissants wouldn’t be howling and shrieking so rabidly if you weren’t drawing substantial teabagger blood. So please, continue to bleed these fascist vermin to political DEATH.
The was NO CONNECTION BETWEEN SADDAM AND 9/11, and anyone trying to claim otherwise is a GODDAM, BALD-FACED ***LIAR***!
enzo: “It does not surprise me at all that some people think that Bush et al’s talking about the reasons that they thought getting rid of Saddam was a good idea with plenty of justification, was somehow disingenous, rather than laying the facts out for everyone to see – it shows a built-in bias against everything Bush and an actual desire to paint him as some sort of evil demented crusader.”
First of all, I appreciate your civil tone and hope I am responding in kind (I strive to do so, none of us always succeed).
I think if the Bush administration was really interested in making clear their reasons for getting rid of Saddam, they would not have repeatedly included 9/11 and al-Qaeda in their rhetoric. What was the point of doing so? If they knew there was no operational relationship, saying them together would only serve to confuse with no enlightening effect.
And as I implied above, that isn’t the only area where they used that technique. When pushing for his dividend tax cuts, Bush said that 60% of the people who would benefit make under $70,000 a year. I have no doubt that it’s technically a true statement. And it sounds pretty good for those making under $70,000–especially because it sounds like “60% of the benefits” will go to the lower income group, which, of course, is not what they actually said. I can give a million dollars to four guys named Fred and a dollar each to six guys named Bob and truthfully say that 60% of the people who benefited were named Bob. But why leave out absolultely crucial information–like how much each group will get–unless one is attempting to be intentionally misleading?
Another time, the administration said it was acting to curb greenhouse emissions by setting targets that would reduce them per unit of economic activity. That sounds like an absolute reduction, but of course that’s not what they actually said since any reduction could be easily overwhelmed by the growth in economic activity (and the atmosphere really doesn’t care about anything except absolute reductions). So again, something that sounds good isn’t actually saying anything.
Perhaps the Bush administration was making its arguments in good faith. But it’s hard for me to believe them given what looks to me like a clear track record. I know all administrations obfuscate, but I think these guys took it to a whole new level. And I hope I am as equally critical regardless of who is running the show.
For more on the al Qaeda-Saddam assertions, I can’t do any better than Jon Stewart. I remember watching this clip and thinking that even I recalled Cheney saying what he said he never said. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-21-2004/headlines—9-11-commission-report
The issue with regards to torture techniques, if one wants to be entirely pragmatic, is determining which techniques are the ones that provide the most ACCURATE and USEUL information.
So, the arguments from Jack Bauer are very problematic – if my child was held hostage or a bomb was about to explode I want the best information possible becuase I have the least amount of time to react to that information. Testimony from a completely broken prisoner may not be helpful – in fact it might actually be counter-productive if a prisoner who actually does not know anything about the situatiion just says a lie to get the torture to stop.
So, regardless of any moral or ethical stance on the issue, information from torture methods is potentially highly unreliable and takes the wind out of the sails of the Jack Bauer’s, Holleywood-inspired ‘ticking time bomb’ argument.
Cool article. This was really superb read if someone ask me. hope everyone can read it and learn something new.